Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Proposed Exemption From a Requirement To Measure the Uranium Element and Isotopic Content of Special Nuclear Material, 76496-76498 [2010-30860]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
76496
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s
letters dated January 29, 2010.
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 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
V. Sreenivas,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 2–
1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–30855 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 70–143; NRC–2010–0379]
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for
Proposed Exemption From a
Requirement To Measure the Uranium
Element and Isotopic Content of
Special Nuclear Material
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact.
AGENCY:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin M. Ramsey, Project Manager, Fuel
Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel
Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Mail Stop EBB–2C40M, Rockville, MD
20555–0001, Telephone (301) 492–3123,
Fax (301) 492–3359, E-mail
kevin.ramsey@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission’s (NRC) staff is considering
the issuance of a license amendment to
Materials License SNM–124 to Nuclear
Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS or the licensee)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:23 Dec 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
that would reflect a requested one-time
exemption from a requirement to
measure the uranium element and
isotopic content of certain small
amounts of strategic special nuclear
material, as described further below.
The NRC regulations in Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
74.59(d)(1) state that a licensee must
establish and maintain a system of
measurements to substantiate such
contents. By letter dated December 31,
2009, NFS requested a temporary
exemption from this requirement.
The NRC prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) in support of this
exemption request in accordance with
the requirements of 10 CFR part 51.
Based on the EA, the NRC concluded
that a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is appropriate; therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
will not be prepared.
II. Environmental Assessment
Background
The NFS facility in Erwin, Tennessee
is authorized, under License SNM–124
to manufacture high-enriched nuclear
reactor fuel. In addition, NFS is
authorized to blend highly enriched
uranium with natural uranium and
manufacture low-enriched nuclear
reactor fuel. The U.S. Department of
Energy contracted with NFS to retain no
more than 30, 2S type uranium
hexafluoride (UF6) cylinders for future
forensic analysis. These cylinders have
been opened and processed leaving a
small quantity of material (heel) in each
cylinder. Because of the trace condition
of heel material, it is difficult to perform
destructive or nondestructive analyses
to measure the uranium element and
isotope content of the material
remaining in these cylinders. It requires
expensive equipment, which NFS does
not possess, to sample and analyze UF6
gas. Therefore, NFS is requesting a onetime exemption to allow the use of
assigned values for each cylinder based
on the net weight of the heel, and
concentration and enrichment factors.
These assigned values will be used for
inventory, receipt and shipment
practices.
Review Scope
The purpose of this EA is to assess the
environmental impacts of granting the
requested exemption. This EA does not
approve the request—a separate safety
review determines whether to grant the
requested exemption. This EA is limited
to the proposed exemption and any
cumulative impacts on existing plant
operations. The existing conditions and
operations for the Erwin facility were
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
evaluated by NRC for environmental
impacts in a 1999 EA related to the
renewal of the NFS license (Reference 1)
and a 2002 EA related to the first
amendment for the Blended LowEnriched Uranium (BLEU) Project
(Reference 2). The 2002 EA assessed the
impact of the entire BLEU Project using
information available at that time. A
2003 EA (Reference 3) and a 2004 EA
(Reference 4), related to additional
BLEU Project amendments, confirmed
the FONSI issued in 2002.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is to grant a onetime exemption from the 10 CFR
74.59(d)(1) requirement to measure the
uranium element and isotopic content
of certain 2S type UF6 cylinders. The
exemption would authorize NFS to
record an estimated value instead of
drawing samples from each cylinder
and conducting measurements. No
change to processing, packaging, or
storage operations is requested; and no
construction of new facilities is
requested. Granting the exemption
would require the revision of a safety
condition and the addition of a
safeguards condition in License SNM–
124 if the exemption is granted.
Need for Proposed Action
The proposed action is being
requested because it is difficult to
sample the small quantity of material
remaining in each cylinder and perform
destructive or nondestructive analyses
to measure the uranium element and
isotope content of the material. It
requires expensive equipment, which
NFS does not possess, to sample and
analyze UF6 gas.
Alternatives
The alternatives available to NRC are:
1. Approve the requested action as
described, or
2. No action (i.e., deny the request).
Affected Environment
The affected environment for the
proposed action and the no action
alternative is the NFS site. The NFS
facility is located in Unicoi County,
Tennessee, about 32 kilometers (20
miles) southwest of Johnson City,
Tennessee. The facility is within the
Erwin city limits. The affected
environment is identical to the affected
environment assessed in the 2002 EA
related to the first amendment for the
BLEU Project (Reference 2). A full
description of the site and its
characteristics are given in the 2002 EA.
Additional information can be found in
the 1999 EA related to the renewal of
the NFS license (Reference 1). The site
E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM
08DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices
occupies about 28 hectares (70 acres).
The site is bounded to the northwest by
the CSX Corporation (CSX) railroad
property and the Nolichucky River; and
by Martin Creek to the northeast. The
plant elevation is about 9 meters (30
feet) above the nearest point on the
Nolichucky River.
The area adjacent to the site consists
primarily of residential, industrial, and
commercial areas; with a limited
amount of farming to the northwest.
Privately owned residences are located
to the east and south of the facility.
Tract size is relatively large, leading to
a low housing density in the areas
adjacent to the facility. The CSX
railroad right-of-way is parallel to the
western boundary of the site. Industrial
development is located adjacent to the
railroad on the opposite side of the
right-of-way. The site is bounded by
Martin Creek to the north with privately
owned, vacant property and low-density
residences.
increased risk would be so small that
the difference would be negligible.
Environmental Impacts of Proposed
Action and Alternatives
No Action
The NRC staff finds that denial of the
proposed action will not impact effluent
releases, environmental monitoring,
water resources, geology, soils, air
quality, demography, biota, or cultural
or historic resources at or near the NFS
site. If this exemption request is denied,
the licensee may make arrangements to
have the material in each cylinder
sampled and measured, which will
increase the risk of exposures and
releases from measurement operations
and increase the risk of accidents.
However, the facility will continue to
implement NRC-approved procedures
for handling radioactive and chemically
hazardous materials. Thus, the impacts
under the ‘‘no action’’ alternative will
remain within acceptable regulatory
limits. In addition, the quantity of
material involved is relatively small.
The increased risk would be so small
that the difference would be negligible.
1. Occupational and Public Health
Proposed Action
The occupational and public health
impacts from the proposed action are
essentially the same as those considered
in the previous environmental
assessments. If the exemption is
granted, no samples of the radioactive
and chemically hazardous material will
be removed from the cylinders and
measured in a laboratory, which will
reduce the risk of exposures and
releases from measurement operations
and reduce the risk of accidents.
However, the reductions would be so
small that the differences would be
negligible.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
No Action
Denying the exemption request would
not result in a significant difference in
the occupational and public health
impacts when compared to the
proposed action. If this exemption
request is denied, the licensee may
make arrangements to have the material
in each cylinder sampled and measured,
which will increase the risk of
exposures and releases from
measurement operations and increase
the risk of accidents. However, the
facility will continue to implement
NRC-approved procedures for handling
radioactive and chemically hazardous
materials. Thus, the impacts under the
‘‘no action’’ alternative will remain
within acceptable regulatory limits. In
addition, the quantity of material
involved is relatively small. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:23 Dec 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
2. Effluent Releases, Environmental
Monitoring, Water Resources, Geology,
Soils, Air Quality, Demography, Biota,
Cultural and Historic Resources
Proposed Action
The NRC staff finds that approval of
the proposed action will not impact
effluent releases, environmental
monitoring, water resources, geology,
soils, air quality, demography, biota, or
cultural or historic resources at or near
the NFS site. If the exemption is
granted, no samples of the radioactive
and chemically hazardous material will
be removed from the cylinders and
measured in a laboratory, which will
reduce the risk of exposures and
releases from measurement operations
and reduce the risk of accidents.
However, the reductions would be so
small that the differences would be
negligible.
Conclusion
Based on its review, the NRC
concluded that the environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action are not significant and, therefore,
do not warrant the preparation of an
EIS. The NRC determined that the
proposed action is the appropriate
alternative for selection. Based on an
evaluation of the environmental impacts
of the proposed action, the NRC
determined that the proper action is to
issue a FONSI.
Agencies and Persons Contacted
On October 19, 2010, the NRC staff
contacted the Division of Radiological
Health in the Tennessee Department of
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76497
Environment and Conservation (TDEC)
concerning this EA. On November 15,
2010, TDEC responded that it had
reviewed the draft EA and had no
comments (Reference 6).
The NRC staff determined that the
proposed action will not affect listed
species or critical habitat. Therefore, no
consultation is required under section 7
of the Endangered Species Act.
Likewise, the NRC staff determined that
the proposed action is not the type of
activity that has the potential to cause
effects on historic properties. Therefore,
no consultation is required under
section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
Pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, the NRC
staff considered the environmental
consequences of taking the proposed
action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC
has concluded that there are no
significant environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action,
and that preparation of an EIS is not
warranted.
IV. Further Information
The documents referenced below in
this Notice may be made available to
interested parties, pursuant to a
protective order and subject to
applicable security requirements upon
showing that the party has an interest
that may be affected by the proposed
action.
References
1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
‘‘Environmental Assessment for Renewal
of Special Nuclear Material License No.
SNM–124,’’ January 1999, ADAMS
Accession No. ML050600258.
2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
‘‘Environmental Assessment for
Proposed License Amendments to
Special Nuclear Material License No.
SNM–124 Regarding Downblending and
Oxide Conversion of Surplus HighEnriched Uranium,’’ June 2002, ADAMS
Accession No. ML050540096.
3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
‘‘Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact for the BLEU
Preparation Facility,’’ September 2003,
ADAMS Accession No. ML032390428.
4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
‘‘Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact for the Oxide
Conversion Building and the Effluent
Processing Building at the BLEU
Complex,’’ June 2004, ADAMS Accession
No. ML041470176.
5. Nuclear Fuel Services, ‘‘2S UF6 Cylinder
Heel Request,’’ December 31, 2009,
ADAMS Accession No. ML100341335.
6. D. Shults, Director, Tennessee Division of
Radiological Health, e-mail to K.
Ramsey, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, ‘‘State Consultation on EA
E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM
08DEN1
76498
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices
for NFS Exemption,’’ November 15, 2010,
ADAMS Accession No. ML103200288.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day
of December 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Merritt Baker,
Acting Chief, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch,
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2010–30860 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–346; NRC–2010–0378]
Firstenergy Nuclear Operating
Company, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station; Environmental Assessment
And Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, or the Commission)
is considering issuance of an
Exemption, pursuant to Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Section 50.12, ‘‘Specific Exemptions,’’
from 10 CFR 50.61, ‘‘Fracture Toughness
Requirements for Protection Against
Pressurized Thermal Shock Events’’ and
from 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G,
‘‘Fracture Toughness Requirements’’ for
Facility Operating License No. NPF–3,
issued to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company (FENOC, the licensee), for
operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station, Unit 1 (DBNPS), located
in Ottawa County, Ohio. In accordance
with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC performed
an environmental assessment
documenting its findings. The NRC
concluded that the proposed actions
will have no significant environmental
impact.
Environmental Assessment
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Identification of the Proposed Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Appendix
G requires that fracture toughness
requirements for ferritic materials of
pressure-retaining components of the
reactor coolant pressure boundary of
light-water nuclear power reactors
provide adequate margins of safety
during any condition of normal
operation, including anticipated
operational occurrences and system
hydrostatic tests, to which the pressure
boundary may be subjected over its
service lifetime, section 50.61 provides
fracture toughness requirements for
protection against pressurized thermal
shock (PTS) events. By letter dated
April 15, 2009 (Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:23 Dec 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
(ADAMS) Accession No.
ML091130228), as supplemented by
letter dated December 18, 2009 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML093570103), and
October 8, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML102861221), FENOC proposed
exemptions from the requirements of 10
CFR part 50, Appendix G and 10 CFR
50.61, to revise certain DBNPS reactor
pressure vessel (RPV) initial
(unirradiated) properties using
Framatome Advanced Nuclear Power
Topical Report BAW–2308, Revisions
1–A and 2–A, ‘‘Initial RTNDT of Linde 80
Weld Materials.’’
The licensee requested an exemption
from Appendix G to 10 CFR part 50 to
replace the required use of the existing
Charpy V-notch (Cv) and drop weightbased methodology and allow the use of
an alternate methodology to incorporate
the use of fracture toughness test data
for evaluating the integrity of the
DBNPS RPV circumferential beltline
welds based on the use of the 1997 and
2002 editions of American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard
Test Method E 1921, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Determination of Reference
Temperature T0, for Ferritic Steels in the
Transition Range,’’ and American
Society for Mechanical Engineering
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME
B&PV Code), Code Case N–629, ‘‘Use of
Fracture Toughness Test Data to
establish Reference Temperature for
Pressure Retaining materials of Section
III, Division 1, Class 1.’’ The exemption
is required since Appendix G to 10 CFR
part 50, through reference to Appendix
G to Section XI of the ASME Code
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(a), requires
the use of a methodology based on Cv
and drop weight data.
The licensee also requested an
exemption from 10 CFR 50.61 to use an
alternate methodology to allow the use
of fracture toughness test data for
evaluating the integrity of the DBNPS
RPV circumferential beltline welds
based on the use of the 1997 and 2002
editions of ASTM E 1921 and ASME
Code Case N–629. The exemption is
required since the methodology for
evaluating RPV material fracture
toughness in 10 CFR 50.61 requires the
use of the Cv and drop weight data for
establishing the PTS reference
temperature (RTPTS).
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
April 15, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated December 18, 2009, August
26 and October 8, 2010.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
allow the licensee to use an alternate
method, as described in Topical Report
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
BAW–2308, Revisions 1–A and 2–A,
‘‘Initial RTNDT of Linde 80 Weld
Materials’’ for determining the initial,
unirradiated material reference
temperatures of the Linde 80 weld
materials present in the beltline region
of the DBNPS RPV. This action, by
being exempted from 10 CFR 50.61
would allow the licensee to revise its
pressurized thermal shock reference
temperature values in the future.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation
of the proposed exemption. The NRC
staff has concluded that the proposed
action to allow an alternate method for
determining the initial, unirradiated
material reference temperatures of the
Linde 80 weld materials present in the
beltline region of the DBNPS RPV
would not significantly affect plant
safety and would not have a significant
adverse effect on the probability of an
accident occurring. The proposed action
would not result in an increased
radiological hazard beyond those
previously analyzed in the Final Safety
Analysis Report for DBNPS.
The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will
be provided in the exemption that will
be issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving the exemption to the
regulation, if granted.
There will be no change to radioactive
effluents that effect radiation exposures
to plant workers and members of the
public. The proposed action does not
involve a change to plant buildings or
land areas on the DBNPS site. Therefore,
no changes or different types of
radiological impacts are expected as a
result of the proposed exemption.
The proposed action does not result
in changes to land use or water use, or
result in changes to the quality or
quantity of non-radiological effluents.
No changes to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit
are needed. 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 MagnusonSteven’s Act are expected. There are no
impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and
cultural resources. There would be no
impact to socioeconomic resources.
Therefore, no changes to or different
types of non-radiological environmental
impacts are expected as a result of the
proposed exemption.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action.
E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM
08DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76496-76498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30860]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 70-143; NRC-2010-0379]
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.; Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact for Proposed Exemption From a Requirement To
Measure the Uranium Element and Isotopic Content of Special Nuclear
Material
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin M. Ramsey, Project Manager, Fuel
Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop EBB-2C40M, Rockville, MD 20555-0001,
Telephone (301) 492-3123, Fax (301) 492-3359, E-mail
kevin.ramsey@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) staff is considering
the issuance of a license amendment to Materials License SNM-124 to
Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS or the licensee) that would reflect a
requested one-time exemption from a requirement to measure the uranium
element and isotopic content of certain small amounts of strategic
special nuclear material, as described further below. The NRC
regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
74.59(d)(1) state that a licensee must establish and maintain a system
of measurements to substantiate such contents. By letter dated December
31, 2009, NFS requested a temporary exemption from this requirement.
The NRC prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of
this exemption request in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR
part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC concluded that a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate; therefore, an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared.
II. Environmental Assessment
Background
The NFS facility in Erwin, Tennessee is authorized, under License
SNM-124 to manufacture high-enriched nuclear reactor fuel. In addition,
NFS is authorized to blend highly enriched uranium with natural uranium
and manufacture low-enriched nuclear reactor fuel. The U.S. Department
of Energy contracted with NFS to retain no more than 30, 2S type
uranium hexafluoride (UF6) cylinders for future forensic
analysis. These cylinders have been opened and processed leaving a
small quantity of material (heel) in each cylinder. Because of the
trace condition of heel material, it is difficult to perform
destructive or nondestructive analyses to measure the uranium element
and isotope content of the material remaining in these cylinders. It
requires expensive equipment, which NFS does not possess, to sample and
analyze UF6 gas. Therefore, NFS is requesting a one-time
exemption to allow the use of assigned values for each cylinder based
on the net weight of the heel, and concentration and enrichment
factors. These assigned values will be used for inventory, receipt and
shipment practices.
Review Scope
The purpose of this EA is to assess the environmental impacts of
granting the requested exemption. This EA does not approve the
request--a separate safety review determines whether to grant the
requested exemption. This EA is limited to the proposed exemption and
any cumulative impacts on existing plant operations. The existing
conditions and operations for the Erwin facility were evaluated by NRC
for environmental impacts in a 1999 EA related to the renewal of the
NFS license (Reference 1) and a 2002 EA related to the first amendment
for the Blended Low-Enriched Uranium (BLEU) Project (Reference 2). The
2002 EA assessed the impact of the entire BLEU Project using
information available at that time. A 2003 EA (Reference 3) and a 2004
EA (Reference 4), related to additional BLEU Project amendments,
confirmed the FONSI issued in 2002.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is to grant a one-time exemption from the 10
CFR 74.59(d)(1) requirement to measure the uranium element and isotopic
content of certain 2S type UF6 cylinders. The exemption
would authorize NFS to record an estimated value instead of drawing
samples from each cylinder and conducting measurements. No change to
processing, packaging, or storage operations is requested; and no
construction of new facilities is requested. Granting the exemption
would require the revision of a safety condition and the addition of a
safeguards condition in License SNM-124 if the exemption is granted.
Need for Proposed Action
The proposed action is being requested because it is difficult to
sample the small quantity of material remaining in each cylinder and
perform destructive or nondestructive analyses to measure the uranium
element and isotope content of the material. It requires expensive
equipment, which NFS does not possess, to sample and analyze
UF6 gas.
Alternatives
The alternatives available to NRC are:
1. Approve the requested action as described, or
2. No action (i.e., deny the request).
Affected Environment
The affected environment for the proposed action and the no action
alternative is the NFS site. The NFS facility is located in Unicoi
County, Tennessee, about 32 kilometers (20 miles) southwest of Johnson
City, Tennessee. The facility is within the Erwin city limits. The
affected environment is identical to the affected environment assessed
in the 2002 EA related to the first amendment for the BLEU Project
(Reference 2). A full description of the site and its characteristics
are given in the 2002 EA. Additional information can be found in the
1999 EA related to the renewal of the NFS license (Reference 1). The
site
[[Page 76497]]
occupies about 28 hectares (70 acres). The site is bounded to the
northwest by the CSX Corporation (CSX) railroad property and the
Nolichucky River; and by Martin Creek to the northeast. The plant
elevation is about 9 meters (30 feet) above the nearest point on the
Nolichucky River.
The area adjacent to the site consists primarily of residential,
industrial, and commercial areas; with a limited amount of farming to
the northwest. Privately owned residences are located to the east and
south of the facility. Tract size is relatively large, leading to a low
housing density in the areas adjacent to the facility. The CSX railroad
right-of-way is parallel to the western boundary of the site.
Industrial development is located adjacent to the railroad on the
opposite side of the right-of-way. The site is bounded by Martin Creek
to the north with privately owned, vacant property and low-density
residences.
Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives
1. Occupational and Public Health
Proposed Action
The occupational and public health impacts from the proposed action
are essentially the same as those considered in the previous
environmental assessments. If the exemption is granted, no samples of
the radioactive and chemically hazardous material will be removed from
the cylinders and measured in a laboratory, which will reduce the risk
of exposures and releases from measurement operations and reduce the
risk of accidents. However, the reductions would be so small that the
differences would be negligible.
No Action
Denying the exemption request would not result in a significant
difference in the occupational and public health impacts when compared
to the proposed action. If this exemption request is denied, the
licensee may make arrangements to have the material in each cylinder
sampled and measured, which will increase the risk of exposures and
releases from measurement operations and increase the risk of
accidents. However, the facility will continue to implement NRC-
approved procedures for handling radioactive and chemically hazardous
materials. Thus, the impacts under the ``no action'' alternative will
remain within acceptable regulatory limits. In addition, the quantity
of material involved is relatively small. The increased risk would be
so small that the difference would be negligible.
2. Effluent Releases, Environmental Monitoring, Water Resources,
Geology, Soils, Air Quality, Demography, Biota, Cultural and Historic
Resources
Proposed Action
The NRC staff finds that approval of the proposed action will not
impact effluent releases, environmental monitoring, water resources,
geology, soils, air quality, demography, biota, or cultural or historic
resources at or near the NFS site. If the exemption is granted, no
samples of the radioactive and chemically hazardous material will be
removed from the cylinders and measured in a laboratory, which will
reduce the risk of exposures and releases from measurement operations
and reduce the risk of accidents. However, the reductions would be so
small that the differences would be negligible.
No Action
The NRC staff finds that denial of the proposed action will not
impact effluent releases, environmental monitoring, water resources,
geology, soils, air quality, demography, biota, or cultural or historic
resources at or near the NFS site. If this exemption request is denied,
the licensee may make arrangements to have the material in each
cylinder sampled and measured, which will increase the risk of
exposures and releases from measurement operations and increase the
risk of accidents. However, the facility will continue to implement
NRC-approved procedures for handling radioactive and chemically
hazardous materials. Thus, the impacts under the ``no action''
alternative will remain within acceptable regulatory limits. In
addition, the quantity of material involved is relatively small. The
increased risk would be so small that the difference would be
negligible.
Conclusion
Based on its review, the NRC concluded that the environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action are not significant and,
therefore, do not warrant the preparation of an EIS. The NRC determined
that the proposed action is the appropriate alternative for selection.
Based on an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed
action, the NRC determined that the proper action is to issue a FONSI.
Agencies and Persons Contacted
On October 19, 2010, the NRC staff contacted the Division of
Radiological Health in the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC) concerning this EA. On November 15, 2010, TDEC
responded that it had reviewed the draft EA and had no comments
(Reference 6).
The NRC staff determined that the proposed action will not affect
listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no consultation is
required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the
NRC staff determined that the proposed action is not the type of
activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic
properties. Therefore, no consultation is required under section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
Pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff considered the
environmental consequences of taking the proposed action. On the basis
of this EA, the NRC has concluded that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, and that
preparation of an EIS is not warranted.
IV. Further Information
The documents referenced below in this Notice may be made available
to interested parties, pursuant to a protective order and subject to
applicable security requirements upon showing that the party has an
interest that may be affected by the proposed action.
References
1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental Assessment
for Renewal of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-124,''
January 1999, ADAMS Accession No. ML050600258.
2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental Assessment
for Proposed License Amendments to Special Nuclear Material License
No. SNM-124 Regarding Downblending and Oxide Conversion of Surplus
High-Enriched Uranium,'' June 2002, ADAMS Accession No. ML050540096.
3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact for the BLEU Preparation
Facility,'' September 2003, ADAMS Accession No. ML032390428.
4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Oxide Conversion
Building and the Effluent Processing Building at the BLEU Complex,''
June 2004, ADAMS Accession No. ML041470176.
5. Nuclear Fuel Services, ``2S UF6 Cylinder Heel
Request,'' December 31, 2009, ADAMS Accession No. ML100341335.
6. D. Shults, Director, Tennessee Division of Radiological Health,
e-mail to K. Ramsey, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``State
Consultation on EA
[[Page 76498]]
for NFS Exemption,'' November 15, 2010, ADAMS Accession No.
ML103200288.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of December 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Merritt Baker,
Acting Chief, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle
Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2010-30860 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
