Honeywell Metropolis Works; Grant of Exemption for Honeywell Metropolis Works License, 29697-29700 [2012-12129]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29697-29700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12129]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 40-3392; NRC-2012-0111]


Honeywell Metropolis Works; Grant of Exemption for Honeywell 
Metropolis Works License

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary T. Adams, Senior Environmental 
Engineer, Conversion, Deconversion and Enrichment Branch, Division of 
Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, 
Telephone: 301-492-3113; email: Mary.Adams@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) staff received a

[[Page 29698]]

request from Honeywell Metropolis Works (Honeywell) dated October 5, 
2011 (Ref. 1); revised March 6, 2012 (Ref. 2), and April 12, 2012 (Ref. 
10), for an amendment to its license, Materials License SUB-526, to 
exempt Honeywell from the values of the Inhalation Annual Limits on 
Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air Concentrations (DACs) that appear in 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 20, Appendix 
B, Table 1. Implementation of the adjusted DAC and ALI values would 
exempt Honeywell from sections of 10 CFR Parts 20 and 40 that refer to 
DAC and ALI quantities in Appendix B to Part 20, including values used 
in considering notifications of incidents made according to 10 CFR 
20.2202(a)(2), and 10 CFR 20.2202(b)(2) and reporting requirements in 
10 CFR 40.60(b)(1)(ii)--as well as other affected actions. Honeywell 
also requests exemption to the Organ Dose Weighting Factors listed in 
10 CFR 20.1003. The exemptions would authorize Honeywell to use the 
International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) Publication 68, 
``Dose Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers,'' (ICRP 
68) for DAC and ALI determinations (Ref. 4). Consistent with the ICRP 
68 methodology, Honeywell also requested authorization to utilize the 
tissue weighting factors in ICRP Publication 60, ``Recommendations of 
the International Commission on Radiation Protection, Publication 60'' 
(Ref. 5). As documented in a letter dated March 6, 2012 (Ref. 2), the 
October 5, 2011, exemption request replaced and withdrew an earlier 
request dated July 26, 2011. As documented in an email dated April 12, 
2012 (Ref. 3), Honeywell changed the exemption request to delete the 
phrase ``as well as other affected actions.'' An Environmental 
Assessment (EA) was performed by the NRC staff as part of its review of 
Honeywell's exemption request, in accordance with the requirements of 
10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic 
Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. The conclusion of the EA is 
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed licensing 
action.

II. Environmental Assessment

Background

    Honeywell Metropolis Works is authorized under Materials License 
SUB-526 (Ref. 6), issued pursuant to 10 CFR part 40, Domestic Licensing 
of Source Material, to possess natural uranium materials for the 
conversion of refined uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride suitable 
for enrichment. No uranium enrichment is performed at the Honeywell 
plant.
    Principal activities include receipt and storage of uranium oxide 
(U3O8) and chemical conversion of the 
U3O8 into uranium hexafluoride.
    Inhalation of dust in radiologically controlled areas at the 
Honeywell plant poses an internal radiation hazard, and the NRC 
regulations in Part 20, Subpart C, and Honeywell's current license 
requires Honeywell to implement certain protective measures to minimize 
that hazard. These measures include taking a variety of air samples, 
using respirators in certain work areas, posting airborne radioactivity 
warning signs outside the work areas, and putting the potentially 
exposed workers on a routine bioassay program to assess their intakes 
and verify the effectiveness of the protection program. Many of these 
protective measures are triggered when the air concentrations in the 
workplace reach specified levels of the air concentrations identified 
in 10 CFR part 20, Appendix B.
    Honeywell seeks to amend SUB-526 to reflect exemptions to permit 
Honeywell to use values other than those tabulated in 10 CFR part 20, 
as the basis for triggering Honeywell's exemption request is the 
recommendations in ICRP 68. In the supplemental license amendment 
application (Ref. 1), Honeywell stated that the assessment of the 
radiological hazard based on 10 CFR part 20, Appendix B, requires it to 
implement monitoring and protection programs at levels that are out of 
proportion with the true level of hazard, and that do not significantly 
add to worker protection. Honeywell stated that granting the exemption 
would enable it to reduce the size of its internal exposure program 
while, at the same time, provide a level of protection proportional to 
the actual hazard. Honeywell referenced the NRC's Staff Requirements 
Memoranda (SRM-SECY-99-077 and SRM-SECY-01-0148, Refs. 7 and 8), which 
directs the NRC staff to grant exemptions to Part 20 on this modeling 
issue on a case-by-case basis.

Review Scope

    In accordance with 10 CFR part 51, this EA serves to: (1) Present 
information and analysis of the license amendment request, (2) explain 
the basis for issuing a FONSI and the decision not to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and (3) fulfill the NRC's 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act when no EIS is 
necessary.
    This document is limited to evaluating and documenting the impacts 
of the proposed exemption from specified sections of Parts 20 and 40 
and the license amendment. Other activities on the site have previously 
been evaluated and documented in the June 30, 2006, EA for the Renewal 
of the NRC license for Honeywell (2006 EA) (Ref. 9). The 2006 EA is 
referenced when it has been determined that no significant changes have 
occurred. Except as otherwise provided herein in response to the 
exemption request, approved operations will continue to remain limited 
to those authorized by Honeywell's Source Material License SUB-526.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action would grant Honeywell an exemption from a 
portion of the requirements in 10 CFR part 20, Appendix B; and 10 CFR 
20.1003, which requires that Honeywell use specific DAC and ALI values 
as tabulated in Appendix B--and the Organ Dose Weighting Factors listed 
in 10 CFR 20.1003 for dose assessments--and the reporting requirements 
in 10 CFR 40.60(b)(1)(ii). The amendment for exemption would allow 
Honeywell to use the DAC and ALI values listed in the ICRP, ``Dose 
Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers,'' Publication 68, 
Annals of the ICRP, Volume 24, No. 4, 1994 (ICRP 68, Ref. 4) and the 
Tissue Weighting Factors listed in ICRP Publication 60, ``1990 
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiation 
Protection, Publication 60'' (Ref. 5).
    The proposed exemptions change the methodology by which the 
licensee assesses the internal dose received by its workers and staff 
in order to use an improved method that is recommended by the 
international scientific community (Refs. 4 and 5). These exemptions do 
not change the NRC dose limits to which the licensee must maintain and 
report for its workers and/or members of the public.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The use of ICRP Publication 68-based methodologies will facilitate 
Honeywell's as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) practices and 
Bioassay Program's progress. The Commission has determined that using 
newer models to calculate internal doses for those individuals 
occupationally monitored by the licensee will provide a more accurate 
and precise assessment of the dose of the internal organs of the 
workers. Since protective measures are based on hazard, which is 
proportional to dose, the NRC staff has determined that Honeywell would 
be able to refocus

[[Page 29699]]

ALARA practices, particularly internal exposure control and protection, 
to concentrate on protection based on the actual hazard.
    The proposed action does not exempt Honeywell from the requirement 
to control occupational doses to the limits specified in 10 CFR part 
20, Subpart C and public doses to the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 
20, Subpart D. It only changes the methods by which the occupational 
and public doses are calculated.

Affected Environment

    The affected environment for the proposed activity is the Honeywell 
Metropolis Works site. A full description of the site and its 
characteristics is given in the 2006 EA. There have been no significant 
changes to the environment since the 2006 EA.

Effluent Releases and Monitoring

    A full description of the effluent monitoring program at the site 
is provided in the application for renewal of SUB-526 and in the 2006 
EA. Monitoring programs at the Honeywell facility comprise effluent 
monitoring of air and water and environmental monitoring of various 
media (air, soil, vegetation, and groundwater). This program provides a 
basis for evaluation of public health and safety impacts, for 
establishing compliance with environmental regulations, and for 
development of mitigation measures if necessary. Based on its review of 
the 2006 application for renewal, the NRC staff concluded that the 
environmental monitoring program was acceptable. The basis for 
concluding that the environmental monitoring program was acceptable is 
documented in the 2006 EA. There have been no changes to the 
environmental monitoring program since the license renewal, and the 
proposed action will not change the monitoring program.

Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action

Radiological Impacts
    The basic limits on radiation exposures, as well as the minimum 
radiation protection practices required of any NRC licensee, are 
specified in 10 CFR Part 20. Part 20 underwent a major revision in the 
1980s, and the final rule was published in the Federal Register on May 
21, 1991, (56 FR 23391) and became mandatory for all licensees in 
January 1994.
    One of the major changes incorporated in the revised Part 20 was 
the manner in which internal exposure to radioactive materials is 
regulated. Before the revision, NRC regulated internal exposures by 
limiting the amounts of radioactive materials that may be taken into 
the body over specified time periods. The revised Part 20 eliminated 
regulation based on intakes and, instead, now regulates on the basis of 
the dose that resulted from those intakes. The internal dose from 
intake of radioactive material is referred to in Part 20 as the 
``committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE).'' The change to 
regulation of dose instead of intake was prompted, in part, by similar 
changes in the recommendations provided by national and international 
bodies, and also by the desire to end the traditional treatment of 
internal and external doses as two distinct and separate entities. One 
consequence of the dose-based rule is that compliance would not 
necessarily be constrained by use of a specific set of parameters to 
calculate the dose.
    Part 20 allows certain adjustments to be made to the model 
parameters if specific information is available, such as adjustments 
when the particle size of airborne radioactive material is known, 
rather than using a default particle size. However, Part 20 also 
specifies certain protection requirements in terms of the quantities 
tabulated in Appendix B, the ALI, and the DAC; rather than in terms of 
dose. Thus, requirements such as posting of airborne radioactivity 
areas, monitoring for intakes of radioactive materials, establishment 
of bioassay programs, and use of respirators remain explicitly tied to 
the measurable quantities rather than to a dose. This approach was 
taken to assure that these criteria would be easy to implement, and not 
impose an undue calculation burden on a licensee.
    The models used in Part 20 to regulate internal dose are those 
described in ICRP Publications 26 and 30; adopted by ICRP in 1977 and 
1978, respectively (Refs. 10 and 11). Much of the basic structure of 
these models was developed in 1966, although some of its components and 
parameters were altered somewhat between 1966 and their formal adoption 
by ICRP in 1978. In the same year that the Commission approved the 
final Part 20 rule, ICRP published a major revision of its radiation 
protection recommendations (ICRP 60, Ref. 5). In the several years 
following this revision, ICRP published a series of reports in which it 
described the components of an extensively updated and revised internal 
dosimetry model.
    These reports include ICRP Publications 60 (1990), 66 (1993), 67 
(1993), 68 (1994), 71 (1995), 72 (1995), and 78 (1997). The NRC 
licensees are not permitted to use the revised and updated internal 
dosimetry models unless an exemption to 10 CFR Part 20 is granted.
    Although the dose per unit intake, calculated using the new models, 
does not differ by more than a factor of about two from the values in 
Part 20 for most radionuclides, the differences are substantial for 
some; particularly for the isotopes of thorium, uranium, and some of 
the transuranic radionuclides. For example, for inhalation of insoluble 
thorium-232 (\232\Th), the CEDE per unit intake calculated using the 
revised ICRP lung model is a factor of about 15 times lower than that 
in Part 20. Because protective measures are based on hazard, and since 
hazard is proportional to dose, Part 20 requires significantly more 
protective measures when using \232\Th than would be warranted based on 
the revised models. Honeywell requested that it be allowed to use DAC 
and ALI values based on the dose coefficients listed in ICRP 68 and the 
tissue weighting factors listed in ICRP 60.
    The exemption, if approved and documented in a license amendment, 
will authorize the use of methodologies based on ICRP Publication 68. 
ICRP Publication 68-based dose coefficients would be used to assign the 
effective dose to workers. The use of these advanced methodologies 
requires adoption of adjusted DAC and ALI values in place of those 
specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B. Accordingly, implementation of 
adjusted DAC and ALI values will exempt Honeywell from the requirement 
to use the organ and tissue weighting factors in the definition of 
weighting factor in 10 CFR 20.1003, and from the requirements to use 
ALI and DAC values in Table 1 of Appendix B.
    Acceptance of the newer models and methods of the effective dose 
assessments involves the use of the values of the ICRP 60 Tissue 
Weighting Factors in place of the 10 CFR 20.1003 Organ Dose Weighting 
Factors. Therefore, Honeywell also requested an exemption that would 
authorize it to use the values for the Tissue Weighting Factors stated 
in Table S-2 of ICRP 60 in place of using the Organ Dose Weighting 
Factors listed in 10 CFR 20.1003. If the request is approved, the 
exemptions to 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, the Organ Dose Weighting 
Factors values listed in 10 CFR 20.1003, and the reporting requirements 
in 10 CFR 40.60(b)(1)(ii) will be documented in SUB-526 as new license 
conditions.
    Honeywell stated that it will further advance its ALARA practices 
and Bioassay Program by using the newer

[[Page 29700]]

models and methods. As the Commission stated in SECY-99-077, ``* * * 
the newer models provide more accurate dose estimates than the models 
used in Part 20,'' and ``the differences are substantial for * * * 
thorium, uranium, and some transuranic radionuclides.'' Honeywell 
stated that use of ICRP 68-based methodologies would facilitate its 
ALARA practices and bioassay programs. The NRC staff finds that use of 
the newer models and methods would enable Honeywell to perform more 
accurate and realistic internal dose assessments. The NRC staff 
concludes that because protective measures are based on the hazard 
which is proportional to dose, Honeywell would be able to refocus ALARA 
practices--particularly internal exposure control and protection--to 
concentrate on protection based on the actual hazard.
    In the 2006 EA, (Ref. 9) the NRC staff evaluated the environmental 
impacts of the methods used at the Honeywell plant to control 
emissions, including liquid effluent treatment and air effluent dust 
collectors and scrubbers. This report found that these methods resulted 
in insignificant radiological impacts of normal operations and 
potential accidents, and were consistent with NRC's regulations. The 
methods that were evaluated and found to be consistent with NRC's 
regulations in the 2006 EA are the same methods that are now in use by 
Honeywell to control emissions.
    The NRC staff has determined that granting the exemption will not 
affect the radiological impacts of plant operation evaluated in the 
previous EA because changes in the dose calculation methodology will 
not affect the methods Honeywell uses to control emissions, and which 
the NRC staff previously determined in the 2006 EA were consistent with 
NRC's regulations.
    In so much as granting the exemptions will not affect the methods 
Honeywell uses to control emissions, and those methods have been found 
to be consistent with NRC's regulations, granting the exemption will 
have no additional impact on the licensee's compliance with NRC's 
regulations and guidance.
Non-radiological Impacts
    The NRC staff has determined that there are no non-radiological 
impacts associated with the proposed action because there are no 
changes in facility operations associated with the proposed action that 
would change the non-radiological impacts evaluated and found 
acceptable in the 2006 EA.
Cumulative Impacts
    The NRC staff has determined that there are no cumulative impacts 
associated with the proposed action because no changes in facility 
operations will result from granting the exemption. Therefore, granting 
the exemption will not increase the cumulative impacts evaluated and 
found acceptable in the 2006 EA.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    The NRC considered an alternative to the proposed action, which was 
to deny the amendment request. The NRC staff rejected this alternative 
because the health and safety of the workers, the public, and the 
environment would not be adversely affected by the requested action. In 
addition, the licensee will be able to save time and resources on 
implementing protective measures upon approval of the proposed action. 
The new models will maintain doses within the regulated limits, while 
allowing the licensee to remove unwarranted protective measures 
required by the old models.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

    The NRC contacted Gary McCandless, Chief, Bureau of Environmental 
Safety, Division of Nuclear Safety, Illinois Emergency Management 
Agency (IEMA), concerning this request. IEMA had no comments or 
objections to the EA/FONSI and proposed license amendment.
    Because the proposed action is entirely within existing facilities, 
and does not involve new or increased effluents or accident scenarios, 
the NRC has concluded that there is no potential to affect endangered 
species or historic resources. Therefore, consultation with the State 
Historic Preservation Society and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
was not performed.

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based upon the EA, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action 
will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human 
environment. Accordingly, the staff has determined that preparation of 
an EIS is not required.

IV. References

    The following documents are related to the proposed action:

    1. Larry A. Smith, Honeywell Metropolis Works, Letter to the 
NRC, ``Supplemental Documentation for Request to Use ICRP 68 for 
DAC, ALI, and Soluble Uranium Limit,'' October 5, 2011 (Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System [ADAMS] Accession Number 
ML11286A228).
    2. Larry A. Smith, Honeywell Metropolis Works, Letter to the 
NRC, ``Withdrawal of Honeywell International, Inc., Request to Use 
ICRP 68 for DAC, ALI, and Soluble Uranium, dated July 26, 2011,'' 
March 6, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12073A180).
    3. Email from R. Stokes, Honeywell, to J. Sulima, NRC April 12, 
2012, ADAMS Accession No. ML12117A355.
    4. ICRP, ``Dose Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides by 
Workers,'' Publication 68, Annals of the ICRP, Volume 24, No. 4, 
1994.
    5. ICRP, ``1990 Recommendations of the International Commission 
on Radiation Protection,'' Publication 60, Annals of the ICRP, 
Volume 21, No. 1-3, 1991.
    6. Material License SUB-0526, for Honeywell, International, 
Inc., February 28, 2011, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML110530154 and 
ML110530158.
    7. SRM-SECY-99-077, Staff Requirements Memoranda, SECY-99-077, 
to Request Commission Approval to Grant Exemptions from Portions of 
10 CFR Part 20, April 1999.
    8. SRM-SECY-01-0148, Staff Requirements Memoranda, SECY-01-0148, 
Processes for Revision of 10 CFR Part 20 Regarding Adoption of ICRP 
Recommendations on Occupational Dose Limits and Dosimetric Models 
and Parameters, April 2002.
    9. Environmental Assessment for Renewal of NRC License SUB-526 
for the Honeywell Specialty Materials Metropolis Work Facility, June 
30, 2006, ADAMS Accession Number ML061780260. Federal Register 
Notice of Availability of EA and FONSI--71 FR 45862, August 10, 
2006.
    10. ICRP, ``Recommendations of the International Commission on 
Radiological Protection,'' Publication 26, 1977.
    11. ICRP, ``Limits for the Intake of Radionuclides by Workers,'' 
Publication 30, 1978.

    These references may be examined and/or copied for a fee at the 
NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The references with ADAMS 
accession numbers may also be viewed in the NRC's Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
    Questions with respect to this action should be referred to Ms. 
Mary Adams, Conversion, Deconversion and Enrichment Branch, Division of 
Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Mail Stop E-2-C40M, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-492-3113.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of May 2012.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patricia Silva,
Chief, Conversion, Deconversion and Enrichment Branch, Division of Fuel 
Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2012-12129 Filed 5-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P