License Amendment Request to Byproduct Material License 06-31445-01 for Light Sources, Inc., Orange, CT, 66647-66649 [2012-27065]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 6, 2012 / Notices 66647 Response 1. Section II, Discussion, Page 5 ‘‘However, neither the diesel generator fire [DELETED (area)] zone * * *’’ The Petitioner again cites the licensee’s letter of July 11, 2012, as a further example of the need to perform a comprehensive identification and correction of Indian Point fire safety violations. The Petitioner also notes that the NRC apparently discovered the omission of OMAs 20 and 21 and that the licensee’s letter did not provide any explanation for the occurrence. See the staff’s response to Comment 3 from the Petitioner’s letter dated August 1, 2012. As previously stated, in determining whether the licensee is making reasonable efforts to complete corrective actions promptly, the NRC has considered safety significance, the effects on operability, the significance of the degradation, and what is necessary to implement the corrective action. As a result, the NRC has determined that the public health and safety will be adequately assured in the interim while full compliance is being achieved. These same considerations will continue to guide NRC enforcement discretion during its oversight as the licensee proceeds with its scheduled compliance. Response Comments Received From the Licensee See the staff’s previous response to comment 3 above. As previously stated, NRC inspectors made this discovery and the licensee has committed to resolve the omitted OMAs and establish compliance with Section III.G to Appendix R of 10 CFR part 50. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. omission. The licensee further indicated that it performed an extent of condition review and concluded that the use of non-standard nomenclature did not result in the omission of any additional OMAs. The NRC staff will review the licensee’s letter as part of the overall reactor oversight process. Comment 4 New Indian Point Fire Safety Violations Identified Comment 5 Confirmation of Indian Point Unit 1 Involvement in Fire Safety Violations The licensee’s letter dated August 1, 2012, offered clarification for the use of ‘‘fire areas’’ versus ‘‘fire zones’’ in the proposed Director’s Decision. The Petitioner cited the licensee’s explanation as a further example that fire violations exist at Indian Point Unit No. 1. This is similar to the Petitioner’s Comment 1.a in the Petitioner’s letter dated August 1, 2012. Response See the staff’s response to Comment 1.a from the Petitioner’s letter dated August 1, 2012. As previously stated, any system, structure, or component located at Unit No. 1 that supports the fire protection program at Unit No. 2, will be documented in Unit No. 2 inspection activities. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Comment 6 Unjustified Delay in Eliminating Indian Point Fire Safety Violations The licensee’s letter dated August 1, 2012, offered clarification to the proposed Director’s Decision for their schedule to restore full compliance with fire safety regulations at Indian Point. The Petitioner objected to the licensee’s schedule and explanation that full compliance will not be achieved before the Unit No. 2 refueling outage in the spring of 2014. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:06 Nov 05, 2012 Jkt 229001 A. General Comments Section III, Conclusion, Pages 9 and 10 The letter indicates the NRC is granting the Petitioner’s request for identifying violations and taking enforcement actions as well as bringing IPEC [Indian Point Energy Center] into compliance. It is Entergy’s belief that the NRC is following the requirements and protocols established in the regulatory oversight process (ROP) as relates to these actions, and is not granting the Petitioner’s request. The letter should indicate that the ROP is a mature process that provides guidance to the NRC and licensees. The items identified by NY State were items the NRC staff was well aware of and the actions taken by the NRC would have been taken regardless of the NY State petition. Response B. Specific Comments—Suggested Changes [Suggested changes are shown as strikethroughs for [DELETED (deletions)] and underlines for additions.] Frm 00070 • Fire zones are subsets of larger fire areas. The suggested change provides a more definitive description of the concern. The NRC modified the final Director’s Decision accordingly. 2. Section II, Discussion, Page 8 ‘‘Exceptions to projected completion involve plant modifications for Indian Point Units No. 3 and No.2, which will not be completed until the spring 2013 and 2014 refueling outages respectively because those modifications involve [DELETED (access to plant areas accessible only during a plant shutdown)] activities that require plant outages to install said modifications.’’ Response • The suggested changes provide a more complete description of the planned modifications. The NRC modified the final Director’s Decision accordingly. [FR Doc. 2012–27046 Filed 11–5–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 03038458; NRC–2012–0267] License Amendment Request to Byproduct Material License 06–31445– 01 for Light Sources, Inc., Orange, CT Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for license amendment. AGENCY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The NRC does not disagree with the premise of the licensee’s comment. The petition did not present facts previously unknown to the NRC staff, and the staff would likely have reached the same conclusions through the ROP without the impetus of the petition. Regardless, the staff’s practice has been that whenever the Petitioner’s requests are consistent with the staff’s final actions, whether in whole or in part, they are considered to be granted. PO 00000 Response Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dennis Lawyer, Health Physicist, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 2100 Renaissance Blvd., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406–2713; telephone 610–337–5366; fax number 610–337– 5269; or by email: Dennis.Lawyer@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No.06–31445–01 issued to Light Sources, Inc. (the Licensee), to approve of proposed alternate disposal procedures under section 20.2002 of E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM 06NON1 66648 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 6, 2012 / Notices Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), for its facility located at 37 Robinson Boulevard, Orange, Connecticut (the Facility). License No. 06–31445–01 was issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on September 6, 2011, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30. This license authorizes Light Sources, Inc. to possess and store lamps containing up to 4 kilobecquerel (kBq) (0.12 microcuries) of krypton 85 (Kr-85) prior to initial distribution. Pursuant to the provisions in 10 CFR 20.2002, issuance of the license amendment would authorize the transfer of up to 200 lamps each year to a recycling facility that handles hazardous wastes, including mercury. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register. II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would be granted under 10 CFR 20.2002 and approve the Licensee’s September 9, 2011, license amendment request as modified in their letter dated November 17, 2011, by authorizing the transfer of up to 200 lamps per year, not to exceed 4 KBq (0.12uCi) of Kr-85 each, and utilizing a recycling facility that handles hazardous wastes, including mercury, for disposal. The mercury would be recycled and the krypton would be released by ventilation at the recycler. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee needs this license amendment to allow disposal of up to 200 lamps per year at a waste recycling facility, authorized to process hazardous material, including mercury. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff reviewed the license amendment request to allow up to 200 lamps each year containing Kr-85, to be disposed at a hazardous waste recycler. Individual lamps vary in the amount of Kr-85 contained depending on the size and wattage of the lamp, but contain no more than 4 KBq (0.12uCi) of Kr-85 each. The Licensee estimates that no more than 7MBq (0.2mCi) of Kr-85 in VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:09 Nov 05, 2012 Jkt 229001 intact lamps will be sent for disposal annually. Characteristics of krypton gas are such that exposure to workers and the general public from Kr-85 vented from the lamps during the recycling process will have minimal effects. Since it is a gas, Kr-85 will immediately disperse once the lamp is broken. It is not considered an inhalation hazard and does not react with biological systems when inhaled. Due to the minimal risks presented, the NRC does not specify an Annual Limit on Intake (ALI) for Kr-85. The Licensee provided the International Atomic Energy Agency report, ‘‘Assessment of the Radiological Impact of the Recycling and Disposal of Light Bulbs Containing Tritium, Krypton-85, and Radioisotopes of Thorium’’ (Jones, et al., 2011). This report was commissioned by the European Lamp Companies Federation, a forum developed to oversee the European lamp manufacturers, to assess radiation doses associated with the recycling and disposal of lamps containing small quantities of H-3, Kr85, and thorium. This study considered a range of exposure scenarios in order to estimate the highest doses received by various individuals, including workers at facilities that recycle lamps, workers at incinerators, foundries, and landfill sites, as well as members of the public. Highly conservative assumptions and parameter values were used for the dose assessment in this report in order to ensure that the doses calculated will not underestimate actual doses. The report assumes that Kr-85 associated with 1.5 million metal halide lamps and 1 million glow switches in first generation non-integrated compact fluorescent lamps are recycled annually. This quantity greatly exceeds the anticipated quantities of up to 200 lamps that the Licensee plans to recycle annually. Corresponding exposure times for various workers dealing with these greater quantities are also assumed to be much greater than the exposure times associated with lamps shipped by the Licensee for recycling. Using the conservative parameter values, doses were calculated for workers in each of the processes used to recycle the lamps containing Kr-85 as well as members of the general public living near the recycling facility. The recycling workers’ total effective dose was determined to be 0.5 mSv/yr (0.05 mrem) with the largest contribution coming from working within Kr-85 vapor while manually sorting lamps before the actual recycling process begins. The estimated dose to members of the public living near the recycling PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 facility was calculated to be 4.0E–6 mSv/ yr (4.0E–7 mrem) for processing of 1.5 million lamps and 1 million glow switches. These doses are well below the NRC’s annual dose limits for workers and the general public, and the dose from the estimated 200 lamps proposed by the licensee would be proportionally smaller (Estimated at less than 0.025% of the dose calculated in the report). The environmental impact of sending 200 lamps to a recycler would result in sending a maximum 20,000 milligrams of mercury to a recycler. The amount being recycled is expected to be significantly less since the most commonly sold lamp contains 14 milligrams and much fewer than 200 lamps per year is expected to be sent to the recycler. This is a non-significant impact on the environment. For comparison, a local recycler, NLR, reports that they have recycled 5,270,000 milligrams of mercury in a typical year. Thus the amount from the Licensee would result in a maximum increase of less than 0.38% per year. Recycling is an authorized disposal method for lamps containing mercury under the Universal Waste Regulations, 40 CFR Part 273. According to the ‘‘Mercury Emissions from the Disposal of Fluorescent Lamps’’, report (https:// www.epa.gov/wastes/hazard/ wastetypes/universal/merc-emi/mercpgs/emmrpt.pdf) dated March 1998, the central estimated emissions from recycling mercury in lamps would be 10% elemental and 1.09% divalent mercury. Lamps from the Licensee are made with triple distilled mercury containing approximately 100% elemental mercury. The lamps being sent for recycling from the Licensee consist of bulbs that prematurely failed which leaves the mercury in an elemental state. Thus the maximum discharge to the environment from recycling 200 lamps would be a maximum of 2000 milligrams of elemental mercury. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action The alternative to the proposed action is to deny the requested license amendment. The no-action alternative would leave things as they are, resulting in the material being disposed as mixed waste in accordance with Universal Waste regulations. The lamps would be sent to a licensed radioactive waste contractor which could result in the Kr85 being discharged—an increase in the environmental impact—or recovered, depending upon the methods employed by the licensed radioactive waste contractor. With respect to the mercury, E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM 06NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 6, 2012 / Notices the environmental impact is that the licensed radioactive waste contractor could recycle the mercury, resulting in the same environmental impact as granting the license amendment or properly dispose of the mercury by using a Subtitle C landfill. According to the ‘‘Mercury Emissions from the Disposal of Fluorescent Lamps’’, report (https://www.epa.gov/wastes/hazard/ wastetypes/universal/merc-emi/mercpgs/emmrpt.pdf) dated March 1998, the estimated emissions from lamps being sent to a Subtitle C landfill is 100% elemental mercury and 0% for divalent mercury. The resulting mercury discharge for up to 200 lamps from the licensee would be a maximum of 20,000 milligrams elemental mercury or ten times the amount discharged in recycling the lamps. Thus environmental impacts of either method are small, denying the amendment request would result in similar environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action as compared to the alternative action are similar and therefore, the alternative action is accordingly not further considered. erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with NRC regulations and guidance. The NRC staff reviewed the dose modeling analysis performed in the referenced report, which considers recycling activities for much larger quantities of lamps containing Kr-85. The report, which used extremely conservative parameter values in its assessment, calculates doses to workers involved in the recycling of these lamps as well as members of the public residing near the recycling centers that are significantly less than the NRC’s corresponding annual dose limits. Since the quantity of lamps and the corresponding exposure times for workers recycling lamps from the Licensee are much smaller than those considered in the report the NRC staff is confident that the resulting doses to workers and the general public would also be proportionally smaller. Approving the proposed action would allow the Licensee to ship the lamps to a recycler for proper recycling of any of the recoverable mercury ensuring that the mercury is recycled. Recycling has shown to be the best method to recover elemental mercury which is the mercury contained in the Licensee’s lamps. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment and will allow mercury that is recoverable to be recycled and not disposed, the NRC staff VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:06 Nov 05, 2012 Jkt 229001 concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the State of Connecticut for review on April 25, 2012. On June 4, 2012, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection responded by electronic mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC’s Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC’s public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. Licensee’s amendment request letter dated September 9, 2011 [ML112560291] 2. Licensee’s additional information letter dated November 17, 2011 [ML113250060] 3. Licensee’s email attachment dated August 29, 2012 [ML12243A199] 4. Licensee’s additional information letter received September 14, 2012 [ML12258A264]. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 66649 the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@ nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Region I, 2100 Renaissance Blvd., King of Prussia, this 25th day of October 2012. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Judith Joustra, Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. 2012–27065 Filed 11–5–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2012–0232] Proposed Revision to Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Severe Accident Evaluation for New Reactors Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Standard review plan-draft section revision; extension of comment period. AGENCY: On October 9, 2012 (77 FR 61446), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission), issued a NUREG–0800, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,’’ on a proposed Revision 3 to its Standard Review Plan (SRP), Section 19.0 ‘‘Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Severe Accident Evaluation for New Reactors.’’ The NRC is extending the public comment period for its SRP, Section 19.0 from November 8, 2012 to December 8, 2012. ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publically available, by searching on https:// www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC–2012–0232. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2012–0232. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\06NON1.SGM 06NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66647-66649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27065]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 03038458; NRC-2012-0267]


License Amendment Request to Byproduct Material License 06-31445-
01 for Light Sources, Inc., Orange, CT

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact 
for license amendment.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Lawyer, Health Physicist, 
Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 
I, 2100 Renaissance Blvd., King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-2713; 
telephone 610-337-5366; fax number 610-337-5269; or by email: 
Dennis.Lawyer@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is 
considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials 
License No.06-31445-01 issued to Light Sources, Inc. (the Licensee), to 
approve of proposed alternate disposal procedures under section 20.2002 
of

[[Page 66648]]

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), for its facility 
located at 37 Robinson Boulevard, Orange, Connecticut (the Facility). 
License No. 06-31445-01 was issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission on September 6, 2011, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30. This 
license authorizes Light Sources, Inc. to possess and store lamps 
containing up to 4 kilobecquerel (kBq) (0.12 microcuries) of krypton 85 
(Kr-85) prior to initial distribution.
    Pursuant to the provisions in 10 CFR 20.2002, issuance of the 
license amendment would authorize the transfer of up to 200 lamps each 
year to a recycling facility that handles hazardous wastes, including 
mercury. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 
support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements in 
10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding 
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the 
proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following 
the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register.

II. Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would be granted under 10 CFR 20.2002 and 
approve the Licensee's September 9, 2011, license amendment request as 
modified in their letter dated November 17, 2011, by authorizing the 
transfer of up to 200 lamps per year, not to exceed 4 KBq (0.12uCi) of 
Kr-85 each, and utilizing a recycling facility that handles hazardous 
wastes, including mercury, for disposal. The mercury would be recycled 
and the krypton would be released by ventilation at the recycler.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The Licensee needs this license amendment to allow disposal of up 
to 200 lamps per year at a waste recycling facility, authorized to 
process hazardous material, including mercury.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff reviewed the license amendment request to allow up to 
200 lamps each year containing Kr-85, to be disposed at a hazardous 
waste recycler. Individual lamps vary in the amount of Kr-85 contained 
depending on the size and wattage of the lamp, but contain no more than 
4 KBq (0.12uCi) of Kr-85 each. The Licensee estimates that no more than 
7MBq (0.2mCi) of Kr-85 in intact lamps will be sent for disposal 
annually.
    Characteristics of krypton gas are such that exposure to workers 
and the general public from Kr-85 vented from the lamps during the 
recycling process will have minimal effects. Since it is a gas, Kr-85 
will immediately disperse once the lamp is broken. It is not considered 
an inhalation hazard and does not react with biological systems when 
inhaled. Due to the minimal risks presented, the NRC does not specify 
an Annual Limit on Intake (ALI) for Kr-85.
    The Licensee provided the International Atomic Energy Agency 
report, ``Assessment of the Radiological Impact of the Recycling and 
Disposal of Light Bulbs Containing Tritium, Krypton-85, and 
Radioisotopes of Thorium'' (Jones, et al., 2011). This report was 
commissioned by the European Lamp Companies Federation, a forum 
developed to oversee the European lamp manufacturers, to assess 
radiation doses associated with the recycling and disposal of lamps 
containing small quantities of H-3, Kr-85, and thorium. This study 
considered a range of exposure scenarios in order to estimate the 
highest doses received by various individuals, including workers at 
facilities that recycle lamps, workers at incinerators, foundries, and 
landfill sites, as well as members of the public.
    Highly conservative assumptions and parameter values were used for 
the dose assessment in this report in order to ensure that the doses 
calculated will not underestimate actual doses. The report assumes that 
Kr-85 associated with 1.5 million metal halide lamps and 1 million glow 
switches in first generation non-integrated compact fluorescent lamps 
are recycled annually. This quantity greatly exceeds the anticipated 
quantities of up to 200 lamps that the Licensee plans to recycle 
annually. Corresponding exposure times for various workers dealing with 
these greater quantities are also assumed to be much greater than the 
exposure times associated with lamps shipped by the Licensee for 
recycling.
    Using the conservative parameter values, doses were calculated for 
workers in each of the processes used to recycle the lamps containing 
Kr-85 as well as members of the general public living near the 
recycling facility. The recycling workers' total effective dose was 
determined to be 0.5 [mu]Sv/yr (0.05 mrem) with the largest 
contribution coming from working within Kr-85 vapor while manually 
sorting lamps before the actual recycling process begins. The estimated 
dose to members of the public living near the recycling facility was 
calculated to be 4.0E-6 [mu]Sv/yr (4.0E-7 mrem) for processing of 1.5 
million lamps and 1 million glow switches. These doses are well below 
the NRC's annual dose limits for workers and the general public, and 
the dose from the estimated 200 lamps proposed by the licensee would be 
proportionally smaller (Estimated at less than 0.025% of the dose 
calculated in the report).
    The environmental impact of sending 200 lamps to a recycler would 
result in sending a maximum 20,000 milligrams of mercury to a recycler. 
The amount being recycled is expected to be significantly less since 
the most commonly sold lamp contains 14 milligrams and much fewer than 
200 lamps per year is expected to be sent to the recycler. This is a 
non-significant impact on the environment. For comparison, a local 
recycler, NLR, reports that they have recycled 5,270,000 milligrams of 
mercury in a typical year. Thus the amount from the Licensee would 
result in a maximum increase of less than 0.38% per year. Recycling is 
an authorized disposal method for lamps containing mercury under the 
Universal Waste Regulations, 40 CFR Part 273. According to the 
``Mercury Emissions from the Disposal of Fluorescent Lamps'', report 
(https://www.epa.gov/wastes/hazard/wastetypes/universal/merc-emi/merc-pgs/emmrpt.pdf) dated March 1998, the central estimated emissions from 
recycling mercury in lamps would be 10% elemental and 1.09% divalent 
mercury. Lamps from the Licensee are made with triple distilled mercury 
containing approximately 100% elemental mercury. The lamps being sent 
for recycling from the Licensee consist of bulbs that prematurely 
failed which leaves the mercury in an elemental state. Thus the maximum 
discharge to the environment from recycling 200 lamps would be a 
maximum of 2000 milligrams of elemental mercury.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    The alternative to the proposed action is to deny the requested 
license amendment. The no-action alternative would leave things as they 
are, resulting in the material being disposed as mixed waste in 
accordance with Universal Waste regulations. The lamps would be sent to 
a licensed radioactive waste contractor which could result in the Kr-85 
being discharged--an increase in the environmental impact--or 
recovered, depending upon the methods employed by the licensed 
radioactive waste contractor. With respect to the mercury,

[[Page 66649]]

the environmental impact is that the licensed radioactive waste 
contractor could recycle the mercury, resulting in the same 
environmental impact as granting the license amendment or properly 
dispose of the mercury by using a Subtitle C landfill. According to the 
``Mercury Emissions from the Disposal of Fluorescent Lamps'', report 
(https://www.epa.gov/wastes/hazard/wastetypes/universal/merc-emi/merc-pgs/emmrpt.pdf) dated March 1998, the estimated emissions from lamps 
being sent to a Subtitle C landfill is 100% elemental mercury and 0% 
for divalent mercury. The resulting mercury discharge for up to 200 
lamps from the licensee would be a maximum of 20,000 milligrams 
elemental mercury or ten times the amount discharged in recycling the 
lamps. Thus environmental impacts of either method are small, denying 
the amendment request would result in similar environmental impacts. 
The environmental impacts of the proposed action as compared to the 
alternative action are similar and therefore, the alternative action is 
accordingly not further considered.

Conclusion

    The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent 
with NRC regulations and guidance. The NRC staff reviewed the dose 
modeling analysis performed in the referenced report, which considers 
recycling activities for much larger quantities of lamps containing Kr-
85. The report, which used extremely conservative parameter values in 
its assessment, calculates doses to workers involved in the recycling 
of these lamps as well as members of the public residing near the 
recycling centers that are significantly less than the NRC's 
corresponding annual dose limits. Since the quantity of lamps and the 
corresponding exposure times for workers recycling lamps from the 
Licensee are much smaller than those considered in the report the NRC 
staff is confident that the resulting doses to workers and the general 
public would also be proportionally smaller. Approving the proposed 
action would allow the Licensee to ship the lamps to a recycler for 
proper recycling of any of the recoverable mercury ensuring that the 
mercury is recycled. Recycling has shown to be the best method to 
recover elemental mercury which is the mercury contained in the 
Licensee's lamps. Because the proposed action will not significantly 
impact the quality of the human environment and will allow mercury that 
is recoverable to be recycled and not disposed, the NRC staff concludes 
that the proposed action is the preferred alternative.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the 
State of Connecticut for review on April 25, 2012. On June 4, 2012, 
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection responded 
by electronic mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, 
and otherwise had no comments.
    The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a 
procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical 
habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 
of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that 
the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential 
to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further 
consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act.

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed 
action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no 
significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that 
preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. 
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant 
Impact is appropriate.

IV. Further Information

    Documents related to this action, including the application for 
license amendment and supporting documentation, are available 
electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the 
NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which 
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents 
related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS 
accession numbers.

1. Licensee's amendment request letter dated September 9, 2011 
[ML112560291]
2. Licensee's additional information letter dated November 17, 2011 
[ML113250060]
3. Licensee's email attachment dated August 29, 2012 [ML12243A199]
4. Licensee's additional information letter received September 14, 2012 
[ML12258A264].

    If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed 
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy 
documents for a fee.

    Dated at Region I, 2100 Renaissance Blvd., King of Prussia, this 
25th day of October 2012.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Judith Joustra,
Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, 
Region I.
[FR Doc. 2012-27065 Filed 11-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.