[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76496-76498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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
[email protected].
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