[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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c47495a4542025e4d415f49556c425e4f024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="056e60736c6b2b77646876607c456b77662b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 (UF<INF>6</INF>) 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 UF<INF>6</INF> 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 UF<INF>6</INF> 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 
UF<INF>6</INF> 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 UF<INF>6</INF> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>