Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices 76495 

particularly interested in comments 

which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses. 

ADDRESSES: Sunil Iyengar, National 

Endowment for the Arts, 1100 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 616, 

Washington, DC 20506–0001, telephone 

(202) 682–5424 (this is not a toll-free 

number), fax (202) 682–5677. 

Kathy Plowitz-Worden, 

Office of Guidelines and Panel Operations, 

National Endowment for the Arts. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30758 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7537–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339; Docket 

Nos. 50–280 and 50–281; NRC–2010–0376] 

Virginia Electric and Power Company 

North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2 Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2; Environmental Assessment 

and Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

changes to the Emergency Plan, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54, ‘‘Conditions 

of licenses,’’ paragraph (q), for North 

Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 

(NAPS), for Renewed Facility Operating 

License Nos. NPF–4 and NPF–7, and 

Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 

(Surry) for Renewed Facility Operating 

License Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37, 

issued to Virginia Electric and Power 

Company (the licensee), for operation of 

NAPS and Surry located in Louisa 

County, Virginia, and Surry County, 

Virginia, respectively. Therefore, as 

required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC 

performed an environmental 

assessment. Based on the results of the 

environmental assessment, the NRC is 

issuing a finding of no significant 

impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would upgrade 

selected Emergency Action Levels 

(EALs) based on NEI 99–01, Revision 5, 

‘‘Methodology for Development of 

Emergency Action Levels,’’ using the 

guidance of NRC Regulatory Issue 

Summary 2003–18, Supplement 1 and 

2, ‘‘Use of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 

99–01, Methodology for Development of 

Emergency Action Levels.’’ 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s applications dated 

January 29, 2010 (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML100500566). 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed 

because amendments would change an 

EAL scheme based on NUREG–0654, 

‘‘Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation 

of Radiological Emergency Response 

Plan and Preparedness in Support of 

Nuclear Power Plants,’’ to one based on 

NEI 99–01, ‘‘Methodology for 

Development of Emergency Action 

Levels,’’ Revision 4. This would change 

the methodology for deriving selected 

Notification of Unusual Event values in 

Table R–1, Gaseous Effluent Monitor 

Classification Thresholds, and deleting 

EAL RA2.4, which evaluates abnormal 

radiation readings at infrequently 

accessed areas and revise the radiation 

level threshold values for reactor 

coolant system (RCS) letdown 

indication. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed EAL changes to NAPS and 

Surry. The staff has concluded that the 

changes 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 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. 

There will be no change to radioactive 

effluents that affect radiation exposures 

to plant workers and members of the 

public. No changes will be made to 

plant buildings or the site property. 

Therefore, no changes or different types 

of radiological impacts are expected as 

a result of the proposed changes. 

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 of the 

plant, or to threatened, endangered, or 

protected species under the Endangered 

Species Act, or impacts to essential fish 

habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no 

impacts to the air or ambient air quality. 

There are no impacts to historic and 

cultural resources. There would be no 

noticeable effect on socioeconomic 

conditions in the region. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed action (i.e., the‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

application would result in no change 

in current environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the ‘‘Final 

Environmental Statement Related to the 

Continuation of Construction and the 

Operation,’’ for NAPS dated April 1973, 

and Surry dated May 1972 and June 

1972, respectively, as supplemented 

through the ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants: Supplements 6 and 7 

Regarding Surry and NAPS—Final 

Report (NUREG–1437, Supplements 6 

and 7),’’ dated November 2002. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on November 17, 2010, the staff 

consulted with the Virginia State 

official, Leslie P. Foldesi, Director of the 

Division of Radiological Health, 

regarding the environmental impact of 

the proposed action. The State official 

had no comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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, http://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 

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 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 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES