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


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
76498 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices 

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 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–346; NRC–2010–0378] 

Firstenergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power 

Station; Environmental Assessment 

And Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC, or the Commission) 

is considering issuance of an 

Exemption, pursuant to Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

Section 50.12, ‘‘Specific Exemptions,’’ 

from 10 CFR 50.61, ‘‘Fracture Toughness 

Requirements for Protection Against 

Pressurized Thermal Shock Events’’ and 

from 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, 

‘‘Fracture Toughness Requirements’’ for 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–3, 

issued to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company (FENOC, the licensee), for 

operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear 

Power Station, Unit 1 (DBNPS), located 

in Ottawa County, Ohio. In accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC performed 

an environmental assessment 

documenting its findings. The NRC 

concluded that the proposed actions 

will have no significant environmental 

impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Appendix 

G requires that fracture toughness 

requirements for ferritic materials of 

pressure-retaining components of the 

reactor coolant pressure boundary of 

light-water nuclear power reactors 

provide adequate margins of safety 

during any condition of normal 

operation, including anticipated 

operational occurrences and system 

hydrostatic tests, to which the pressure 

boundary may be subjected over its 

service lifetime, section 50.61 provides 

fracture toughness requirements for 

protection against pressurized thermal 

shock (PTS) events. By letter dated 

April 15, 2009 (Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML091130228), as supplemented by 

letter dated December 18, 2009 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML093570103), and 

October 8, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML102861221), FENOC proposed 

exemptions from the requirements of 10 

CFR part 50, Appendix G and 10 CFR 

50.61, to revise certain DBNPS reactor 

pressure vessel (RPV) initial 

(unirradiated) properties using 

Framatome Advanced Nuclear Power 

Topical Report BAW–2308, Revisions 

1–A and 2–A, ‘‘Initial RTNDT of Linde 80 

Weld Materials.’’ 

The licensee requested an exemption 

from Appendix G to 10 CFR part 50 to 

replace the required use of the existing 

Charpy V-notch (Cv) and drop weightbased methodology and allow the use of 

an alternate methodology to incorporate 

the use of fracture toughness test data 

for evaluating the integrity of the 

DBNPS RPV circumferential beltline 

welds based on the use of the 1997 and 

2002 editions of American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard 

Test Method E 1921, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Reference 

Temperature T0, for Ferritic Steels in the 

Transition Range,’’ and American 

Society for Mechanical Engineering 

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME 

B&PV Code), Code Case N–629, ‘‘Use of 

Fracture Toughness Test Data to 

establish Reference Temperature for 

Pressure Retaining materials of Section 

III, Division 1, Class 1.’’ The exemption 

is required since Appendix G to 10 CFR 

part 50, through reference to Appendix 

G to Section XI of the ASME Code 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(a), requires 

the use of a methodology based on Cv

and drop weight data. 

The licensee also requested an 

exemption from 10 CFR 50.61 to use an 

alternate methodology to allow the use 

of fracture toughness test data for 

evaluating the integrity of the DBNPS 

RPV circumferential beltline welds 

based on the use of the 1997 and 2002 

editions of ASTM E 1921 and ASME 

Code Case N–629. The exemption is 

required since the methodology for 

evaluating RPV material fracture 

toughness in 10 CFR 50.61 requires the 

use of the Cv and drop weight data for 

establishing the PTS reference 

temperature (RTPTS). 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

April 15, 2009, as supplemented by 

letters dated December 18, 2009, August 

26 and October 8, 2010. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed to 

allow the licensee to use an alternate 

method, as described in Topical Report 

BAW–2308, Revisions 1–A and 2–A, 

‘‘Initial RTNDT of Linde 80 Weld 

Materials’’ for determining the initial, 

unirradiated material reference 

temperatures of the Linde 80 weld 

materials present in the beltline region 

of the DBNPS RPV. This action, by 

being exempted from 10 CFR 50.61 

would allow the licensee to revise its 

pressurized thermal shock reference 

temperature values in the future. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its evaluation 

of the proposed exemption. The NRC 

staff has concluded that the proposed 

action to allow an alternate method for 

determining the initial, unirradiated 

material reference temperatures of the 

Linde 80 weld materials present in the 

beltline region of the DBNPS RPV 

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 Final Safety 

Analysis Report for DBNPS. 

The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will 

be provided in the exemption that will 

be issued as part of the letter to the 

licensee approving the exemption to the 

regulation, if granted. 

There will be no change to radioactive 

effluents that effect radiation exposures 

to plant workers and members of the 

public. The proposed action does not 

involve a change to plant buildings or 

land areas on the DBNPS site. Therefore, 

no changes or different types of 

radiological impacts are expected as a 

result of the proposed exemption. 

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 or the 

plant, or to threatened, endangered, or 

protected species under the Endangered 

Species Act, or impacts to essential fish 

habitat covered by the MagnusonSteven’s Act are expected. There are no 

impacts to the air or ambient air quality. 

There are no impacts to historical and 

cultural resources. There would be no 

impact to socioeconomic resources. 

Therefore, no changes to or different 

types of non-radiological environmental 

impacts are expected as a result of the 

proposed exemption. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES