8754 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 

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 nonradiological environmental impacts are 

expected as a result of the proposed 

exemptions. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

actions. In addition, in promulgating its 

revisions to 10 CFR part 73, the 

Commission prepared an environmental 

assessment and published a finding of 

no significant impact (Part 73, Power 

Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR 

13926, 13967 (March 27, 2009)). 

The licensee currently maintains a 

security system acceptable to the NRC 

and will continue to provide acceptable 

physical protection of BSEP. Therefore, 

the extension of the implementation 

date for certain new requirements of 10 

CFR part 73 to December 20, 2010, 

would not have any significant 

environmental impacts. 

The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will 

be provided in the exemptions that will 

be issued as part of the letter to the 

licensee approving the exemptions to 

the regulation, if granted. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Actions 

As an alternative to the proposed 

actions, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed actions (i.e., the ‘‘no 

action’’ alternative). Denial of the 

exemption requests would result in no 

change in current environmental 

impacts. If the proposed actions were 

denied, the licensee would have to 

comply with the March 31, 2010, 

implementation deadline. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

exemptions and the ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative are similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The actions do not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

considered in the Final Environmental 

Statement for the BSEP dated January 

1976, and the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants, NUREG–1437, 

Supplement 25, dated March 2006 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML060900480). 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on January 19, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the North Carolina State 

official, Mr. Dale Dusenbury of the 

North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources 

regarding the environmental impact of 

the proposed actions. The State official 

had no comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed actions 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 actions. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed actions, see the licensee’s 

letter dated November 30, 2009. 

Attachment 1 of the November 30, 2009, 

submittal contains security-related 

information and, accordingly, is not 

available to the public. Other parts of 

this document 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 O– 

1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 

available records will be accessible 

electronically from the 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 18th day 

of February 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Farideh E. Saba, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch II–2, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3849 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 030–34325; NRC–2010–0068] 

Notice of Environmental Assessment 

Related to the Issuance of a License 

Amendment to Masters Materials 

License 03–23853–01VA, for 

Unrestricted Release of a Department 

of Veterans Affairs Facility in 

Gainesville, FL 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Issuance of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for License 

Amendment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie Streit, Health Physicist, Materials 

Control, ISFSI, and Decommissioning 

Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials 

Safety, Region III, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, 2443 

Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532; 

Telephone: (630) 829–9621; fax number: 

(630) 515–1259; or by e-mail at 

Katherine.Streit@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

amend a materials permit held under 

Master Byproduct Materials License No. 

03–23853–01VA. The permit is held by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (the 

Licensee), for its Veteran Affairs (VA) 

North Florida/South Georgia Veterans 

Health System located in Gainesville, 

Florida. Issuance of the amendment 

would authorize release of Building 26 

(the Facility) for unrestricted use. The 

Licensee will continue its operation of 

other facilities under this permit and its 

master materials license. The Licensee 

requested this action in a letter dated 

October 29, 2009 (ML093060270). The 

NRC has prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) in support of this 

proposed action in accordance with the 

requirements of Title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (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 approve 

the Licensee’s October 29, 2009, 

materials permit amendment request, 

resulting in release of the Facility for 

unrestricted use. License No. 03–23853– 

01VA was issued on March 17, 2003, 

pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 35, and 

has been amended periodically since 

that time. This master license authorizes 

the Licensee to use byproduct materials 

at several Licensee facilities around the 

country, as authorized on a site-specific 

basis by permits issued by the 

Licensee’s National Radiation Safety 

Committee. Under the license, the 

permits authorize the use of by-product 

materials for various medical and 

veterinary purposes, and for portable 

gauges. 

Under the master material license 

permit, building 26 was used as a 

radioactive waste storage facility located 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 8755 

at the VA North Florida/South Georgia 

Veterans Health System in Gainesville, 

Florida. The Facility is a storage shed of 

approximately 20x10x8 feet of space. 

Radioactive materials with long lived 

half-lives of greater than 120 days stored 

in the Facility were H–3, C–14, Na–22, 

Cl–36, and Ca–45. The licensee removed 

all licensed material from the Facility 

and completed final status surveys and 

decontamination of the Facility in 

October 2009. 

Based on the licensee’s historical 

knowledge of the site and the conditions 

of the Facility, the licensee determined 

that only routine decontamination 

activities, in accordance with their NRC 

approved, operating radiation safety 

procedures, were required. The licensee 

was not required to submit a 

decommissioning plan to the NRC 

because worker cleanup activities and 

procedures are consistent with those 

approved for routine operations. The 

licensee conducted surveys of the 

Facility and provided information to the 

NRC to demonstrate that Building 26 

meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 

CFR Part 20 for unrestricted use. 

Need for the Proposed Action 

The licensee has ceased conducting 

license activities at the Facility, and 

seeks the unrestricted use of Building 

26. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Actions 

The historical review showed that the 

following radioactive materials with 

half-lives greater than 120 days were 

used: Hydrogen-3, Carbon-14, Sodium22, Chlorine-36, and Calcium-45. Prior 

to performing the final status survey, the 

Licensee conducted decontamination 

activities, as necessary, in the areas of 

Building 26 affected by these 

radionuclides. 

The licensee conducted final status 

surveys in August 2009 and October 

2009 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML093060270). The final status survey 

report was attached to the Licensee’s 

amendment request dated October 29, 

2009. The licensee elected to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

radiological criteria for unrestricted use 

as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using 

the screening approach described in 

NUREG–1757, ‘‘Consolidated 

Decommissioning Guidance, 

Decommissioning Process for Material 

Licensees’’ Volume 1 (ML063000243). 

The licensee used the radionuclidespecific derived concentration guideline 

levels (DCGLs) developed by the NRC, 

which conservatively comply with the 

dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These 

DCGLs define the maximum amount of 

residual radioactivity on building 

surfaces, equipment, and materials that 

will satisfy the NRC requirement in 

Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for 

unrestricted use. The licensee’s final 

status survey results were below these 

DCGLs and are in compliance with the 

As Low As Reasonably Achievable 

(ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 

20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the 

licensee’s final status survey results are 

acceptable. 

Based on its review, the staff has 

determined that the affected 

environment and any environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action are bounded by the impacts 

evaluated by the ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement in 

Support of Rulemaking on Radiological 

Criteria for License Termination of 

NRC–Licensed Nuclear Facilities’’ 

(NUREG–1496) Volumes 1–3 

(ML042310492, ML042320379, and 

ML042330385). The staff finds there 

were no significant environmental 

impacts from the use of radioactive 

material within Building 26. The NRC 

staff reviewed the docket file records 

and the final status survey report to 

identify any non-radiological hazards 

that may have impacted the 

environment surrounding the buildings. 

No such hazards or impacts to the 

environment were identified. The NRC 

has identified no other radiological or 

non-radiological activities in the area 

that could result in cumulative 

environmental impacts. 

The NRC staff finds that the proposed 

release of Building 26 for unrestricted 

use is in compliance with 10 CFR 

20.1402. Based on its review, the staff 

considered the impact of the residual 

radioactivity from Building 26 and 

concluded that the proposed action will 

not have a significant effect on the 

quality of the environment. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

Due to the largely administrative 

nature of the proposed action, its 

environmental impacts are small. 

Therefore, the only alternative the staff 

considered is the no-action alternative, 

under which the staff would leave 

things as they are by simply denying the 

amendment request. This no-action 

alternative is not feasible because it 

conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d) requiring 

that decommissioning of byproduct 

material facilities be completed and 

approved by the NRC after licensed 

activities cease. The NRC’s analysis of 

the licensee’s final status survey data 

confirmed that Building 26 meet the 

requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for 

unrestricted use. Additionally, denying 

the amendment request would result in 

no change in current environmental 

impacts. The environmental impacts of 

the proposed action and the no-action 

alternative are therefore similar, and the 

no-action alternative is accordingly not 

further considered. 

Conclusion 

The NRC staff has concluded that the 

proposed action is consistent with the 

NRC’s unrestricted use criteria specified 

in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the 

proposed action will not significantly 

impact the quality of the human 

environment, the NRC staff concludes 

that the proposed action is the preferred 

alternative. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

On January 11, 2010 the NRC 

provided a draft of this EA to the State 

of Florida, Department of Health, 

Bureau of Radiation Control. The State 

provided no comments or questions. 

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 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 http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, 

you can access the NRC’s image files of 

NRC’s public documents. 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 e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. The documents related to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
8756 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 

this action are listed below, along with 

their ADAMS accession numbers. 

1. National Health Physics Program 

Request for Decommissioning for 

Unrestricted Release of Building 26 at 

the VA North Florida/South Georgia 

Veterans Health System, Gainesville, 

Florida, dated October 29, 2009 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML093060270). 

2. Additional Information for Closeout 

of Building 26 North Florida/South 

Georgia Veterans Health System, 

Gainesville, Florida (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML100110095). 

3. Title 10 Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, 

‘‘Radiological Criteria for License 

Termination.’’ 

4. Title 10 Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 51, ‘‘Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic 

Licensing and Related Regulatory 

Function.’’ 

5. NUREG–1556, Consolidated 

Guidance about Material Licenses, 

Volume 9. 

6. NUREG–1757, Consolidated 

Decommissioning Guidance. 

7. These documents may also be 

viewed electronically on the public 

computers located at the NRC’s PDR, 

O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. 

The PDR reproduction contractor will 

copy documents for a fee. 

Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 17th day of 

February 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Christine A. Lipa, 

Chief, Materials Control, ISFSI, and 

Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear 

Materials Safety, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3862 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–395; NRC–2010–0067] 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Company, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

Station, Unit 1; Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an Exemption, pursuant to 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) section 73.5, 

‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ from the 

implementation date for certain new 

requirements of 10 CFR part 73, 

‘‘Physical protection of plants and 

materials,’’ for Renewed Facility 

Operating License No. NPF–12, issued 

to South Carolina Electric & Gas 

Company (SCE&G, the licensee), for 

operation of the Virgil C. Summer 

Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (VCSNS), 

located in Fairfield County, South 

Carolina. In accordance with 10 CFR 

51.21, the NRC prepared an 

environmental assessment documenting 

its finding. The NRC concluded that the 

proposed action will have no significant 

environmental impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

VCSNS from the required 

implementation date of March 31, 2010, 

for two new requirements of 10 CFR 

part 73. Specifically, VCSNS would be 

granted an exemption from being in full 

compliance with two new requirements 

contained in 10 CFR 73.55 by the March 

31, 2010, deadline. SCE&G has proposed 

an alternate full compliance 

implementation date of September 30, 

2010, approximately 6 months beyond 

the date required by 10 CFR part 73. The 

proposed action, an extension of the 

schedule for completion of certain 

actions required by the revised 10 CFR 

part 73, does not involve any physical 

changes to the reactor, fuel, plant 

structures, support structures, water, or 

land at the VCSNS, Unit 1 site. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application 

contained in two letters dated December 

11, 2009, SCE&G designation RC–09– 

0154 (Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML093490316) and RC– 

09–0148 (NRC ADAMS ML093480496 

and ML093480497). SCE&G’s letter RC– 

09–0148 contains security-related 

information and, accordingly, is not 

available to the public. SCE&G’s letter 

RC–09–0154 is a redacted version of 

RC–09–0148 that does not contain 

security related information. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed to 

provide the licensee with additional 

time to complete the design, planning, 

procurement, construction, testing and 

project closeout activities for the 

required upgrades to the SCE&G 

security system, while simultaneously 

maintaining the current security 

defensive strategy. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed exemption. The staff has 

concluded that the proposed action to 

extend the implementation deadline 

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 

environmental assessment and finding 

of no significant impact made by the 

Commission in promulgating its 

revisions to 10 CFR part 73, as 

discussed in a Federal Register notice 

dated March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13967). 

There will be no change to radioactive 

effluents that affect radiation exposures 

to plant workers and members of the 

public. 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 of 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. In addition, in promulgating its 

revisions to 10 CFR part 73, the 

Commission prepared an environmental 

assessment and published a finding of 

no significant impact [Part 73, Power 

Reactor Security Requirements, 74 FR 

13926, 13967 (March 27, 2009)]. 

The licensee currently maintains a 

security system acceptable to the NRC 

and will continue to provide acceptable 

physical protection of the VCSNS. 

Therefore, the extension of the 

implementation date for certain new 

requirement of 10 CFR part 73 to 

September 30, 2010, would not have 

any significant environmental impacts. 

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. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES