47976 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Notices 

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 Facility. 

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 the Facility for unrestricted 

use is in compliance with 10 CFR 

20.1402. Based on its review, the staff 

considered the impact of the residual 

radioactivity at the Facility and 

concluded that the proposed action will 

not have a significant effect on the 

quality of the human 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 the 

Facility meets the requirements of 10 

CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. 

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 release 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 

NRC provided a draft of this 

Environmental Assessment to the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection for review on June 25, 2009. 

On August 7, 2009, the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

responded by letter. The State agreed 

with the conclusions of the EA, and 

otherwise had no comments. 

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 has 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 Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS), which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. The documents related to 

this action are listed below, along with 

their ADAMS accession numbers. 

1. NUREG–1757, ‘‘Consolidated 

NMSS Decommissioning Guidance’’; 

2. Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, 

‘‘Radiological Criteria for License 

Termination’’; 

3. Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 51, ‘‘Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic 

Licensing and Related Regulatory 

Functions’’; 

4. NUREG–1496, ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement in 

Support of Rulemaking on Radiological 

Criteria for License Termination of NRCLicensed Nuclear Facilities’’; 

5. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical 

Research and Development, LLC, 

amendment request letter dated March 

27, 2009 (ML090960269); 

6. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical 

Research and Development, LLC, 

additional information letter dated April 

28, 2009 (ML091200252); 

7. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical 

Research and Development, LLC, 

additional information letter dated May 

29, 2009 (ML091490762); and 

8. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical 

Research and Development, LLC, 

additional information letter dated June 

16, 2009 (ML091730375). 

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 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. These 

documents may also be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s PDR, O–1 F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. 

Dated at Region I, 475 Allendale Road, 

King of Prussia, PA this 11th day of 

September 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

James P. Dwyer, 

Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division 

of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. 

[FR Doc. E9–22556 Filed 9–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0408] 

Exemption From the Specific Import 

License Requirements 

1.0 Request/Action 

US Ecology Idaho (USEI), a subsidiary 

of American Ecology, operates a 

hazardous waste and low-activity 

radioactive disposal facility near Grand 

View, Idaho. By letter dated March 19, 

2009 (Agency Documents Access 

Management System [ADAMS] 

Accession No. ML091600258), USEI 

requested an exemption from the 

requirements in 10 CFR Part 110, 

‘‘Export and Import of Nuclear 

Equipment and Material,’’ for a specific 

license to import waste from Canada. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.10, the 

Commission may, upon application by 

any interested person or upon its own 

initiative, grant exemptions for the 

requirements for a specific license in 10 

CFR Part 110, when the import is (1) 

authorized by law; (2) is not inimical to 

the common defense and security of the 

United States; and (3) will not constitute 

an unreasonable risk to the public 

health and safety. 

2.0 Background 

USEI requested an exemption from 

the requirements in 10 CFR 110.27 for 

a specific license to import and dispose 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 180 / Friday, September 18, 2009 / Notices 47977 

of approximately 2,500 cubic meters of 

soil containing 15% concrete and metal 

debris contaminated with low 

concentrations of naturally occurring 

radium-226 and uranium-238, which 

will be generated during remediation 

and redevelopment of a property located 

in Toronto, Canada. In its March 19, 

2009, letter, USEI stated that this 

material meets the ‘‘unimportant 

quantity of source material’’ criteria 

founded in 10 CFR 40.13(a). As part of 

their request, USEI included a safety 

assessment of the shipment from the 

Toronto property to the USEI disposal 

facility in Idaho and the resulting 

potential doses to members of the public 

during transport and disposal. 

As a matter of policy, the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews 

the safety implications of disposing of 

unimportant quantities of material at 

sites other than Atomic Energy Actlicensed disposal facilities. USEI is 

permitted by the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) to 

operate a Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C facility 

located near Grand View, Idaho and is 

not an NRC licensee. Consistent with 

Commission policy (Federal Register: 

August 28, 2002 [Volume 67, Number 

167], Proposed Rules, Pages 55175– 

55179) such a request for transfer would 

normally be approved if the dose to a 

member of the public is unlikely to 

exceed 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr). 

3.0 Discussion 

USEI supplied information on the 

source term of the waste and a proposed 

scenario to evaluate different possible 

exposures for members of the public. 

These scenarios include dose to the 

transportation workers, USEI workers, 

and post-closure dose to the general 

public. The State of Idaho RCRA permit 

allows the disposal of exempted 

radioactive material including uranium 

as either naturally occurring radioactive 

material or unimportant quantities of 

source material provided they meet the 

requirements outlined in 10 CFR 

40.13(a) and can demonstrate that no 

individual would receive a dose in 

excess of 0.15 mSv/yr (15 mrem/yr) for 

a period of 100 years after closure of the 

facility. 

Based on sampling results provided, 

the NRC confirmed that this waste 

material qualifies as ‘‘unimportant 

quantities of source material’’ (i.e., 

containing less than 0.05 weight percent 

of source material) under 10 CFR 

40.13(a). As indicated in the Safety 

Evaluation Report (ML092380115), the 

staff verified that the expected dose to 

a member of the public due to transfer 

and disposal of the Toronto waste will 

be well below 25 mrem/yr. 

4.0 Conclusion 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

110.10(a), an exemption from the 

requirements of 10 CFR 110.27 is 

authorized by law, will not present an 

undue risk to the public health and 

safety, and is consistent with the 

common defense and security. 

Therefore, the Commission hereby 

grants USEI an exemption from the 

requirement of 10 CFR 110.27 for a 

specific license to import the 

approximately 2,500 cubic meters of 

contaminated soil. 

This exemption is effective upon 

issuance. 

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Dated this 9th day of September 2009 at 

Rockville, Maryland. 

Scott W. Moore, 

Deputy Director, Office of International 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–22559 Filed 9–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0294] 

Notice of Issuance of Regulatory Guide 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance and 

availability of Regulatory Guide 1.100, 

Revision 3. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Burke, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone (301) 251–7628 or email to John.Burke@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing a revision 

to an existing guide in the agency’s 

‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series 

was developed to describe and make 

available to the public information such 

as methods that are acceptable to the 

NRC staff for implementing specific 

parts of the agency’s regulations, 

techniques that the staff uses in 

evaluating specific problems or 

postulated accidents, and data that the 

staff needs in its review of applications 

for permits and licenses. 

Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.100, 

‘‘Seismic Qualification of Electrical and 

Active Mechanical Equipment and 

Functional Qualification of Active 

Mechanical Equipment for Nuclear 

Power Plants,’’ was issued with a 

temporary identification as Draft 

Regulatory Guide, DG–1175. This guide 

describes methods that the staff of the 

NRC considers acceptable for use in the 

seismic qualification of electrical and 

active mechanical equipment and the 

functional qualification of active 

mechanical equipment for nuclear 

power plants (NPPs). 

The general requirements for the 

seismic qualification of electrical and 

active mechanical equipment appear in 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, ‘‘Domestic 

Licensing of Production and Utilization 

Facilities,’’ and 10 CFR part 52, ‘‘Early 

Site Permits; Standard Design 

Certifications; and Combined Licenses 

for Nuclear Power Plants.’’ Particular 

sections include General Design 

Criterion (GDC) 1, ‘‘Quality Standards 

and Records’’; GDC 2, ‘‘Design Bases for 

Protection Against Natural 

Phenomena’’; and GDC 4, 

‘‘Environmental and Dynamic Effects 

Design Basis,’’ of Appendix A, ‘‘General 

Design Criteria for Nuclear Power 

Plants,’’ to 10 CFR part 50; Criterion III, 

‘‘Design Control’’; Criterion XI, ‘‘Test 

Control’’; and Criterion XVII, ‘‘Quality 

Assurance Records,’’ of Appendix B, 

‘‘Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear 

Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing 

Plants,’’ to 10 CFR part 50; and 

Appendix S, ‘‘Earthquake Engineering 

Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,’’ to 10 

CFR part 50. 

II. Further Information 

In May 2008, DG–1175 was published 

with a public comment period of 60 

days from the issuance of the guide. The 

public comment period closed on July 

11, 2008. The staff’s responses to the 

public comments are located in NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System under accession 

number ML091320489. Electronic 

copies of Regulatory Guide 1.100, 

Revision 3 are available through the 

NRC’s public Web site under 

‘‘Regulatory Guides’’ at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/. 

In addition, regulatory guides are 

available for inspection at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR) located at 

Room O–1F21, One White Flint North, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852–2738. The PDR’s 

mailing address is USNRC PDR, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. The PDR 

can also be reached by telephone at 

(301) 415–4737 or (800) 397–4209, by 

fax at (301) 415–3548, and by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES