Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Notices 41105

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[70–1257]

Consideration of License Amendment

Request for the Siemens Power

Corporation, and Opportunity for

Hearing

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability of

environmental assessment and finding

of no significant impact and opportunity

to request a hearing on amendment of

materials license SNM–1227, Siemens

Power Corporation.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is considering the

amendment of Special Nuclear Material

License SNM–1227 to authorize

constructing, installing, and operating

an addition to the Ammonia Recovery

Facility at the Siemens Power

Corporation facility located in Richland,

WA.

Environmental Assessment

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) staff has evaluated the

environmental impacts of Siemens

Power Corporation (SPC) constructing,

installing and operating an addition to

their Ammonia Recovery Facility (ARF).

This Environmental Assessment (EA)

has been prepared pursuant to the

Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–

1508) and NRC regulations (10 CFR part

51) which implement the requirements

of the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) of 1969. The purpose of this

document is to assess the environmental

consequences of the proposed license

amendment.

The SPC facility at Richland,

Washington, is authorized under SNM–

1227 and Washington State Materials

License No. WN–1062–1 to possess

nuclear materials for the conversion of

uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to uranium

dioxide (UO2), and to fabricate and

assemble nuclear fuel assemblies for

light-water reactors. The SPC operation

uses a dry conversion process to convert

UF6 to UO2 powder. The UO2 powder is

pressed into pellets, which are sintered

and then loaded into fuel rods. The fuel

rods are placed into storage and are

withdrawn as needed and fabricated

into fuel assemblies.

Siemens has six lagoons that contain

process waste solutions and sediment

from past and current manufacturing

operations. Under the terms of a consent

decree with the State of Washington

Department of Ecology (WDOE), the

lagoons will be emptied,

decommissioned and removed by the

year 2006. To meet this requirement and

phase out the lagoons, SPC will install

new wastewater treatment equipment

into a new containment building

attached to the existing ARF Building.

The new equipment includes four tanks

and an ion exchange column.

The addition will be of the same

construction as the ARF Building; i.e., a

pre-engineered metal structure on a

concrete pad. The floor of the addition

will be three feet below grade to provide

sealed spill containment (1 1⁄2 times the

capacity of the largest tank). Three of

the four tanks and the ion exchange

column will be located inside the

building and the fourth tank will be

located outside the addition on a

concrete pad under an awning.

Tank 1 will be a 5000 gallon tank

which will hold the ion exchange

regeneration solution, which will

eliminate this material from entering

Lagoon 3. Tank 2 will be a 7000 gallon

tank which will replace Lagoon 2. Tank

2 will receive the low U, high ammonia

effluent from the ammonium diuranate

line and will be the feed to the ARF

process. Tank 5A will be a 12,000 gallon

tank to replace Lagoon 5A. It will

receive treated effluent from the ARF as

well as low-U, low ammonia effluents

from other processes. Tank 5A will feed

the ion exchange columns whose output

feeds the sewer. The carbonate makeup

tank will be located under an awning

outside the ARF. This tank will replace

Lagoon 4 by holding the carbonate

solution used to regenerate the ion

exchange columns. The second ion

exchange column will be added so that

while one column is being regenerated,

the ion exchange operation can

continue.

1.2 Review Scope

In accordance with 10 CFR part 51,

this EA serves to (1) present information

and analysis for determining whether to

issue a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI) or to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS); (2) fulfill the

NRC’s compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when

no EIS is necessary; and (3) facilitate

preparation of an EIS if one is necessary.

Should the NRC issue a FONSI, no EIS

would be prepared and the license

amendment would be granted.

1.3 Proposed Action

The proposed action is to amend NRC

Materials License SNM–1227 to

authorize installation and operation of

the new equipment in the Ammonia

Recovery Facility.

1.4 Need for Proposed Action

Under the terms of the consent decree

with the State of Washington, SPC will

empty, decommission, and remove their

six lagoons by the year 2006. To meet

this requirement, SPC will install new

wastewater treatment equipment into a

new containment building attached to

the existing ARF Building. The new

equipment will include two new waste

tanks, two tanks for the regeneration of

existing final ion exchange columns,

and a new ion exchange column. The

new waste tanks will replace the

lagoons, thereby eliminating the

concern of any possible leaks or

emissions to the environment from the

lagoons.

1.5 Alternatives

The alternatives available to the NRC

are:

1. Approve the license amendment

request as submitted; or

2. Deny the amendment request.

2.0 Affected Environment

The following sections contain a

summary of the affected environment at

and near the SPC site. A full description

of the site and its characteristics is given

in the 1995 Environmental Assessment

for the Renewal of the NRC license for

SPC.

2.1 Location and Land Use

The Siemens Power Corporation

(SPC) facility is located on a 131-hectare

site just inside the northern boundary of

the City of Richland in Benton County,

Washington. The site consists of 36

buildings plus various outside facilities.

The uranium handling and processing

facilities are located within a restricted

21.5-hectare area. The facility is located

within a 2,470-hectare land parcel

known as the Horn Rapids Triangle,

which was part of the U.S. Department

of Energy’s (DOE) Hanford Site until

1967 when it was annexed to the City

of Richland. The Horn Rapids Triangle

is bounded to the north by Horn Rapids

Road, to the south by the Horn Rapids

Irrigation Ditch, to the east by the

DOE1100 Area, and on the southeast by

the Port of Benton Skypark and

Richland Airport. Most developed land

within a 16 kilometer radius of the site

is used for agriculture, light industry, or

residences.

2.2 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

The site region is characterized as a

semi-arid desert of generally flat terrain

except for wind formed ridges from 1.5

to 9 meters high. The site is located

41106 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Notices

between the Columbia and Yakima

Rivers at an elevation of 114 meters

above mean sea level (MSL). At their

closest points, the nominal elevations of

the Columbia and Yakima Rivers are

approximately 107 and 113 meters

above mean sea level, respectively.

Basalt flows more than 3,000 meters

thick underlie the Pasco basin.

Unconsolidated silts, sands, and gravels

of the Ringold and Hanford Formations,

totaling tens to hundreds of feet in

thickness, overlie the basalts. The depth

to basalt below the SPC site has not

been determined.

The distribution and intensity of

historical earthquakes indicate that the

Columbia Plateau is an area of moderate

seismicity. Seismic activity above

magnitude 3.0 on the Richter scale has

occurred in this region, but activity

above magnitude 3.5 is most commonly

found around the northern and western

portions of the Columbia Plateau, with

a few events occurring along the border

between Washington and Oregon.

2.3 Water Resources

Surface Water: Primary surface water

features associated with the SPC site are

the Columbia and Yakima rivers. The

confluence of the Yakima and Columbia

rivers is located about 5 kilometers

south of Richland and about 8

kilometers south of the SPC site. The

Columbia River in the vicinity of the

site is classified as Class A (excellent)

which requires that industrial uses of

this water be compatible with other uses

including drinking water, wildlife, and

recreation. The water is used for

irrigation, power generation, municipal

water supplies, transportation, fishing,

and water sports. The primary source

for water in Richland and at the SPC site

is from the Columbia River. There is no

storm water runoff from the facility to

water bodies, rivers, streams or the

municipal sewer system. Surface water

runoff from the plant is very limited

because of the desert environment and

percolation into the soil.

Ground Water: There are three

distinct aquifer systems that underlie

the SPC site. The deepest aquifer

consists of highly productive waterbearing zones within thick basalt flows.

A confined aquifer occurs in silt, gravel

and sand layers in the lower portion of

the Ringold Formation which overlies

the basalt. An unconfined aquifer

system, consisting of the sands and

gravels in the Hanford Formation and in

the upper portion of the Ringold

Formation, is the shallowest aquifer and

the one that is monitored by the SPC

site.

2.4 Meteorology and Air Quality

The SPC site region has a dry,

continental climate with large

temperature variations between winter

and summer caused by mountain ranges

to the west and the orientation of the

Rocky Mountains. The prevailing wind

on the site is from the southwest. Severe

weather in the area consists of wind,

thunderstorms, and occasionally a

tornado.

Air quality at the site is good—within

the air quality standards set by EPA and

the State of Washington.

3.0 Effluent Releases and Monitoring

3.1 Monitoring Program

Monitoring programs at the SPC

facility comprise effluent monitoring of

air and water and environmental

monitoring of various media (air, soil,

vegetation, and groundwater). This

program provides a basis for evaluation

of public health and safety impacts, for

establishing compliance with

environmental regulations, and for

development of mitigation measures if

necessary. The proposed activities will

be monitored using current monitoring

equipment located in the ARF. The

tanks will be equipped with alarmed,

electronic level detectors and alarmed

leak detectors. No near-term changes are

planned in the effluent and/or

environmental monitoring programs

currently committed to in License

SNM–1227. Effluents from the new

tanks will enter the sewer and will

continue to be subject to the same NRC

and State of Washington radiological

and chemical release limits regardless of

whether the effluents are managed via

the lagoons or in tanks. In the long-term,

close-out of the lagoon system will

relieve SPC of its need to conduct interliner lagoon sampling and may also

decrease lagoon-related groundwater

monitoring requirements.

3.2 Effluents

Gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes are

produced at the SPC site. These wastes

are categorized as low-level radioactive,

nonradioactive, hazardous, or mixed

wastes. A description of each of these

waste categories, control strategies, and

an estimate of release quantities is

provided in the 1995 Environmental

Assessment for the Renewal of the NRC

license for SPC.

Each of the effluent streams is

monitored at or just prior to the point

of release. SPC has a set of action levels

for both gaseous and liquid effluent

streams. Results from the radiological

effluent monitoring program are

reviewed quarterly by the plant’s As

Low As Reasonably Achievable

(ALARA) Committee and reported

annually to the Siemens Health and

Safety Council to determine trends in

effluent releases; to determine if effluent

controls are being properly used,

maintained and inspected; and to

determine if effluents could be reduced

using the ALARA concept. Results from

the monitoring program are also

reported in the semiannual effluent

reports submitted to the NRC. Impacts

on effluent releases resulting from the

proposed activities are described below.

3.2.1 Solid Wastes

The amendment request is expected

to eventually decease the solid wastes

released from the site. The operation of

a closed tank system will generate fewer

solids wastes than operation of a large

open lagoon system due to the

generation of contaminated sediments

and soils in a lagoon system.

3.2.2 Air Effluents

The release of air effluents is expected

to increase minimally and remain

within applicable regulatory limits.

These additional effluents will be the

same composition as what is currently

emitted from the ARF. The ARF Feed

Collection tank is vented to the existing

ARF process feed tank to contain

ammonia fumes. The ion exchange feed

tank and the ion exchange regeneration

tank will be vented to the existing ARF

exhaust and stack for the control of low

level ammonia releases.

3.2.3 Liquid Effluents

The proposed activity is not expected

to impact the quantity or radioactivity of

liquid effluents released to the sewer.

Essentially the same waste streams will

be processed through low residence

time tanks as opposed to the longer

residence time lagoon system.

4.0 Environmental Impacts of

Proposed Action and Alternatives

4.1 Public and Occupational Health

The risk to human health was

evaluated as a result of construction,

installation, and operation of the new

equipment in the new containment

building. Personnel are expected to

enter the new containment building on

an as needed basis rather than working

there full time. The licensee’s existing

radiation protection and environmental

programs, as described in their license

application, will be used to control the

radiation exposures of the licensee’s

workers and the public. The licensee’s

existing radiation protection and

environmental programs include

training, protective clothing, air

sampling, surface contamination

surveys, bioassays, waste management,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Notices 41107

monitoring of effluents, environmental

monitoring, etc. In addition, the

programs include action levels and

actions to be taken to minimize the

radiation exposures of workers and the

public. Since the radioactive material

will be contained in tanks and will be

in low concentrations, the exposures to

workers and the public are expected to

result in no significant increase in

worker or public exposure. Thus, the

NRC staff has determined that the

licensee’s existing radiation protection

and environmental programs are

adequate for the new operations in the

new containment building.

4.2 Water Resources

The NRC staff has determined that the

proposed amendment will not impact

the quality of nearby surface waters.

The tanks will eliminate the concern

of any possible leaks or emissions to the

environment from the lagoons.

Contamination of groundwater is

expected to decrease as a result of the

phase-out of the lagoons. The tanks will

be double-contained and will be

monitored for leaks. The design of the

building provides for spill containment.

4.3 Air Quality

The construction, installation and

operation of the new equipment is

expected to have a minimal impact on

the air quality on and near the site.

Construction activities will be minimal

with no major soil disruption. No new

stack monitoring will be required

because the current monitoring system

will be used. The slight increase in air

effluents will remain within applicable

regulatory limits.

4.4 Demography, Biota, Cultural and

Historic Resources

The NRC staff has determined that the

proposed amendment will not impact

demography, biota, or cultural or

historic resources. The proposed

construction will occur on an area of the

site which has been previously

evaluated for these concerns and has

been previously impacted by actions at

the site (1996 EA).

4.5 Alternatives

The action that the NRC is

considering is approval of an

amendment request to a Materials

License issued pursuant to 10 CFR part

70. The amendment would approve the

construction, installation and operation

of new equipment in the ARF building.

The alternatives available to the NRC

are:

1. Approve the license amendment

request as submitted; or

2. Deny the amendment request.

Based on its review, the NRC staff has

concluded that the environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action do not warrant denial of the

license amendment. There are no

significant environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action,

and therefore alternatives with equal or

greater impacts need not be evaluated.

In addition, the approval of the

amendment request will decrease the

impacts to the groundwater as operation

of the tanks pose less of a threat of leaks

into the groundwater than operation of

lagoons. The staff considers that

Alternative 1 is the appropriate

alternative for selection.

5.0 Agencies and Persons Contacted

The NRC staff contacted

representatives from the State of

Washington Department of Health and

the State of Washington Department of

Ecology. The City of Richland,

Development and Permit Services

Division completed a State

Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)

Checklist and issued a Determination of

Nonsignificance dated June 11, 1999.

The conclusion of the review was that

the proposed activities would not have

a probable significant adverse impact on

the environment.

6.0 References

Siemens Power Corporation(SPC),

1999, Letter from J.B. Edgar to NRC

dated July 21, 1999.

SPC, 1999, Letter from J.B. Edgar to

NRC dated November 18, 1999.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC), June 1995, ‘‘Environmental

Assessment for Renewal of Special

Nuclear Material License SNM–1227.’’

7.0 Conclusions

Based on an evaluation of the

environmental impacts of the

amendment request, the NRC has

determined that the proper action is to

issue a FONSI in the Federal Register.

The NRC staff considered the

environmental consequences of

constructing, installing and operating

new equipment in the ARF building and

determined that these activities will

have no significant effect on public

health and safety or the environment.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The Commission has prepared an

Environmental Assessment related to

the amendment of Special Nuclear

Material License SNM–1227. On the

basis of the assessment, the Commission

has concluded that environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action would not be significant and do

not warrant the preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement.

Accordingly, the Commission is making

a Finding of No Significant Impact.

The Environmental Assessment and

the documents related to this proposed

action are available for public

inspection and copying at the

Commission’s Public Document Room

at the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street

NW., Washington, DC.

Opportunity for a Hearing

Based on the Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact, and a staff safety

evaluation to be completed, NRC is

preparing to amend License SNM–1227.

The NRC hereby provides that this is a

proceeding on an application for

amendment of a license falling within

the scope of subpart L, ‘‘Informal

Hearing Procedures for Adjudication in

Materials Licensing Proceedings,’’ of

NRC’s rules and practice for domestic

licensing proceedings in 10 CFR part 2.

Pursuant to section 2.1205(a), any

person whose interest may be affected

by this proceeding may file a request for

a hearing in accordance with section

2.1205(d). A request for a hearing must

be filed within thirty (30) days of the

date of publication of this Federal

Register notice.

A request for hearing or petition for

leave to intervene must be filed with the

Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission either:

1. By delivery to the Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff of the Secretary at

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–2738; or

2. By mail or telegram addressed to

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff.

In addition to meeting other

applicable requirements of 10 CFR part

2 of the NRC’s regulations, a request for

a hearing filed by a person other than

an applicant must describe in detail:

1. The interest of the requester in the

proceeding;

2. How that interest may be affected

by the results of the proceeding,

including the reasons why the requestor

should be permitted a hearing, with

particular reference to the factors set out

in section 2.1205(h).

3. The requester’s areas of concern

about the licensing activity that is the

subject matter of the proceeding; and

4. The circumstances establishing that

the request for a hearing is timely in

accordance with section 2.1205(d).

In accordance with 10 CFR Section

2.1205(f), each request for a hearing

must also be served, by delivering it

personally or by mail to:

41108 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Notices

1. The applicant, Siemens Power

Corporation, 2101 Horn Rapids Road,

Richland, WA 99352–0130; and

2. The NRC staff, by delivering it to

the Executive Director for Operations,

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail,

addressed to the Executive Director for

Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

The NRC contact for this licensing

action is Dan E. Martin. Dan E. Martin

may be contacted at (301) 415–7254 or

by e-mail at dem1@nrc.gov for more

information about this licensing action.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd

day of June 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Philip Ting,

Chief, Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch, Division

of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 00–16728 Filed 6–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 72–2]

Virginia Electric and Power Company;

Issuance of Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact Regarding the

Proposed Amendment To Revise

Technical Specifications of License

No. SNM–2501

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment,

pursuant to 10 CFR 72.56, to the Special

Nuclear Materials License No. 2501

(SNM–2501) held by Virginia Electric

and Power Company (Virginia Power)

for the Surry independent spent fuel

storage installation (ISFSI). The

requested amendment would revise the

Technical Specifications of SNM–2501

to specifically permit the continued

storage of burnable poison rod

assemblies (BPRA) and thimble plug

devices (TPD) within the CASTOR V/21,

NAC I28, and Westinghouse MC–10

casks used at the Surry ISFSI.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Identification of Proposed Action: By

letter dated April 5, 1999, as

supplemented on February 29, 2000,

Virginia Power requested an

amendment to revise the Technical

Specifications of SNM–2501 for the

Surry ISFSI. The changes would

specifically permit the continued

storage of BPRAs and/or TPDs within

the CASTOR V/21, NAC I28, and

Westinghouse MC–10 dry storage casks

used at the Surry ISFSI.

Need for the Proposed Action: The

proposed action will eliminate the need

to physically remove BPRAs and TPDs

from irradiated fuel assemblies in order

for dry cask storage to continue under

the present technical specifications of

the license.

Environmental Impacts of the

Proposed Action: The NRC has

completed its evaluation of the

proposed action and concludes that

granting the request for an amendment

to specifically allow the continued

storage of BPRAs and TPDs within the

CASTOR V/21, NAC I28, and

Westinghouse MC–10 casks used at the

Surry ISFSI will not increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents. No changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released off site. With regard to

radiological impacts, the addition of

irradiated BPRAs and TPDs only affects

the gamma source term of the cask. For

this amendment, Virginia Power’s

calculated increase in surface dose rate

resulting from the added BPRAs and

TPDs remains within the bounds of the

currently approved dose rate limit and,

consequently, results in no significant

increase in occupational or public

radiation exposure. Additionally, the

applicant made physical dose rate

measurements of casks currently loaded

with BPRAs and TPDs, and they are less

than the calculated dose rates. The

measured increase in the surface dose

rate remains within the bounds of the

currently approved dose rate limit.

Therefore, there are no significant

radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

The amendment only affects the

requirements associated with the

content of the casks and does not affect

non-radiological plant effluents or any

other aspects of the environment.

Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action:

The alternative to the proposed action

would be to deny the request for an

amendment (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’

alternative). Denial of the proposed

action would result in the need to

physically remove BPRAs and TPDs

from each fuel assembly possessing

them prior to continuing dry cask

storage. Physical removal of irradiated

BPRAs and TPDs would increase the

exposure time and dose to the plant

workers. In addition, it would require

disposal or storage of additional

radioactive material (i.e., BPRAs and

TPDs) that would otherwise be safely

stored if the BPRAs and TPDs are left

intact with their irradiated fuel

assembly. The environmental impacts of

the alternative action are greater than

the proposed action.

Given that there are greater

environmental impacts associated with

the alternative action of denying the

approval for an amendment, the

Commission concludes that the

preferred alternative is to grant this

amendment.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: On

September 27, 1999, Mr. Les Foldese of

the Virginia Department of Health,

Bureau of Radiological Health, was

contacted in regard to the proposed

action and had no concerns.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The environmental impacts of the

proposed action have been reviewed in

accordance with the requirements set

forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the

foregoing Environmental Assessment,

the Commission finds that the proposed

action of granting an amendment to

permit the continued storage of BPRAs

and TPDs within the CASTOR V/21,

NAC I28, and Westinghouse MC–10

casks used at the Surry ISFSI will not

significantly impact the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed exemption.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the amendment application

dated April 5, 1999, as supplemented on

February 29, 2000. In accordance with

10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC’s ‘‘Rules of

Practice,’’ a copy of this letter and its

enclosure will be available

electronically for public inspection in

the NRC Public Document Room or from

the Publicly Available Records (PARS)

component of NRC’s document system

(ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from

the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/

NRC/ADAMS/index.html (the Public

Electronic Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of June 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

E. William Brach,

Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 00–16730 Filed 6–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7890–01–P