Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Notices 1367 

application is made not later than seven 

days after the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Conference 

The Commission’s Director of 

Operations has scheduled a conference 

in connection with these investigations 

for 9:30 a.m. on January 18, 2008, at the 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. Parties wishing to 

participate in the conference should 

contact Christopher Cassise (202–708–

5408) not later than January 16, 2008, to 

arrange for their appearance. Parties in 

support of the imposition of 

antidumping duties in these 

investigations and parties in opposition 

to the imposition of such duties will 

each be collectively allocated one hour 

within which to make an oral 

presentation at the conference. A 

nonparty who has testimony that may 

aid the Commission’s deliberations may 

request permission to present a short 

statement at the conference. 

Written Submissions 

As provided in sections 201.8 and 

207.15 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person may submit to the Commission 

on or before January 24, 2008, a written 

brief containing information and 

arguments pertinent to the subject 

matter of the investigations. Parties may 

file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the conference 

no later than three days before the 

conference. If briefs or written 

testimony contain BPI, they must 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in 

II(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigations 

must be served on all other parties to 

the investigations (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: January 3, 2008. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–100 Filed 1–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 40–8964] 

Notice of Availability of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for the Addition of 

the SR–2 Satellite Facility To Power 

Resources, Inc’s Smith RanchHighlands Uranium Project, Converse 

County, WY 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Michalak, Decommissioning and 

Uranium Recovery Licensing 

Directorate, Division of Waste 

Management and Environmental 

Protection, Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415–7612; 

Fax number: (301) 415–5955; E-mail: 

pxm2@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

Power Resources, Inc. (PRI) currently 

holds Source Material License SUA–

1548 for the Smith Ranch-Highland 

Uranium Project (SR–HUP) site, located 

in Converse County, Wyoming. Source 

Material License SUA–1548 permits PRI 

to conduct In Situ Leach (ISL) uranium 

recovery operations at the SR–HUP site. 

As specified in Source Material License 

SUA–1548, License Condition 10.5.1 

requires the following: 

The licensee is prohibited from 

constructing new Satellite Facilities or waste 

water evaporation ponds prior to NRC review 

and approval of designs and specifications. 

By letter dated October 11, 2006, PRI 

submitted a request to construct ISL 

Satellite SR–2 (SR–2) at the SR–HUP 

site. In this proposed action, an ISL 

satellite facility is a structure (i.e., 

building and associated equipment) 

where the ion exchange portion of the 

ISL processing circuit is conducted. ISL 

Satellite SR–2 would service Mine Units 

9, 10, 11, and 12, located near the 

southwest corner of Smith Ranch. It is 

estimated that construction of SR–2 and 

associated access road would impact 

approximately 1.5 acres of land. 

The NRC staff has prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

support of its review of PRI’s request in 

accordance with the requirements of 10 

CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC 

has concluded that a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) is 

appropriate. 

II. EA Summary 

Background 

PRI’s SR–HUP is a commercial ISL 

uranium mining facility located in the 

South Powder River Basin, Converse 

County, Wyoming. The main office and 

Central Processing Plant complex is 

located at Smith Ranch, about 17 air 

miles (22 road miles) (27 air/35 road 

kilometers (km)) northeast of Glenrock, 

Wyoming, and 23 air miles (25 road 

miles) (37 air/40 road km) northwest of 

Douglas, Wyoming. NRC issued PRI’s 

current NRC license for the SR–HUP 

(Source Material License SUA–1548) on 

August 18, 2003, as part of a license 

renewal process. Commercial ISL 

uranium production began at the 

Highland site in January 1988, and at 

the Smith Ranch site in June 1997. 

PRI current operations at the SR–HUP 

include an ISL Central Processing Plant 

(CPP) and an ISL Satellite facility (SR–

1) at the Smith Ranch site and two ISL 

Satellite facilities (Satellite Nos. 2 and 

3) at the Highland site. 

Under SUA–1548, PRI is authorized, 

through its ISL process, to produce up 

to 5.5 million pounds (2.5 million 

kilograms) per year of tri-uranium 

octoxide (U3O8), also known as 

‘‘yellowcake.’’ PRI’s current annual 

production is less than half of this limit. 

Review Scope 

The NRC staff has reviewed PRI’s 

request in accordance with the NRC’s 

environmental protection regulations in 

10 CFR Part 51. Those regulations 

implement section 102(2) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended. The EA provides the 

results of the NRC staff’s environmental 

review. The NRC staff’s radiation safety 

review of PRI’s request will be 

documented separately in a Safety 

Evaluation Report. 

The NRC staff has prepared the EA in 

accordance with NRC requirements in 

10 CFR 51.21 and 51.30, and with the 

associated guidance in NRC report 

NUREG–1748, ‘‘Environmental Review 

Guidance for Licensing Actions 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
1368 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Notices 

Associated with Nuclear Material Safety 

and Safeguards Programs.’’ In 40 CFR 

1508.9, the Council on Environmental 

Quality defines an EA as a concise 

public document that briefly provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis for 

determining whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) or 

a FONSI. 

The NRC staff’s review addressed the 

environmental impacts of PRI’s 

currently-approved mining operations at 

the SR–HUP only insofar as such 

operations would be modified by the 

proposed addition of SR–2. 

Proposed Action 

PRI is proposing to construct and 

operate SR–2 at the SR–HUP site. 

Construction of SR–2 would entail the 

clearing of about 1.5 acres of land due 

to satellite building and access road 

construction. The SR–2 facility would 

be the source of the barren lixiviant 

pumped into the uranium ore zone and 

the recipient of the pregnant lixiviant 

recovered from Mine Units 9, 10, 11, 

and 12. Upon recovery from the 

subsurface, the pregnant lixiviant would 

be pumped to a series of IX columns 

located within SR–2, where uranium 

from the lixiviant would be extracted 

from the solution via adsorption onto 

the ion exchange (IX) resin in the 

columns. Following IX extraction of the 

uranium, the resin would be removed 

from the tanks and transported to the 

Smith Ranch CPP for further processing 

(i.e., elution, precipitation, drying into a 

U3O8 powder, and packing into 55- 

gallon drums). As part of supporting the 

ISL operation at future Mine Units 9, 10, 

11, and 12, activities at SR–2 would 

include lixiviant and waste water 

storage, ion exchange, resin transfer, 

reverse osmosis operations associated 

with ground water restoration, and deep 

well injection of production and 

restoration effluent wastes. Operation 

period for SR–2 and Mine Units 9, 10, 

11, and 12, is estimated to be 

approximately nine years. 

Purpose and Need for the Proposed 

Action 

Construction of a second satellite 

facility at the Smith Ranch site would 

enable PRI to conduct IX exchange 

activities in close proximity to future 

Mine Units 9, 10, 11, and 12, all of 

which are located in the southwest 

portion of Smith Ranch, approximately 

4.5 miles southwest of the closest 

processing facility (Smith Ranch CPP). 

This would also allow PRI to continue 

to meet the current and future needs of 

its customers for U3O8, a product that 

would eventually be used in fuel for 

commercially-operated nuclear power 

reactors. 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

No Action Alternative 

Under the ‘‘no action’’ alternative, PRI 

would continue to conduct ISL uranium 

recovery operations at existing satellite 

facilities within the permit boundary of 

the SR–HUP, but it would not be 

authorized to build and operate SR–2. 

Other Alternatives 

In the southern Powder River Basin, 

where the SR–HUP facility is located, 

uranium ore has been mined via open 

pits and underground mining in the 

past. This activity occurred from 1970 to 

1984 at the Exxon Highland facility, 

which is adjacent to the eastern edge of 

the SR–HUP permit area, and from the 

mid-1970s to 1986 at Union Pacific 

Resources’ Bear Creek site (now owned 

by Anadarko Petroleum), which is 

approximately 15 miles (24 km) 

northeast of the SR–HUP permit area. 

The environmental impacts associated 

with the recovery and processing of 

uranium ore obtained via open pit or 

underground mining are generally 

recognized as being considerably greater 

than those associated with ISL uranium 

recovery. Underground mining would 

produce ore that is crushed and ground 

in a conventional uranium mill. 

Uranium within the crushed material 

would be extracted through leaching. 

Conventional uranium mining and 

milling produces considerable volumes 

of waste (e.g., slag, mill tailings, etc.) 

which must be disposed. In the 

southern Powder River Basin, where the 

SR–HUP facility is located, uranium 

was historically mined via open pits 

and subsurface mine shafts during the 

1970s and 1980s. At SR–HUP, 

construction of the Bill Smith mine 

shaft was initiated in September 1972, 

and completed in early 1977. However, 

due to porous sands and heaving shale 

zones in the Fort Union formation, 

conventional subsurface mining was 

terminated in June 1978. Open pit 

uranium mining occurred from 1970 to 

1984 at the Exxon Highland facility, 

which is adjacent to the eastern edge of 

the SR–HUP permit area (approximately 

15 miles northeast of SR–2). Although 

the potential for future conventional 

mining exists, two factors make 

conventional mining in the vicinity of 

the SR–HUP unlikely: ISL operations 

are approximately two-to-three times 

more cost effective than open pit 

mining/conventional milling operations; 

and virtually all the South Powder River 

Basin uranium ore deposits are 

amenable to ISL development. 

Therefore, although both open pit and 

underground mining of uranium has 

occurred near SR–2, these alternatives 

were not considered further in this 

analysis. 

Environmental Impacts 

No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, PRI 

would not be authorized to operate a 

satellite ISL facility in the southwestern 

portion of SR–HUP. PRI would continue 

to operate its other satellite facilities 

within the SR–HUP permit area. The 

SR–2 area would remain open to its 

current uses: livestock grazing and 

wildlife use. 

Proposed Action 

The addition of SR–2 to the SR–HUP 

would add approximately 10 to 12 

employees to the SR–HUP work force. 

With such a small increase in the work 

force, socioeconomic impacts to local 

housing, schools, health and social 

services, transportation, and other 

support facilities are negligible. 

Additionally, given the remote rural 

location of SR–HUP, no impacts related 

to environmental justice issues were 

identified. 

The major potential environmental 

impacts associated with construction 

and operation of SR–2 include the 

disturbance of about 1.5 acres of land 

due to satellite building construction 

and operation and support road 

construction. 

The primary impact on land use will 

be the temporary loss (approximately 

nine years) of about 1.5 acres from 

livestock use. These effects will be 

limited, temporary, and reversible 

through returning the land to its former 

grazing use following completion of 

post-recovery surface reclamation. The 

temporary alteration of an 

approximately 1.5 acre area is not 

considered to constitute a significant 

adverse impact to either ecological 

systems or wildlife. 

To the extent possible, PRI will use 

existing access roads in the area; 

however, it is expected that, as part of 

the SR–2 construction, PRI will need to 

construct an access road and widen 

existing roads. Ephemeral drainages 

may be affected by this road 

construction, as well as by the 

construction of the SR–2 satellite 

building. When designing and 

constructing new roads, PRI will 

consider weather, elevation contours, 

land rights, cultural resources, and 

drainages. When constructing new 

roads, PRI will make efforts to cross 

ephemeral drainages or channels at right 

angles to enhance erosion protection 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Notices 1369 

measures. However, as it may not 

always be feasible or warranted to 

construct roads or crossings at right 

angles or along elevation contours, PRI 

will consider and implement erosion 

measures appropriate for the situation. 

Air quality will be impacted by the 

release of diesel emissions from 

construction equipment and from 

fugitive dust from construction 

activities and vehicle traffic. Diesel 

emissions would be minor and of short 

duration, and would be readily 

dispersed in the atmosphere. Fugitive 

dust generated from construction 

activity, as well as vehicle traffic on 

unpaved roads, would be localized and 

of short duration. Localized areas 

affected by site operations would be 

reclaimed, topsoiled, and re-seeded. 

Operation of SR–2 would involve the 

transportation of uranium-charged resin 

beads from the satellite facility to the 

Smith Ranch CPP, and the 

transportation of the stripped resin 

beads back to the satellite facility. 

Expected truck traffic between SR–2 and 

the Smith Ranch CPP would initially be 

about one truck a day, with a decrease 

in traffic, as the well fields are mined 

out. It is not expected that the 

additional traffic would result in an 

increased accident rate for the stretch of 

Ross Road between the SR–2 access 

road and the Smith Ranch CPP. 

However, in the case of an accident 

involving a shipment of uranium-loaded 

resin, the environmental impacts would 

be expected to be small. Overturning of 

a tanker truck carrying the loaded resin 

could result in the release of some resin 

and residual water. The resin beads, 

which would be deposited on the 

ground a short distance from the truck, 

would retain the uranium, absent a 

strong brine to strip the resin. PRI 

would collect the resin and any 

contaminated soils and dispose of them 

appropriately (e.g., in a licensed 

facility). All disturbed areas would then 

be reclaimed in accordance with the 

applicable NRC and State regulations. 

Airborne release of uranium would not 

occur since the uranium would remain 

fixed to the beads. 

The primary source of radiological 

impact to the environment from site 

operations is gaseous radon-222, which 

is released from the satellite facility and 

from the wellfields. In a worst case 

scenario that considered the cumulative 

radiological impacts for the entire SR–

HUP operation including SR–2, the two 

nearest SR–2 residents, Sunquest Ranch, 

and the Vollman Ranch, are estimated to 

receive a peak maximum yearly dose of 

17.5 and 13.2 mrem/yr, respectively. 

However, it is very unlikely that these 

peak doses would be reached due to the 

modeling methodology and input data 

conservatism. Additionally, the airborne 

sampling program at PRI has been used 

and would continue to be used to verify 

the off site dose to the nearest resident 

and the general population. NRC staff 

evaluated the model results and has 

determined that estimated dose to the 

nearest resident and members of the 

public meet the requirements of 10 CFR 

20.1301 (i.e., 100 mrem/yr). 

In terms of waste disposal, PRI is 

required, under License Condition 9.6 of 

SUA–1548, to dispose of 11e.(2) 

byproduct materials generated by 

project operations at a licensed 

byproduct waste disposal site. 

Currently, PRI disposes of its 

radioactively-contaminated solid wastes 

at Pathfinder Mines Corporation’s 

Shirley Basin uranium mill site in 

eastern Wyoming. PRI has submitted a 

Class I Underground Injection Well 

application with the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ) Underground Injection Control 

(UIC) Program for liquid waste disposal. 

Wastewater disposal associated with 

PRI’s SR–2 operations is not expected to 

affect local stock and domestic wells as 

these wells are completed in 

stratigraphic horizons far above the 

zones planned for wastewater disposal. 

Conclusion 

The NRC has reviewed the 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action in accordance with the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. The 

NRC staff has determined that the 

construction and operation of SR–2 

would not significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment. 

Therefore, an EIS is not warranted for 

the proposed action, and pursuant to 10 

CFR 51.31, a FONSI is appropriate. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

The NRC staff consulted with other 

Federal and State agencies regarding the 

proposed action. These consultations 

were intended to afford these agencies 

the opportunity to comment on the 

proposed action, and to ensure that the 

requirements of Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) and Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) were met 

with respect to the proposed action. 

The WDEQ administers and 

implements the State rules and 

regulations for ISL related activities. PRI 

possesses a current WDEQ mining 

permit for its commercial operations. By 

letter dated September 13, 2007, the 

NRC staff provided a draft copy of the 

SR–2 EA to the WDEQ for its review and 

comment. By correspondence dated 

November 29, 2007, the WDEQ 

indicated it had no comments on the EA 

(WDEQ 2007). 

By letter dated June 26, 2007, with 

follow-up correspondence on September 

19, 2007, NRC staff requested 

information from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie 

Region (USFWS/MPR) regarding 

endangered or threatened species or 

critical habitat in the SR–2 area. No 

response was received. In absence of a 

response, NRC staff identified a 

USFWS/MPR Web site (dated December 

2006) which listed, by county, 

endangered and threatened species in 

Wyoming. Utilizing the Converse 

County, Wyoming list, NRC staff has 

concluded that there are no endangered 

or threatened species, either plant or 

animal, nor is there critical habitat, in 

SR–2. 

Pursuant to the requirements of 

Section 106 of the NHPA, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Office (WSHPO). 

By letter dated June 14, 2007, the NRC 

staff requested information from the 

WSHPO regarding cultural and historic 

properties that may be affected by SR–

2. Further correspondence documenting 

Section 106 consultations was sent to 

WSHPO on December 4, 2007. By return 

letter dated December 12, 2007, the 

WSHPO provided its concurrence that 

no historic properties would be 

adversely affected by the proposed 

action. 

By letters dated July 20, 2007, the 

NRC staff initiated a Section 106 of the 

NHPA consultation with numerous 

Native American cultural and tribal/ 

business representatives located in 

Oklahoma, Wyoming, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Montana, and New 

Mexico. The consultation requested 

information regarding historical sites or 

cultural resources within the southwest 

area of SR–HUP (i.e., SR–2 and Mine 

Units 9, 10, 11, and 12), including any 

specific knowledge of any sites that are 

believed to have traditional religious 

and cultural significance. 

The NRC has received responses from 

two Native American tribes: Cheyenne 

River Sioux Tribe (dated August 20, 

2007) and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

(dated September 6, 2007). Following 

telephone calls to both parties, NRC 

staff forwarded supplemental 

information to the Cheyenne River 

Sioux Tribe (dated September 21, 2007) 

and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (dated 

October 3, 2007) indicating that the 

proposed action would not impact Class 

III Cultural Resource inventoried sites 

deemed eligible for inclusion to the 

NRHP. The supplemental information 

also included planned mitigation 

measures (i.e., buffer zones) to protect 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
1370 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Notices 

sensitive cultural resource sites. NRC 

staff has conducted multiple follow-up 

calls to both parties. No further 

comments have been received. 

III. Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the EA, the NRC staff 

has concluded that there are no 

significant environmental impacts from 

the addition of the SR–2 to the SR–HUP 

operational area for the purpose of 

conducting satellite IX processing of 

uranium-bearing solution. Therefore, 

the NRC staff has determined not to 

prepare an EIS. 

IV. Further Information 

Documents related to this action, 

including the application for 

amendment and supporting 

documentation, will be 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 

Document Access and Management 

System (ADAMS), which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. The ADAMS accession 

numbers for the documents related to 

this notice are: 

Document 

date Description ADAMS accession No. 

10/11/06 .................................................... PRI’s request to construct ISL Satellite SR–2 ............................................................. ML062930232 

12/28/07 .................................................... PRI’s supplemental information and responses to NRC staff request for additional 

information.

ML070100517 

7/30/07 ...................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ML072210887 

3/17/07 ...................................................... PRI’s supplemental information concerning determination of radiation dose from 

SR–HUP.

ML071380284 

4/16/07 ...................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ML071100064 

5/4/07 ........................................................ ....................................................................................................................................... ML071510592 

11/29/07 .................................................... WDEQ comments on pre-decisional draft EA ............................................................. ML073450518 

12/12/07 .................................................... WSHPO concurrence on NRC staff determination of no adverse affect .................... ML073540744 

12/26/07 .................................................... NRC staff final EA for addition of the ISL Satellite SR–2 ........................................... ML073460771 

If you do not have access to ADAMS or 

if there are problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–

415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

These documents may also be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

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

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day 

of December 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Keith I. McConnell, 

Deputy Director, Decommissioning and 

Uranium Recovery, Licensing Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. 

[FR Doc. E8–101 Filed 1–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No: 50–409] 

Dairyland Power Cooperative; La 

Crosse Boiling Water Reactor; 

Exemption 

1.0 Background 

Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) 

(the licensee) is the holder of Possession 

Only License No. DPR–45 for the La 

Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) 

in Genoa, Wisconsin. The license 

provides, among other things, that the 

facility is subject to all rules, 

regulations, and orders of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, 

the Commission) now or hereafter in 

effect. 

2.0 Request/Action 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), Part 74, Section 

74.19(b) requires, in part, a licensee 

authorized to possess special nuclear 

material (SNM) in a quantity exceeding 

one effective kilogram at any one time 

to establish, maintain, and follow 

written material control and accounting 

(MC&A) procedures that are sufficient to 

enable the licensee to account for the 

SNM in its possession under license. 

Regulations at 10 CFR 74.19(c) require, 

in part, a licensee authorized to possess 

SNM, at any one time and site location, 

in a quantity greater than 350 grams of 

contained uranium-235, uranium-233, 

or plutonium, or any combination 

thereof, to conduct a physical inventory 

of all SNM in its possession under 

license at intervals not to exceed 12 

months. 

On February 4, 1980, NRC issued a 

license amendment for LACBWR, 

approving an increase in the capacity of 

the spent fuel pool by using a vertical 

two-tier storage rack configuration. The 

two-tiered storage rack configuration 

does not allow observation of areas 

below occupied areas of the upper rack 

and does not allow observation of the 

areas below occupied areas of the lower 

rack, without fuel handling activities. 

Spent fuel pool loading was completed 

after LACBWR shutdown in 1987. 

Due to the physical layout of the 

spent fuel pool at LACBWR, fuel 

handling activities would need to occur 

in order for DPC to inventory all SNM 

in the LACBWR spent fuel pool. 

Historically, the licensee’s annual 

physical inventory of SNM in the spent 

fuel pool consisted of verifying that 

each fuel assembly that can be observed 

(without fuel handling activity) is in its 

historical location and that no SNM 

items have been moved or are missing. 

In March 2006, NRC staff conducted an 

inspection of the MC&A safeguards 

program at LACBWR, which included 

review of the MC&A procedures and the 

annual physical inventory required in 

10 CFR 74.19. The inspection resulted 

in a notice of violation related to the 

licensee’s MC&A procedures and annual 

physical inventory of SNM. 

In response to the notice of violation, 

DPC requested an exemption from 

certain inventory-related requirements 

of 10 CFR 74.19(b) and 10 CFR 74.19(c), 

in a letter dated July 26, 2006. The 

exemption would limit the handling of 

fuel assemblies, due to the associated 

risks (fuel handling accident, fuel 

assembly damage, further fuel rod 

segment displacement from existing 

damaged fuel assemblies), and result in 

decreased radiation doses to workers. 

DPC wishes to rely upon the historical 

MC&A record at LACBWR to provide 

positive means of verification in 

performance of annual physical 

inventory of SNM. The licensee would 

also continue to use security measures 

or controls to assure no unauthorized 

access or diversion of contents from the 

spent fuel pool. DPC has commenced 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES