49538 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Notices

address in Section VI below, prior to

engaging in NRC-licensed activities,

including activities under an Agreement

State license when activities under that

license are conducted in areas of NRC

jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20.

This notice shall include the name,

address, and telephone number of the

NRC or Agreement State licensee and

the location where licensed activities

will be performed; and shall include a

statement as to why the NRC should

have confidence that Dr. Elamir will

not, in the future, commit deliberate

violations of Commission requirements.

The Director, Office of Enforcement,

may, in writing, relax or rescind any of

the above conditions upon

demonstration by the licensee of good

cause.

VI

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Dr.

Elamir must, and any other person

adversely affected by this Order may,

submit an answer to this Order and may

request a hearing on this Order, within

20 days of the date of this Order. Where

good cause is shown, consideration will

be given to extending the time to request

a hearing. A request for extension of

time must be made in writing to the

Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555, and include a

statement of good cause for the

extension. The answer may consent to

this Order. Unless the answer consents

to this Order, the answer shall, in

writing and under oath or affirmation,

specifically admit or deny each

allegation or charge made in this Order

and shall set forth the matters of fact

and law on which Dr. Elamir or other

person adversely affected relies and the

reasons as to why the Order should not

have been issued. Any answer or

request for a hearing shall be submitted

to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Attn: Chief,

Rulemaking and Adjudications,

Washington, DC 20555. Copies also

shall be sent to the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to

the Assistant General Counsel for

Hearings and Enforcement at the same

address, to the Regional Administrator,

NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King

of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, and to

Dr. Elamir if the answer or hearing

request is by a person other than Dr.

Elamir. If a person other than Dr. Elamir

requests a hearing, that person shall set

forth with particularity the manner in

which his or her interest is adversely

affected by this Order and shall address

the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).

If a hearing is requested by Dr. Elamir

or a person whose interest is adversely

affected, the Commission will issue an

Order designating the time and place of

any hearing. If a hearing is held, the

issue to be considered at such hearing

shall be whether this Order should be

sustained.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Dr.

Elamir may, in addition to demanding a

hearing, at the time the answer is filed

or sooner, move the presiding officer to

set aside the immediate effectiveness of

the Order on the ground that the Order,

including the need for immediate

effectiveness, is not based on adequate

evidence but on mere suspicion,

unfounded allegations, or error.

In the absence of any request for

hearing, or written approval of an

extension of time in which to request a

hearing, the provisions specified in

Section IV above shall be final 20 days

from the date of this Order without

further order or proceedings. If an

extension of time for requesting a

hearing has been approved, the

provisions specified in Section IV shall

be final when the extension expires if a

hearing request has not been received.

An answer or a request for hearing shall

not stay the immediate effectiveness of

this order.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ashok C. Thadani,

Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory

Effectiveness.

[FR Doc. 97–25080 Filed 9–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket 40–7102]

Finding of No Significant Impact for

the Renewal of Source Material,

License SMB–743, Shieldalloy

Metallurgical Corporation, Newfield,

New Jersey

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is considering the renewal

of the Source Material License SMB–743

for the continued operation of

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation

(SMC), located in Newfield, New Jersey

Summary of the Environmental

Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is the renewal of

SMC’s Source Material License SMB–

743 for 5 years. With this renewal, the

SMC facility will continue to produce

specialty alloys, slag fluidizers, and

other products. The proposed action

would permit SMC to possess up to

1,200,000 kilograms (kg) of thorium–232

and 180,000 kg of uranium–238, as

requested in SMC’s September 15, 1995,

renewal application. As part of the

proposed action, SMC would also

continue to add radioactive materials to

the temporary stockpiles of slag and

baghouse dust currently stored at the

site until a final disposition is approved

by the commission. Although the

continued storage of this material is

evaluated as part of the environmental

assessment (EA), the evaluation of

environmental impacts from a final

disposition method is outside the scope

of this EA and will be addressed in a

separate environmental action.

The Need for the Proposed Action

SMC performs a service for the

commercial steel industry by producing

speciality alloys, slag fluidizers, and

other products. SMC is one of two

domestic producers of ferrocolumbium

(ferroniobium alloy), its main product

from the licensed activities;

ferrocolumbium is readily available

from foreign producers, such as Brazil

and, recently, the Confederation of

Independent States (formerly the Soviet

Union) and Canada. The element

niobium can increase the strength of

steel by more than 5,000 pounds per

square inch (psi) with only a small

addition of niobium (approximately

0.01 percent), thus allowing lighter

weight alloys. Denial of the license

renewal for the SMC facility is an

alternative available to NRC, but would

either require the construction of a new

facility at another site or a possible

dependence upon foreign imports of

ferrocolumbium.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The radiological impacts of the

continued operation of the SMC facility

were assessed by calculating the

radiation doses to the maximally

exposed individual located at the

facility fence line and the collective

radiation dose to the local population

living within 80 kilometers (50 miles0

of the plant site. The primary exposure

pathway is release and transport of

radioactive effluents to the air.

Doses From Routine Airborne Releases

SMC operates their process using two

baghouses to filter airborne material: the

Flex Kleen (FK) Baghouse and the

American Air Filter (AAF) Baghouse.

Atmospheric releases were determined

from the two D–111 Baghouse stacks.

Other potential release points including

stored dust and slag piles were also
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Notices 49539

considered, but off-site doses from these

release points were found to be

negligible.

SMC submitted March 1996

measurement data from stack emissions

showing doses less than 1 millirem

(mrem) per year at the fence line under

nominal conditions. Conservative

estimates of the expected effluent

release rates were calculated by the NRC

staff using assumptions, including the

following: (1) the use of conservative

values for the efficiencies of baghouse

filters based upon the possibility of

undetected filter bag breakages and (2)

a ground-level release point for both

baghouses. The radiation doses resulting

from atmospheric releases were

estimated using the CAP88–PC (Clean

Air Assessment Package 1988) Version

1.0 computer code. The maximally

exposed individual was located at the

fence line, which was 250 meters (820)

feet) south of the SMC facility. The

Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE)

to the nearest resident is estimated to be

less than 9 mrem per year from all

pathways. Inhalation intakes accounted

for greater than 85 percent of the total

radiation dose. Thorium-232 was the

dominant dose contributor, accounting

for about 30 percent of the total dose

This estimated radiation dose is less

than the 100 mrem per year limit

established by NRC in 10 CFR 20.1301

and the 10 millirem per year dose

constraint for air emissions in 10 CFR

20.1101.

The population within 80 km (50

miles) of SMC’s facility is about

6,766,961 people, based on 1994 census

data. The collective dose to the

surrounding population is expected to

be less than 7 person-rem per year.

Based on an average background

radiation dose of about 0.3 rem per year

for individuals in the U.S. from natural

sources, the same population would

receive about 2,00,000 person-rem per

year from background radiation. Thus,

the collective radiation dose associated

with atmospheric releases from the

SMC’s facility is a small percentage of

the collective radiation dose from

natural background radiation for these

same people.

Accident Evaluation

In the EA, NRC staff evaluated one

accident as the bounding accident: the

release of dust from a baghouse or silo.

This accident assumed that 10,000 kg of

dust were released from structural

failure of a baghouse. Calculated release

fractions were 4 to 5×10 ¥3. Other

accidents were determined to be within

the bounds of this accident because both

quantities and form of the material

made larger dispersions unlikely. This

bounding accident was calculated as a

result in an exposure of less than 6

mrem TEDE to the nearest resident. The

expected population dose from this

accident would be no greater than 0.9

person-rem.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

Discussions were held with

representatives from the State of New

Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection and the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency at various times

throughout the preparation of the EA.

NRC consulted SMC representatives in

preparing this document.

Conclusion

On the basis of this Environmental

Assessment, NRC has concluded that

the environmental impacts from the

proposed action would not be

significant.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The NRC has prepared an EA related

to the renewal of Source Material

License SMB–743. On the basis of the

assessment, the NRC has concluded that

environmental impacts that would be

created by the proposed action would

not be significant and do not warrant

the preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement. Accordingly, NRC

has determined that a Finding of No

Significant Impact is appropriate.

The EA, the license renewal

application dated September 15, 1995,

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. Anyone with

questions or comments about this

proposed action should contact Ms.

Heather Astwood, NRC’s Project

Manager for the facility, at Mail Stop T–

8D–14, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

20555 or in (301) 415–5819.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day

of September, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michael F. Weber,

Chief, Licensing Branch, Division of Fuel

Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–25078 Filed 9–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–321 and 50–366]

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1

and 2; Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations with respect to Facility

Operating Licenses DPR–57 and NPF–5

issued to Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Inc., et al. (Southern Nuclear,

or the licensee) for operation of the

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1

and 2, located in Appling County,

Georgia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application dated

July 2, 1997, for exemption from certain

requirements of 10 CFR 73.55,

‘‘Requirements for Physical Protection

of Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power

Reactors Against Radiological

Sabotage.’’ The exemption would allow

photo identification badges to be taken

offsite by individuals not employed by

the licensee who have been granted

unescorted access into protected and

vital areas, in light of the

implementation of a hand geometry

biometrics system to control site access

at Hatch.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55, paragraph

(a), Southern Nuclear shall establish and

maintain an onsite physical protection

system and security organization.

Regulation 10 CFR 73.55(d), ‘‘Access

Requirements,’’ paragraph (1), specifies

that the ‘‘licensee shall control all

points of personnel and vehicle access

into a protected area.’’ Regulation 10

CFR 73.55(d)(5) specifies that, ‘‘A

numbered picture badge identification

system shall be used for all individuals

who are authorized access to protected

areas without escort.’’ Section

73.55(d)(5) also states that an individual

not employed by the licensee (i.e.,

contractors) may be authorized access to

protected areas without escort provided

the individual, ‘‘receives a picture badge

upon entrance into the protected area

which must be returned upon exit from

the protected area....’’ Currently,

unescorted access into protected areas at

the Hatch plant is controlled through

the use of a photograph on a badge/

keycard (hereafter referred to as a

‘‘badge’’), which is stored at the access