Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices 10091

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the Osterhout

Free Library, Reference Department, 71

South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre,

Pennsylvania. If a request for a hearing

or petition for leave to intervene is filed

by the above date, the Commission or an

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,

designated by the Commission or by the

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the

request and/or petition; and the

Secretary or the designated Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of hearing or an appropriate

order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1-(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1-(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to John F.

Stolz: petitioner’s name and telephone

number; date petition was mailed; plant

name; and publication date and page

number of this Federal Register notice.

A copy of the petition should also be

sent to the Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and to Jay Silberg, Esquire, Shaw,

Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N

Street NW, Washington, DC 20037,

attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendments after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated February 11, 1997,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

the Osterhout Free Library, Reference

Department, 71 South Franklin Street,

Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stolz,

Director, Project Directorate I–2, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–5399 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 40–8681]

Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.; Final

Finding of No Significant Impact Notice

of Opportunity for Hearing

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) proposes to renew

NRC Source Material License SUA–1358

to authorize the licensee, Energy Fuels

Nuclear, Inc. (EFN), for continued

commercial operation of the White Mesa

uranium mill, located near Blanding,

Utah. An Environmental Assessment

was performed by the NRC staff in

accordance with the requirements of 10

CFR Part 51. The conclusion of the

Environmental Assessment is a Finding

of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the

proposed licensing action.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

James R. Park, Uranium Recovery

Branch, Mail Stop TWFN 7–J9, Division

of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555. Telephone

301/415–6699.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Source Material License SUA–1358

was originally issued by NRC on August

7, 1979, pursuant to Title 10, Code of

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 40,

Domestic Licensing of Source Material.

This license currently authorizes EFN to

(1) receive, acquire, possess, and

transfer uranium at the White Mesa

mill, (2) possess byproduct material in

the form of uranium waste tailings and

other uranium byproduct waste

generated by operations at the mill, and
10092 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices

(3) accept, for disposal, limited amounts

of byproduct material from in-situ leach

(ISL) uranium mining facilities. The

mill was operated on a continual basis

from May 1980 until February 1983, and

then intermittently from October 1985

to the present time. SUA–1358 was

renewed last in 1985.

Summary of the Environmental

Assessment

The NRC staff performed an appraisal

of the environmental impacts associated

with the continued operation of the

White Mesa mill, in accordance with 10

CFR Part 51, Licensing and Regulatory

Policy Procedures for Environmental

Protection. In conducting its appraisal,

the NRC staff considered the following:

(1) information contained in previous

environmental evaluations of the White

Mesa project; (2) information contained

in EFN’s license renewal application; (3)

information contained in EFN’s license

amendment requests submitted

subsequent to its renewal application,

and NRC staff approvals of such

requests; (4) land use and

environmental monitoring reports; and

(5) information derived from NRC staff

site visits and inspections of the White

Mesa mill site and from

communications with EFN and the State

of Utah Department of Environmental

Quality. The results of the staff’s

appraisal are documented in an

Environmental Assessment. The safety

aspects for the continued operation of

the mill are discussed in a Safety

Evaluation Report.

The license renewal would authorize

EFN to continue operating the White

Mesa mill, at a maximum production

rate of 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.

Additionally, EFN would continue to be

authorized, by license condition, to (1)

possess byproduct material in the form

of uranium waste tailings and other

uranium byproduct waste generated by

its milling operations authorized by the

renewal license, and (2) accept, for

disposal, limited amounts of byproduct

material from ISL uranium mining

facilities.

All conditions in the renewal license

and commitments presented in the

licensee’s license renewal application

are subject to NRC inspection. Violation

of the license may result in enforcement

action.

Conclusions

The NRC staff has reexamined actual

and potential environmental impacts

associated with continued yellowcake

production at the mill site, and has

determined that renewal of the source

material license (1) will be consistent

with requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, (2)

will not be inimical to the public health

and safety, and (3) will not have longterm detrimental impacts on the

environment. The following statements

support the FONSI and summarize the

conclusions resulting from the staff’s

environmental assessment:

1. An acceptable environmental

sampling program is in place to monitor

effluent releases and to detect if

appropriate limits are exceeded;

2. The licensee has implemented an

intensive, routine inspection program of

the mill process building, associated

facilities, and tailings retention

impoundments, and conducts an annual

‘‘as low as is reasonable achievable’’

(ALARA) audit program;

3. Standard operating procedures are

in place for all operational process

activities involving radioactive

materials that are handled, processed, or

stored;

4. Mill tailings and process liquid

effluents from the mill circuit are

discharged to partially below-grade,

lined tailings impoundments, with leak

detection systems;

5. The licensee will implement an

acceptable groundwater detection

monitoring program to ensure

compliance with the requirements of 10

CFR Part 40, Appendix A;

6. The licensee will conduct site

decommissioning and reclamation

activities in accordance with NRCapproved plans; and

7. Because the staff has determined

that there will be no significant impacts

associated with approval of the license

renewal, there can be no

disproportionately high and adverse

effects or impacts on minority and lowincome populations. Consequently,

further evaluation of ‘‘Environmental

Justice’’ concerns, as outlined in

Executive Order 12898 and NRC’s Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards Policy and Procedures Letter

1–50, Rev.1, is not warranted.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

The proposed action is to renew NRC

Source Material License SUA–1358, for

continued operation of the White Mesa

mill, as requested by EFN. Therefore,

the principal alternatives available to

NRC are to:

(1) Renew the license with such

conditions as are considered necessary

or appropriate to protect public health

and safety and the environment; or

(2) Deny renewal of the license.

Based on its review, the NRC staff has

concluded that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action; therefore, any

alternatives with equal or greater

environmental impacts need not be

evaluated. Since the environmental

impacts of the proposed action and the

no-action alternative (i.e., denial of the

renewal) are similar, there is no need to

further evaluate alternatives to the

proposed action.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The NRC staff has prepared an

Environmental Assessment for the

proposed renewal of NRC Source

Material License SUA–1358. On the

basis of this assessment, the NRC staff

has concluded that the environmental

impacts that may result from the

proposed action would not be

significant, and therefore, preparation of

an Environmental Impact Statement is

not warranted.

The Environmental Assessment and

other documents related to this

proposed action are available for public

inspection and copying at the NRC

Public Document Room, in the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street N.W.,

Washington, DC 20555.

Notice of Opportunity for Hearing

The Commission hereby provides

notice that this is a proceeding on an

application for a licensing action falling

within the scope of Subpart L, ‘‘Informal

Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials Licensing Proceedings, of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings in 10

CFR Part 2’’ (54 FR 8269). Pursuant to

§ 2.1205(a), any person whose interest

may be affected by this proceeding may

file a request for a hearing. In

accordance with § 2.1205(c), a request

for a hearing must be filed within thirty

(30) days from the date of publication of

this Federal Register notice. The request

for a hearing must be filed with the

Office of the Secretary either:

(1) By delivery to the Docketing and

Service Branch of the Office of the

Secretary at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD

20852; or

(2) By mail or telegram addressed to

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

Attention: Docketing and Service

Branch.

Each request for a hearing must also

be served, by delivering it personally or

by mail to:

(1) The applicant, Energy Fuels

Nuclear, Inc., 1515 Arapahoe Street,

Suite 900, Denver, CO 80202;

(2) The NRC staff, by delivery to the

Executive Director of 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices 10093

In addition to meeting other

applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part

2 of the Commission’s regulations, a

request for a hearing filed by a person

other than an applicant must describe in

detail:

(1) The interest of the requestor 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 § 2.1205(g);

(3) the requestor’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 § 2.1205(c).

Any hearing that is requested and

granted will be held in accordance with

the Commission’s Informal Hearing

Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials Licensing Proceedings in 10

CFR Part 2, Subpart L.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Joseph J. Holonich,

Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division

of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–5388 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Licenses SMB–179 and SUB–1452—

Dockets 40–672 and 40–8866]

Nuclear Metals, Inc.—Concord,

Massachusetts: Renewal of Source

Material Licenses; Finding of No

Significant Impact and Notice of

Opportunity for a Hearing (NUREG/CR–

6528)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is considering the renewal

of Source Material Licenses SMB–179

and SUB–1452 for the continued

operation of Nuclear Metals, Inc. (NMI),

located in Concord, Massachusetts.

Summary of the Environmental

Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is the renewal of

NMI’s Source Material Licenses SMB–

179 and SUB–1452 for at least 5 years.

With these renewals, the NMI facility

will continue to conduct ongoing

operations including the development

and manufacture of castings, extrusions,

machined parts, and metal powders

comprised of depleted uranium and

natural uranium metal. The proposed

action would permit NMI to possess,

under License SMB–179, natural

uranium metal, alloy, or oxide; depleted

uranium metal, alloy, oxide, or fluoride;

natural thorium metal, alloy, or oxide;

and depleted uranium slab. The

licensed uranium may be an element of

any compound except uranium

hexafluoride (UF6). The proposed action

would also permit NMI to possess,

under License SUB–1452, depleted

uranium as contamination in sand;

depleted uranium as contamination on

metallic components, packaging

materials or equipment, or as waste

solids; and natural thorium as

contamination on metallic components,

packaging materials or equipment, or as

waste solids.

Prior to September 1985, liquid and

sludge wastes from the processes were

stabilized and emptied into an unlined

holding basin and adjacent bog located

on site property. The holding basin was

covered by a special membrane in 1986

to reduce infiltration of rain water and

discharge of contaminants to surface

and ground waters. Remediation of the

holding basin and contaminated

groundwater is being planned as a

separate decommissioning action;

therefore, this action and subsequent

environmental impacts are outside the

scope of this EA.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The action is to determine if the

licenses should be renewed or denied.

NMI manufactures products composed

of depleted uranium and natural

uranium that have military, aerospace,

industrial, and medical applications.

Depleted uranium metal is processed to

form armor penetrators, aircraft

counterweights and radiation shielding

devices. Denial of the license renewals

for NMI is an alternative available to

NRC, but since approximately half of

the U.S. demand for these products is

being met by operations at NMI

facilities, denying the licenses would

not be in the nation’s best interest.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

Both radiological and nonradiological

atmospheric emissions occur and were

assessed during normal (incident-free)

operations at NMI. The radiological

impacts of the continued operation of

the NMI facility were assessed using

atmospheric dispersion modeling to

estimate ambient annual dose to the

public resulting from emissions at the

NMI facility. To assess the impact of

uranium emissions on atmospheric

resources, the COMPLY computer code

was used to determine the maximum

annual dose equivalent received from

uranium concentrations in the ambient

air (at or beyond the site boundary).

These estimated annual doses were

compared to NRC requirements and

EPA standards to gauge impacts to

public health and safety.

Ambient air concentrations (at or

beyond the site boundary) resulting

from the primary sources of

nonradiological air emissions were

estimated using the Industrial Source

Complex—Version 2 (ISC2) air

dispersion model (EPA 1992a). Total

predicted concentrations were

compared to the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) in order to

gauge impacts on air quality.

Doses From Routine Airborne Releases

Small amounts of uranium are

emitted from 33 stacks at NMI. The

town of Concord permits depleted

uranium emissions of up to 280 μCi per

calendar quarter for operations

associated with License Nos. SMB–179

and SUB–1452. NRC’s regulations (10

CFR 20.1301) require licensees to limit

doses to members of the public to

100mrem per year. Emission rates of

depleted uranium in 1994 were less

than 60 percent of the 280 μCi per

calendar quarter limit. For the

modeling, annual emissions were

assumed to be at maximum permitted

levels (i.e., 1,120 μCi/y as by the town

of Concord). The assumptions are

conservative in that they result in higher

predicted doses than are expected to

occur. The maximum annual committed

effective dose equivalent predicted was

2.5 mrem. This dose was estimated to

occur to a person located 150 m (492 ft)

from the nearest building. This is about

one-half the distance to the nearest

resident. Therefore, 150 m (492 ft) is

considered a sufficiently conservative

distance to form an upper bound of

doses that could be received by the

public annually. The predicted annual

dose is 2.5 percent of the NRC limit.

The primary sources of

nonradiological air emissions at NMI are

two boilers, which burn #4 fuel oil, and

which emit the following criteria

pollutants: SO2, NO2, PM–10, and CO.

Short-term emission rates, calculated

using the maximum monthly fuel usage

rates, were used in ISC2 for periods of

24 hr or less. Long-term emission rates,

calculated using the maximum annual

fuel usage rates, were used in ISC2 for

the annual time period. Both site

specific data and conservative

assumptions were used in the modeling

analysis. Total predicted concentrations

were compared to the NAAQS in order

to gauge impacts on air quality. The

results of the analysis show that

maximum 3-hr and 24-hr average SO2

concentrations are about twice their

respective NAAQS. For all other criteria