34942 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

discuss the progress of the licensees’

corrective actions and the extent of

licensee management attention

regarding completion of Thermo-Lag

corrective actions. In addition, the NRC

staff discussed with licensees the

possibility of accelerating their

completion schedules.

The NRC staff met with the Licensees

for Davis-Besse on April 3, 1997. At this

meeting, the NRC staff reviewed the

schedule of Thermo-Lag corrective

actions described in the Licensees’

submittals to the NRC dated February

20, April 24, June 26, and November 5,

1996, as documented in the NRC

meeting summary dated April 16, 1997.

On the basis of the information

submitted by the Licensees (including

an additional letter dated September 10,

1997), the NRC staff has concluded that

the schedules presented are reasonable.

This conclusion is based on (1) the

amount of installed Thermo-Lag; (2) the

complexity of the plant-specific fire

barrier configurations and issues; and

(3) the need to perform certain plant

modifications during outages as

opposed to those that can be performed

while the plant is at power. In order to

remove compensatory measures such as

fire watches, it has been determined that

resolution of the Thermo-Lag corrective

actions by the Licensees must be

completed in accordance with their

current schedule. By letter dated May 4,

1998, the NRC staff notified the

Licensees of its plan to incorporate their

schedule commitment into a

requirement by issuance of an order and

requested consent from the Licensees.

By letter dated June 11, 1998, the

Licensees provided their consent to

issuance of a Confirmatory Order.

III

The Licensees’ commitment as set

forth in their letter of June 11, 1998, is

acceptable and is necessary for the NRC

to conclude that public health and

safety are reasonably assured. To

preclude any schedule delay and to

ensure public health and safety, the

NRC staff has determined that the

Licensees’ commitment in their June 11,

1998, letter be confirmed by this Order.

The Licensees have agreed to this

action. On this basis, and the Licensees’

consent, this Order is immediately

effective upon issuance.

IV.

Accordingly, pursuant to sections

103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and 186 of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, and the Commission’s

regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR

Part 50, it is hereby ordered, effective

immediately, that

The Toledo Edison Company, Centerior

Service Company, and The Cleveland

Electric Illuminating Company (the licensees)

shall complete final implementation of

Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire barrier corrective

actions at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power

Station, Unit No. 1, by December 31, 1998,

as described in the licensees’ submittals to

the NRC dated February 20, 1996, April 24,

1996, June 26, 1996, November 5, 1996, and

September 10, 1997, and as presented at the

licensees’ meeting with the NRC staff on

April 3, 1997, as documented in the NRC

meeting summary dated April 16, 1997.

The Director, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, may relax or

rescind, in writing, any provisions of

this Confirmatory Order upon a showing

by the Licensees of good cause.

V

Any person adversely affected by this

Confirmatory Order, other than the

Licensees, may request a hearing within

20 days of its issuance. 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 Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555–0001, and must

include a statement of good cause for

the extension. Any request for a hearing

shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff, Washington, D.C.

20555–0001. Copies of the hearing

request shall also be sent to the Director,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555–0001, to the

Deputy Assistant General Counsel for

Enforcement at the same address, to the

Regional Administrator, NRC Region III,

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois

60532–4351, and to the Licensees. If

such a person requests a hearing, that

person shall set forth with particularity

the manner in which his/her interest is

adversely affected by this Order and

shall address criteria set forth in 10 CFR

2.714(d).

If a hearing is requested by a person

whose interest is adversely affected, the

Commission will issue an Order

designating the time and place of any

such hearing. If a hearing is held, the

issue to be considered at such hearing

shall be whether this Confirmatory

Order should be sustained.

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 22nd day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17098 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 40–8502]

Cogema Mining, Inc.; Environmental

Statements; Availability, etc

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final Finding of No Significant

Impact and Notice of Opportunity for

Hearing.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) proposes to renew

NRC Source Material License SUA–1341

to authorize the licensee, COGEMA

Mining, Inc. (COGEMA), to continue the

commercial operation of its in-situ leach

(ISL) uranium mines and processing

facilities, located in Campbell and

Johnson Counties, Wyoming. This

license currently authorizes COGEMA

to receive, acquire, possess, and transfer

uranium at its Irigaray and Christensen

Ranch Facilities, which are located

approximately 10 miles northeast of

Sussex, Wyoming, and 30 miles northnortheast of Midwest, Wyoming,

respectively. An Environmental

Assessment (EA) was performed by the

NRC staff in support of its review of

COGEMA’s license renewal request, 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: Ms.

Janet Lambert, 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, DC 20555. Telephone 301/

415–6710. E-mail: JAL@NRC.GOV

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Irigaray Project was licensed for

commercial operation in August 1978,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices 34943

under ownership of Westinghouse

Electric Corporation. In 1982, operations

ceased at the Irigaray plant and

wellfields, and the facility was placed

on standby status pending

improvements in the uranium market.

In June 1987, Malapai Resources

Company (MRC) purchased the Irigaray

site from Westinghouse and resumed

operations. In 1988, MRC was granted

an amendment to the SUA–1341

Irigaray license to include the

Christensen Ranch satellite ion

exchange (IX) plant and associated mine

units (MUs). The Irigaray site was then

upgraded to include facilities for

processing IX resin from Christensen

Ranch. In April 1993, following other

ownership changes, COGEMA acquired

ownership of the Irigaray and

Christensen Ranch Uranium Projects.

Since then operations have continued

under COGEMA management.

At the Irigaray and Christensen Ranch

facilities, the ISL mining method

involves: (1) the injection of native

groundwater, with added sodium

carbonate/bicarbonate and oxygen or

hydrogen peroxide, into a uraniumbearing orebody through injection wells;

(2) the chemical mobilization of the

uranium through oxidation and then

complexation with the carbonate

species; and (3) the extraction of the

uranium-bearing solution from the

subsurface through a pattern of

pumping wells. The uranium is

separated from the leach solution by

conventional ion exchange (IX) methods

in the processing facilities. The

resulting uranium-poor solution is

recharged with carbonate and oxygen

and returned to the mining zone for

additional uranium recovery. This cycle

continues until the ore zone is depleted

or recovery of the uranium is no longer

economically feasible.

Once saturated with uranium, the

resin in the IX columns is stripped of

the uranium through an elution process.

The recovered uranium solution is

processed further by using ammonia or

hydrogen peroxide to precipitate the

uranium into a slurry. The resulting

slurry is thickened by gravity settling,

and then washed and de-watered in a

filter press to about 50 percent solids.

The filter press solids (cake) are then

dried in a natural gas vacuum dryer, to

produce uranium oxide, which is

commonly known as ‘‘yellowcake.’’ The

dried yellowcake is packaged in steel

drums for storage and eventual

shipment to a fuel processing facility.

The Irigaray processing plant has the

capability to perform all of the

previously described processing steps.

However, the Christensen Ranch plant

does not contain the uranium elution

circuit for removing and concentrating

the uranium from the IX resin. For this

reason, resin from the Christensen

Ranch processing plant is transferred

via truck to the Irigaray facility for

elution and concentration into

yellowcake. The eluted resin is then

returned to the Christensen Ranch plant

for reuse.

All wellfields at the Irigaray site are

in the restoration phase. Previous

operations at Christensen Ranch have

included production from Mine Units

(MU) 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, with MU 3 in the

groundwater restoration phase.

Remaining reserves on the entire

Irigaray property controlled by

COGEMA total approximately seven

million pounds. Reserves remaining on

the Christensen Ranch property total

approximately 13 million pounds in the

current, low-value uranium market.

The proposed action is to renew

Source Material License SUA–1341 to

authorize the continued commercial

operation of the Irigaray and

Christensen Ranch facilities. In its

renewal application, COGEMA has

proposed many changes to the

operations and procedures at the

facilities. One of the major changes

proposed by COGEMA is to combine the

mine and development plans for

Irigaray and Christensen Ranch into one

plan. In addition, the renewed license

would authorize the facilities to be

operated such that the annual average

yellowcake production does not exceed

1,133,980 kg (2,500,000 pounds) of

U3O8 annually. The EA discusses the

environmental aspects of the COGEMA

proposal. Additional information

concerning the safety aspects of the

proposed renewal will be contained in

the safety evaluation report (SER) that

will accompany the license renewal

action.

The Environmental Assessment

The NRC staff performed an appraisal

of the environmental impacts associated

with the continued operation of the

COGEMA ISL facility, 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 information:

(1) COGEMA’s license renewal

application, as amended; (2) previous

environmental evaluations of the

COGEMA facility; (3) COGEMA’s

license amendment requests submitted

subsequent to its renewal application,

and NRC staff approvals of these

requests; (4) data contained in required

semiannual environmental monitoring

reports; (5) results of NRC staff site

visits and inspections of the COGEMA

facility; and (6) consultations with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State

of Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality, and the State

Historic Preservation Officer for the

State of Wyoming. The results of the

staff’s appraisal are documented in the

EA.

Environmental Assessment Conclusions

The NRC staff has re-examined actual

and potential environmental impacts

associated with continued operation of

the Irigaray and Christensen Ranch

facilities, and has determined that

renewal of Source Material License

SUA–1341 will: (1) be consistent with

requirements of 10 CFR Part 40; (2) not

be inimical to the public health and

safety; and (3) not have long-term

detrimental impacts on the

environment. The following statements

support the FONSI and summarize the

conclusions resulting from the staff’s

environmental assessment:

1. The proposed groundwater

monitoring program is sufficient to

detect excursions (vertical or horizontal)

of mining solutions. Furthermore,

aquifer testing and the previous history

of operations indicate that the

production zone is adequately confined,

thereby assuring hydrologic control of

mining solutions;

2. Liquid process wastes will be

disposed in accordance with approved

waste disposal options. Monitoring

programs are in place to ensure

appropriate operation of the deep

disposal well and to detect potential

leakage from the solar evaporation

ponds;

3. An acceptable environmental and

effluent monitoring program is in place

to monitor effluent releases and to

detect if applicable regulatory limits are

exceeded. Radiological effluents from

facility operations have been and are

expected to continue to remain below

the regulatory limits;

4. All radioactive wastes generated by

facility operations will be disposed

offsite at a licensed byproduct disposal

site;

5. Groundwater impacted by mining

operations will be restored to baseline

conditions on a mine-unit average, as a

primary goal. If baseline conditions

cannot be reasonably achieved, the R&D

operations have demonstrated that the

groundwater can be restored to

applicable class-of-use standards; and

6. Because the staff has determined

that there will be no significant impacts

associated with approval of the license

renewal, there can be no

disproportionally high and adverse

effects or impacts on minority and lowincome populations. Consequently,
34944 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

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, Revision 1, is not warranted.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

The proposed action is to renew NRC

Source Material License SUA–1341, for

continued operation of the Irigaray and

Christensen Ranch ISL facilities, as

requested by COGEMA. Therefore, the

principal alternatives available to NRC

are to:

(1) Renew the license as requested by

the licensee, with conditions considered

necessary or appropriate to protect

public health and safety and the

environment; or

(2) Renew the license, with conditions

considered necessary or appropriate to

protect public health and safety and the

environment, but not allow COGEMA to

expand its operations beyond those

previously approved; or

(3) Deny renewal of the license.

Based on its review, the NRC staff has

concluded that the environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action do not warrant either the limiting

of COGEMA’s future operations or the

denial of the license renewal.

Additionally, in the SER prepared for

this action, the staff has reviewed the

licensee’s proposed action with respect

to the criteria for license issuance

specified in 10 CFR Part 40, Section

40.32, and has no basis for denial of the

proposed action. Therefore, the staff

considers that Alternative 1 is the

appropriate alternative for selection.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The NRC staff has prepared an EA for

the proposed renewal of NRC Source

Material License SUA–1341. 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 (lower level), 2120 L Street

NW, 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 and Operators Licensing

Proceedings,’’ of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing

Proceedings and Issuance of Orders in

10 CFR Part 2. 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 Rulemakings

and Adjudications Staff of the Office of

the Secretary at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD

20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.,

Federal workdays; or

(2) By mail or telegram addressed to

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff.

Each request for a hearing must also

be served, by delivering it personally or

by mail to:

(1) The applicant, COGEMA Mining,

Inc., 935 Pendell Boulevard., P.O. Box

730, Mills, WY 82644;

(2) The NRC staff, by delivery to the

Executive Director of Operations, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, between

7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal

workdays; or

(3) By mail addressed to the Executive

Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555.

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 request that is granted

will be held in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Informal Hearing

Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials and Operator Licensing

Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart

L.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Daniel M. Gillen,

Assistant Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch,

Division of Waste Management, Office of

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 98–16913 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–259.50–260 and 50–296]

Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns

Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

Introduction

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC, the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–

33, DPR–52 and DPR–68 issued to the

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or the

licensee) for operation of the Browns

Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2

and 3, located in Limestone County,

Alabama.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

This Environmental Assessment has

been prepared to address potential

environmental issues related to the

licensee’s application dated September

6, 1996 as supplemented June 6 and

December 11, 1996; April 11, May 1,

August 14, October 15, November 5 and

14, December 3, 4, 15, 22, 23, 29, and

30, 1997; January 23, March 12 and 13,

April 16, 20, and 28, May 7, 14, 19 and

27, June 5 and 10, 1998. The proposed

amendments will replace the current

BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 Technical

Specifications (CTS) in their entirety

with Improved Technical Specifications

(ITS) based on Revision 1 to NUREG–

1433, ‘‘Standard Technical

Specifications General Electric Plants

BWR/4,’’ dated April 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

It has been recognized that nuclear

safety in all plants would benefit from

improvement and standardization of TS.

The Commission’s ‘‘NRC Interim Policy

Statement on Technical Specification

Improvements for Nuclear Power

Reactors,’’ (52 FR 3788, February 6,

1987), and later the Commission’s

‘‘Final Policy Statement on Technical

Specification Improvements for Nuclear

Power Reactors,’’ (58 FR 39132, July 22,

1993), formalized this need. To facilitate

the development of individual

improved TS, each reactor vendor

owners group (OG) and the NRC staff