20000 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Notices 

(T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, by telephone at 301–415–6445, or 

by e-mail to 

INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@NRC.GOV. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day 

of April 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Tremaine Donnell, 

Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of 

Information Services. 

[FR Doc. E9–9941 Filed 4–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–455; NRC–2009–0182] 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Byron Station, Unit No. 2; 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an exemption from Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR), Part 50, Section 50.46, 

‘‘Acceptance criteria for emergency core 

cooling systems for light-water nuclear 

power reactors,’’ paragraph (a)(1)(i) for 

Facility Operating License No. NPF–66, 

issued to Exelon Generation Company, 

LLC (Exelon, the licensee), for operation 

of the Byron Station, Unit No. 2 (Byron 

2), located in Ogle County, Illinois. 

Therefore, as specified in 10 CFR 51.21, 

the NRC staff has performed an 

environmental assessment as described 

in this notice and has made a finding of 

no significant impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action: 

The proposed action would grant an 

exemption from the requirement of 10 

CFR 46(a)(1)(i) related to fuel cladding 

material. The proposed action would 

allow a third cycle of irradiation (i.e., 

burnup) for up to 16 twice-burned fuel 

rods in Westinghouse AXIOMTM

cladding in a lead test assembly (LTA), 

with the remaining fuel rods in the LTA 

being fresh fuel rods in AXIOMTM

cladding. This third cycle of irradiation 

is expected to begin in the Cycle 16 core 

for Byron 2 in the spring of 2010. 

Previously, by letter dated June 30, 2006 

(Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML061380518), the NRC 

staff approved the irradiation of four 

LTAs containing AXIOMTM clad fuel 

rods in the Byron Station, Unit No. 1 

(Byron 1) Cycle 15 core. In the same 

letter, the NRC staff also approved the 

re-insertion of two of the four LTAs into 

the Byron 1 Cycle 16 core and the other 

two LTAs into the Byron 2 Cycle 15 

core. Byron 1 is currently operating in 

Cycle 16; Byron 2 is currently operating 

in Cycle 15. Prior to re-insertion of the 

LTAs into the Cycle 16 and Cycle 15 

cores, respectively, for the second cycle 

of irradiation, the licensee performed 

post-irradiation examination (PIE) for 

the LTAs. During the spring 2010, Byron 

2 refueling outage, the licensee plans to 

perform PIE for the two LTAs, then reinsert one LTA into the Byron 2 Cycle 

16 core to gain high burnup data. The 

LTA will consist of fresh fuel rods in 

AXIOMTM cladding along with up to 16 

twice-burned fuel rods in AXIOMTM

cladding selected from the irradiated 

LTAs. The licensee estimated that, at 

the beginning of this third cycle, the 

twice-burned fuel rods will have a 

burnup of approximately 50,000 

megawatt days per metric ton uranium 

(MWD/MTU) and, at the end of this 

third cycle, the fresh fuel rods would 

reach an average burnup of 

approximately 27,500 MWD/MTU and 

the twice-burned fuel rods could reach 

a peak rod average burnup of 75,000 

MWD/MTU. 

The proposed action is in response to 

the licensee’s exemption request dated 

March 24, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML080850235). Also, information in the 

licensee’s letter dated September 23, 

2005 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML060930560), that supported the 

exemption previously issued on June 

30, 2006, has been considered in this 

action. 

The Need for the Proposed Action: 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, ‘‘Specific 

exemptions,’’ the licensee, in its letter 

dated March 24, 2008, requested an 

exemption from the requirements of 10 

CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix K for one LTA using 

AXIOMTM cladding. 

As the licensee stated in its letter 

dated March 24, 2008, ‘‘The purpose of 

irradiating the twice-burned AXIOMTM

clad fuel rods in a fresh LTA is to: (1) 

Evaluate the AXIOMTM clad fuel rod 

performance at projected rod burnups 

between 72,000 to 75,000 MWD/MTU, 

(2) collect fuel clad profilometry data 

after one cycle for the fresh rods and 

after three cycles for the high burnup 

rods, and (3) evaluate AXIOMTM clad 

integral fuel burnable absorber fuel rod 

performance.’’ 

The regulation at 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(i) 

requires that ‘‘[e]ach boiling or 

pressurized light-water nuclear power 

reactor fueled with uranium oxide 

pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or 

ZIRLO cladding must be provided with 

an emergency core cooling system 

(ECCS) that must be designed so that its 

calculated cooling performance 

following postulated loss-of-coolant 

accidents conforms to the criteria set 

forth in paragraph (b) of this section.’’ 

The regulation at 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(ii) 

requires that, ‘‘[a]lternatively, an ECCS 

evaluation model may be developed in 

conformance with the required and 

acceptable features of appendix K ECCS 

Evaluation Models.’’ Appendix K of 10 

CFR Part 50 requires, in paragraph I.A.5, 

that ‘‘[t]he rate of energy release, 

hydrogen generation, and cladding 

oxidation from the metal/water reaction 

shall be calculated using the Baker-Just 

equation (Baker, L., Just, L.C., ‘‘Studies 

of Metal Water Reactions at High 

Temperatures, III. Experimental and 

Theoretical Studies of the ZirconiumWater Reaction,’’ ANL–6548, page 7, 

May 1962).’’ The regulations make no 

provisions for use of fuel rods clad in a 

material other than zircaloy or 

ZIRLOTM. As noted previously, the 

licensee plans to irradiate one LTA 

using fuel rods clad with AXIOMTM

alloy in Byron 2. Because the material 

specification of the AXIOMTM alloy 

differs from the specification for 

zircaloy and ZIRLOTM, the licensee 

requested a plant-specific exemption 

from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 

and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, to 

support the use of the LTA for Byron 2. 

As a result of the NRC staff’s safety 

evaluation, the details of which will be 

provided as part of the letter to the 

licensee approving the exemption from 

10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(i), the NRC staff 

determined that an exemption from 10 

CFR Part 50, Appendix K, is not 

necessary in this circumstance and, 

therefore, is not issuing an exemption 

from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Proposed Action: 

The proposed action would grant an 

exemption from a regulation for the 

acceptance and analytical criteria for 

emergency core cooling systems; the 

exemption is not an exemption from 

regulations directly governing offsite 

dose/exposure, occupational exposure, 

or the environment. 

The NRC staff has completed its 

evaluation of the proposed action and 

concludes that there are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

the use of one LTA using AXIOMTM

cladding for a third cycle of irradiation 

up to a burnup of 75,000 MWD/MTU. 

The following is a summary of the NRC 

staff’s evaluation: 

In this environmental assessment, the 

NRC staff is relying, in addition to 

information submitted by the licensee, 

on the results of a study conducted for 

it by the Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL) entitled, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Notices 20001 

‘‘Environmental Effects of Extending 

Fuel Burnup Above 60 GWD/MTU 

[gigawatt days per metric ton 

uranium],’’ NUREG/CR–6703, PNNL– 

13257, January 2001. Although the 

study evaluated the environmental 

impacts of high burnup fuel up to 

75,000 MWD/MTU, certain aspects of 

the review were limited to evaluating 

the impacts of extended burnup up to 

62,000 MWD/MTU because of the need 

for additional data about the effect of 

extended burn-up on gap-release 

fractions. During the study, all aspects 

of the fuel-cycle were considered, from 

mining, milling, conversion, enrichment 

and fabrication through normal reactor 

operation, transportation, waste 

management, and storage of spent fuel. 

The NRC staff has concluded that 

such changes would not adversely affect 

plant safety, and would have no adverse 

effect on the probability of any accident. 

For accidents that involve damage or 

melting of the fuel in the reactor core, 

fuel rod integrity has been shown to be 

unaffected by the extended burnup 

under consideration; therefore, the 

probability of an accident will not be 

affected. For accidents in which the core 

remains intact, the increased burnup 

may slightly change the mix of fission 

products that could be released in the 

event of a serious accident; however, the 

NRC staff concludes that the limited 

number of high burnup fuel rods in one 

LTA will not result in a significant 

change during core-wide events. 

Accidents that involve the damage or 

melting of the fuel in the reactor core 

and spent fuel handling accidents were 

also evaluated in NUREG/CR–6703. The 

accidents considered were a loss-ofcoolant accident (LOCA), a steam 

generator tube rupture, and a fuelhandling accident (FHA). 

For LOCAs, the amount of 

radionuclides that would be released 

from the core (1) is proportional to the 

amount of radionuclides in the core and 

(2) is not significantly affected by the 

gap-release fraction. The gap-release 

fraction is a small contributor to the 

amount of radionuclides available for 

release when the fuel is severely 

damaged. Any increase in the amount of 

some longer-lived radionuclides 

available for release from the single LTA 

(1) will be small and (2) will not result 

in a significant increase in the overall 

core inventory of radionuclides. 

Therefore, there would be no significant 

increase in the previously calculated 

dose from a LOCA and the dose would 

remain below regulatory limits. 

The pressurized-water reactor steam 

generator tube rupture accident involves 

direct release of radioactive material 

from contaminated reactor coolant to 

the environment. No change is being 

requested by the licensee to the Byron 

Station technical specifications (TSs) 

pertaining to allowed cooling-water 

activity concentrations. The maximum 

coolant activity is regulated through TSs 

that are independent of fuel burnup. 

Therefore, the gap-release fraction does 

not significantly affect the amount of 

radionuclides available for release 

during a steam generator tube rupture. 

Therefore, there would be no significant 

increase in the previously-calculated 

dose from a steam generator tube 

rupture and the calculated dose would 

remain below regulatory limits. 

The scenario postulated to evaluate 

potential FHAs involves a direct release 

of gap activity to the environment. The 

assumptions regarding gap activity are 

based on guidance in Regulatory Guide 

1.183, ‘‘Alternative Radiological Source 

Terms for Evaluating Design Basis 

Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,’’ 

July 2000, and in NUREG/CR–5009, 

‘‘Assessment of the Use of Extended 

Burnup Fuel in Light Water Power 

Reactors,’’ February 1988. The gap 

activity consists primarily of noble gases 

and iodine. The isotopes that contribute 

significant fractions of the whole body 

and thyroid doses are 87Kr and 131I, 

respectively. The inventory of iodine 

and the primary dose contributor, 

decreases with increasing burnup. In 

addition, the single LTA will only 

contribute a small variation in the 

isotopic population of the entire Byron 

2 core (193 fuel assemblies). In its letter 

dated March 24, 2008, the licensee 

discussed the conservatisms associated 

with the Byron FHA dose calculation, 

specifically: Use of the alternative 

source term methodology, the relative 

power for this particular LTA in Cycle 

16, offloading time, containment 

isolation, and mechanical fuel damage 

due to impact. Based on the 

considerations discussed above, the 

NRC staff concludes (1) that the increase 

in the previously calculated dose 

resulting from a FHA involving the one 

LTA would not be significant, and (2) 

that the dose would remain below 

regulatory limits. 

Regulatory limits on radiological 

effluent releases are independent of 

burnup. The requirements of 10 CFR 

50.36a, ‘‘Technical specifications on 

effluents from nuclear power reactors,’’ 

and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, 

‘‘Numerical Guides for Design 

Objectives and Limiting Conditions for 

Operation to Meet the Criterion ‘As Low 

as is Reasonably Achievable’ for 

Radioactive Material in Light-WaterCooled Nuclear Power Reactor 

Effluents,’’ ensure that any release of 

gaseous, liquid, or solid radiological 

effluents to unrestricted areas are kept 

‘‘as low as reasonably achievable.’’ 

Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that 

during routine operations, there will be 

no significant increase in the amount of 

gaseous radiological effluents released 

into the environment as a result of the 

proposed action, nor will there be a 

significant increase in the amount of 

liquid radiological effluents or solid 

radiological effluents released into the 

environment. 

No significant increase in the 

allowable individual or cumulative 

occupational radiation exposure will 

occur. The impacts to workers is 

expected to be reduced with higher 

irradiation due to the need for less 

frequent outages for fuel changes and 

less frequent fuel shipments to and from 

reactor sites. 

The use of extended irradiation will 

not change the potential environmental 

impacts of incident-free transportation 

of spent nuclear fuel or the accident 

risks associated with spent fuel 

transportation if the fuel is cooled for 5 

years after discharge from the reactor. 

NUREG/CR–6703 concluded that doses 

associated with incident-free 

transportation of spent fuel with burnup 

to 75 GWD/MTU are bounded by the 

doses given in 10 CFR 51.52, 

‘‘Environmental effects of transportation 

of fuel and waste—Table S–4,’’ for all 

regions of the country if dose rates from 

the shipping casks are maintained 

within regulatory limits. Increased fuel 

burnup will decrease the annual 

discharge of fuel to the spent fuel pool, 

which will postpone the need to remove 

spent fuel from the pool. 

With regard to potential nonradiological environmental impacts of 

reactor operation with extended 

irradiation, the proposed changes 

involve systems located within the 

restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 

20, ‘‘Standards For Protection Against 

Radiation.’’ 

Therefore, the proposed action does 

not result in any significant changes to 

land use or water use, or result in any 

significant changes to the quality or 

quantity of effluents. The proposed 

action does not affect nonradiological 

plant effluents, and no changes to the 

National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System permit are needed. 

No effects on the aquatic or terrestrial 

habitat in the vicinity of the plant, or to 

endangered or threatened species, or to 

the habitats of endangered or threatened 

species are expected. The proposed 

action does not have a potential to affect 

any historical or archaeological sites. 

The proposed action will not change 

the method of generating electricity or 

the method of handling any influents 

20002 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Notices 

from the environment or nonradiological effluents to the 

environment. Therefore, no changes or 

different types of non-radiological 

environmental impacts are expected as 

a result of the exemption. 

Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes 

that there are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

For more detailed information 

regarding the environmental impacts of 

extended fuel burnup, please refer to 

NUREG/CR–6703. 

The details of the NRC staff’s safety 

evaluation will be provided in the 

exemption that will be issued as part of 

the letter to the licensee approving the 

exemption to the regulation. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action: 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the NRC staff considered denial 

of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the 

exemption request would result in no 

change in current environmental 

impacts. The environmental impacts of 

the proposed exemption and this 

alternative are similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources: 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the ‘‘Final 

Environmental Statement Related to the 

Operation of Byron Station, Units 1 and 

2,’’ NUREG–0848, dated April 1982. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted: 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on February 27, 2009, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Illinois State official, 

Mr. Frank Niziolek of the Illinois 

Emergency Management Agency, 

regarding the environmental impact of 

the proposed action. The State official 

had no comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC staff concludes 

that the proposed action will not have 

a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC staff has determined not to prepare 

an environmental impact statement for 

the proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter 

dated March 24, 2008 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML080850235). 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, 1555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly 

available records will be accessible 

electronically from the ADAMS Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site: http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

Persons who do not have access to 

ADAMS or who encounter problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR 

Reference staff by telephone at 1–800– 

397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send an 

e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day 

of April 2009. 

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Christopher Gratton, 

Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing 

Branch III–2, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–9950 Filed 4–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 030–32694; NRC–2009–0183] 

Notice of Availability of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for Amendment of 

Byproduct Materials License No. 24– 

00513–38, for Unrestricted Release of 

Facilities at University of Missouri in 

St. Louis, MO 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Issuance of environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant 

impact for license amendment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter J. Lee, PhD, CHP, Health Physicist, 

Materials Control, ISFSI, and 

Decommissioning Branch, Division of 

Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 

60532; telephone: (630) 829–9870; fax 

number: (630) 515–1259; or by e-mail at 

Peter.Lee@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is proposing to 

amend Byproduct Materials License No. 

24–00513–38. This license is held by 

the Curators of the University of 

Missouri (the Licensee) for its facilities 

located at 8001 Natural Bridge Road, St. 

Louis, Missouri. Issuance of the 

amendment would authorize release of 

certain laboratories, designated by the 

licensee as R–109, R–201, R–411, R– 

412, R–417, R–433, R–435, R–439, and 

S–466 (collectively, the ‘‘Facility’’), for 

unrestricted use. The Facility is located 

at the above address. The Licensee 

requested this action in letter dated 

February 10, 2009 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML090480210). The NRC has 

prepared an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) in support of this proposed action 

in accordance with the requirements of 

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based 

on the EA, the NRC has concluded that 

a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) is appropriate with respect to 

the proposed action. The amendment 

will be issued to the Licensee following 

the publication of this FONSI and EA in 

the Federal Register. 

II. Environmental Assessment 

Identification of Proposed Action 

The proposed action would approve 

the Licensee’s February 10, 2009, 

license amendment request, resulting in 

the release of the Facility for 

unrestricted use (the criteria for 

unrestricted use is set forth in 10 CFR 

20.1402). The applicable NRC 

decommissioning regulation, under 

which this proposed action would be 

carried out, is 10 CFR 30.36. License No. 

24–00513–38 was issued on August 21, 

1992, pursuant to 10 CFR part 30, and 

has been amended periodically since 

that time. The license authorizes the use 

of by-product materials for laboratory 

research and development, including 

metabolic labeling and in-vitro 

experiments. The licensee ceased using 

licensed materials in the Facility in 

2008. The Licensee has conducted 

radiological surveys of the Facility (the 

licensee conducted surveys for 

laboratories R–109 and R–201 in 2007, 

and conducted surveys for the 

remainder of the laboratories in 2008). 

The results of these surveys were 

provided to the NRC to demonstrate that 

the criteria in 10 FR 20.1402 for 

unrestricted release have been met. 

Need for the Proposed Action 

The Licensee has ceased conducting 

licensed activities at the Facility and 

seeks the unrestricted use of its Facility. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The historical review of licensed 

activities conducted at the Facility 

shows that such activities involved use 

of hydrogen-3, carbon-14, phosphorus32, phosphorus-33, sulfur-35, 

molybdenum-99, iodine-125, and 

cesium-137. Prior to performing the 

radiological surveys, the Licensee 

conducted decontamination activities, 

as necessary, in the areas of the Facility 

affected by these radionuclides. 

Three radiological survey reports, 

together covering all areas of the facility, 

were attached to the licensee’s 

amendment request dated February 10,