27168 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices

effect on the quality of the human

environment and does not warrant the

preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement. Accordingly, it has been

determined that a Finding of No

Significant Impact is appropriate.

The applicants applications are

available for inspection and copying for

a fee in the Region IV Public Document

Room, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400,

Arlington, TX 76011–8064. The

documents may also be viewed in the

Agency-wide Documents Access and

Management System (ADAMS) located

on the NRC website at www.nrc.gov.

Opportunity for a Hearing

Any person whose interest may be

affected by the issuance of this action

may file a request for a hearing. Any

request for hearing must be filed with

the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, within 30 days of the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register; be served on the NRC staff

(Executive Director for Operations, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852), and

on the applicants, Global X-ray &

Testing Corporation, PO Box 1536,

Morgan City, Louisiana 70381; Bayou

Testing Services Inc, PO Box 1065,

Amelia, Louisiana 70340; Accurate NDE

& Inspection L.L.C., P.O. Box 1298,

Opelousas, Louisiana 70571–1298 and

must comply with the requirements for

requesting a hearing set forth in the

Commission’s regulations, 10 CFR Part

2, Subpart L, ‘‘Information Hearing

Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials Licensing Proceedings.’’

These requirements, which the

request must address in detail, are:

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);

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 hearing is timely—that

is, filed within 30 days of the date of

this notice.

In addressing how the requestor’s

interest may be affected by the

proceeding, the request should describe

the nature of the requestor’s right under

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, to be made a party to the

proceeding; the nature and extent of the

requestor’s property, financial, or other

(i.e., health, safety) interest in the

proceeding; and the possible effect of

any order that may be entered in the

proceeding upon the requestor’s

interest.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of May, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John W.N. Hickey,

Chief, Materials Safety and Inspection

Branch, Division of Industrial and Medical

Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 01–12339 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70–143]

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact of

License Amendment for Nuclear Fuel

Services, Inc., and Notice of

Opportunity To Request a Hearing

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Amendment of Nuclear Fuel

Services, Inc., Materials License SNM–

124 to Approve Partial Site

Decommissioning Plan.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is considering the

amendment of Special Nuclear Material

License SNM–124 to approve the North

Site Decommissioning Plan at the

Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., facility

located in Erwin, TN, and has prepared

an Environmental Assessment in

support of this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS)

began operations at the Erwin,

Tennessee facility in 1957. From then

until 1981, portions of the North Site

(NS) area were used for disposal of

radioactive waste in accordance with 10

CFR 20.304. Since that time, the area

has not been used for licensed

operations. In 1991, NFS began partial

remediation of the NS. These activities

included removing the sludges from

Ponds 1, 2, and 3, and removal of

accessible waste in the Pond 4 area

under authorization from the US

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Excavation of the (§ 20.304) burial area

began in 1997. All previous work is

authorized by license amendment and is

not the subject of this environmental

assessment. By request for license

amendment dated July 30, 1999 (NFS

North Site Decommissioning Plan, Rev.

1), NFS requested authorization to use

the land use scenarios and residual

radioactive concentrations described

below to meet the requirements of

suitability for release for unrestricted

use as defined in NRC regulations. NFS

has no plans at this time to release the

NS area from their NRC license.

In 1997, NRC issued radiological

criteria for license termination in 10

CFR part 20 subpart E. Section 20.1402

defines the radiological criteria for

suitability for unrestricted use: 25

mrem/yr total effective dose equivalent

from all pathways. As part of the rulemaking to institute this regulation, an

environmental impact statement

determined that there was no significant

impact on human health and safety at

this level of exposure.

1.2 Geographic and Temporal

Boundaries of the Environmental

Assessment (EA)

The geographic scope of this EA is

limited to the NS area of the NFS site,

as defined in NRC license SNM–124. At

the time of license termination for the

entire NFS site, the results of the NS

area final status survey may be

reassessed in order to incude any

possible dose contribution from the NS

area in the dose assessment for the

entire site and any impact from possible

recontamination of the NS area.

Consistent with 10 CFR part 20,

subpart E, the time of compliance for

deriving the proposed cleanup levels is

1,000 years. Evaluation of dose impacts

past this point is not considered to be

necessary. When predicting thousands

of years into the future, uncertainties

become very large because of major

potential changes in the hydrogeologic

regime at the site over such long periods

of time. The consequences of exposure

to residual radioactivity levels such as

those proposed are small and

considering the large uncertainties,

long-term modeling of possible doses

would have little value. In addition,

because of the long half-lives of the

radioactive materials in question, no

significant changes in potential impacts

are anticipated until thousands of years

after release.

2 Purpose and Need for Proposed

Action

The licensee is remediating the North

Site area so that it will be suitable for

unrestricted use in accordance with the

criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402. This action

is required by 10 CFR 70.38 (Timeliness

Rule) and a 1994 NRC Order.

3 Description of Proposed Action

Approval of the license amendment

request will authorize decommissioning

of the North Site by removal of

contaminated soil to levels at or below

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices 27169

1These tasks will begin prior to approval of this

plan. Removal of Building 400 and associated

utilities and equipment is being performed under

the NRC approved decommissioning plan for Ponds

1, 2, and 3 (NFS 1991).

2 D&D of the area includes excavating

contaminated soil, conducting a final survey of the

area, and backfilling the excavation. D&D of some

areas may be performed concurrently (i.e.,

excavation of one area may begin before backfilling

of another area is completed).

3NFS’s report ‘‘Potential Dose Due to Radioactive

Contamination in Soil and Groundwater in the

North NFS Plant Site, Revision 1.’’

the proposed derived concentration

guideline levels (DCGLs) presented in

Table 1. These levels were calculated

using the RESRAD computer code so

that the indicated concentration of a

single isotope would comply with a

dose limit of 25 mrem/yr specified in 10

CFR 20.1402. If multiple isotopes are

present, the individual concentration

limits will be reduced to comply with

the dose limit. Meeting these levels will

permit release of the property for

unrestricted use. Groundwater

encountered during soil excavation will

be pumped and treated at either the

Wastewater or Groundwater Treatment

Facilities. Upon completion of soil

remediation, a final status survey of the

North Site will be performed. Backfill of

remediated areas with clean soil will

begin after the final status survey

demonstrates the area has been

sufficiently decommissioned.

Groundwater will be monitored for

several years after excavation to

determine uranium levels once residual

radioactivity in soil is reduced to

acceptable levels.

Also, pursuant to the hazardous waste

permit issued to NFS in 1991–1993

under Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments (RCRA/HSWA)

authority, EPA and TDEC are also

requiring NFS to conduct appropriate

monitoring, groundwater pilot studies

and remediation until the EPA and

Tennessee drinking water standards for

hazardous and radioactive constituents

are satisfied. This permit will also be

used to establish and enforce any

necessary institutional controls.

3.1 Proposed Action: Release for

Unrestricted Use

The proposed action is to remove

solid waste material from the existing

burial areas, previously disposed in

accordance with 10 CFR 20.304, and to

remove contaminated material and soil

until the residual concentrations of

radionuclides are at or below those

shown in Table 1. The major activities

include the following:

Remove Building 400, surrounding

tanks, utilities, and structures.1

Decontaminate and Decommission (D

& D) 2 area north of Banner Spring

working east to west. The excavation

area is bounded by Banner Spring

Branch and the security zone.

Relocate or temporarily reroute

Banner Spring Branch and the plant

drainage system.

D&D Banner Spring Branch streambed

and Ponds 1 and 2.

D&D Banner Spring Branch outside

the protected area.

D&D security zone areas.

D&D northwest area.

Remove 205 Substation and the guard

tower and D&D area.

Remove Building 410 and D&D area.

TABLE 1—SOIL/SEDIMENT DCGLS 1 (ρ

Ci/g) FOR NORTH SITE DECOMMISSIONING

Radionuclide DCGL 2,3

U-238 .............................................. 306

U-235 .............................................. 74

U-233/234 4 ..................................... 642

Th-232 ............................................ 3.7

Th-230 ............................................ 17

Am-241 ........................................... 130

Pu-242 ............................................ 148

Pu-241 ............................................ 4365

Pu-240 ............................................ 141

Pu-239 ............................................ 140

Pu-238 ............................................ 155

Tc-99 .............................................. 414

1Values are for single nuclides; actual residual concentrations will be calculated using

unity rule. 2 Ingrowth of daughters radionuclides are

taken into account in these DCGLs. 3 DCGLs derived using RESRAD pathway

analysis model. 4 DCGL for U233/234 is collectively

proposed.

Contaminated soil which exceeds the

applicable release criteria will be

stockpiled and covered as appropriate,

transported to Building 410 or another

area for processing, or loaded directly

into containers. This material will be

disposed in a licensed facility. Details of

this alternative are provided in Section

3 of the NFS North Site

Decommissioning Plan. Soils that meet

the criteria in Table 1 will remain on

site.

3.2 Analyses

A dose assessment was performed by

NFS for both industrial or suburban

residential use of the land after license

termination. The licensee selected

radionuclide-specific DCGLs for the soil

from this dose assessment and selected

the most restrictive limit for the

radionuclide from the set of scenarios.3

These DCGLs are listed in Table 1

above. Because the limits are

radionuclide-specific, the licensee

would then use the sum of fractions to

verify that the final concentrations

result in a dose equal to or less than

0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y).

As part of the analysis, the licensee

proposed that groundwater pathways be

eliminated from consideration as part of

the dose modeling for soil DCGLs. The

staff has agreed with this approach for

the following reasons:

• The water in the shallow aquifer is

of lower quality, is in contact with a

marsh, and contaminated above EPA

limits for drinking water with pollutants

not related to operations at the site;

• There are readily available sources

of inexpensive, clean water at the site;

• Based on current practices and

water-well regulations in the region, a

new well would not tap the shallow,

unconsolidated aquifer in the North Site

area, which is located within the 100-

year flood plain of the Nolichucky

River;

• Only a small portion of the shallow

aquifer of the North Site is

contaminated at levels that would cause

drinking water dose above NRC’s

regulatory limit; and

• The licensee is committed to

implementing appropriate remediation

of contaminated groundwater under the

continued authority of the EPA and

TDEC RCRA/HSWA permit.

Therefore, the calculation of soil

DCGLs with no water-borne pathways is

a reasonable assessment of potential

future dose estimates.

4 Decommissioning Alternatives

NRC considered alternatives to the

proposed action. These are described

below.

4.1 No Action

This alternative is to leave the site in

its current, contaminated condition.

This would leave large volumes of

contaminated soil and groundwater.

Leaving the site in this condition would

not comply with NRC regulations

requiring remediation of unused

outdoor areas and poses a potential

threat to public health and safety.

Therefore, this alternative is not

acceptable.

4.2 Alternative Actions Considered

and Decision Rationale

4.2.1 Approval of the amendment

request, but with additional conditions

restricting use of the site to industrial

development only with no groundwater

use.

A dose assessment was performed by

NFS for both the postulated industrial

land-use scenario and a construction

scenario. Results of this dose assessment

were used to determine radionuclideVerDate 11<MAY>2000 23:22 May 15, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM pfrm11 PsN: 16MYN1
27170 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices

specific dose-to-source factors (mrem/y

per pCi/g in soil) for site contaminants.

These are presented in the NFS report

‘‘Potential Dose Due to Radioactive

Contamination in Soil and Groundwater

in the North NFS Plant Site, Revision

1’’. Based on TEDE dose limits of 25

mrem/y to the average member of the

critical group (industrial worker and/or

construction worker) and 100 mrem/y if

controls failed, these dose-to-source

factors were used to derive a set of

restricted release soil concentration

guideline levels (CGLs). Site

characterization results were compared

(on a sum-of-fractions basis) to the set

of restricted-release DCGLs to estimate

the volume of soil that would need to

be removed from the site to meet the

DCGLs. Approximately 864,000 ft 3 of

material (including an estimated

500,000 ft 3 of debris and soil from the

North Site burial trenches) was

determined to require removal to

achieve the set of restricted-release

DCGLs. This alternative was rejected by

NFS because it does not meet the goal

of unrestricted release at license

termination.

4.2.2 Approval of the amendment

request, but with additional conditions

imposing legally enforceable restrictions

prohibiting use of groundwater.

This alternative is similar to 4.3, but

does not limit land use to industrial

activities. It would add a prohibition

against the use of groundwater from the

shallow alluvial formation. The

remediation activities are the same as

those in the proposed alternative. NFS

has presented data on current use of

land and groundwater that demonstrates

that there is no anticipated use of the

groundwater in the alluvial formation

because it is of poor quality and because

of the availability of inexpensive, high

quality water from the City of Erwin (see

§ 3.2). Current zoning in the area is for

industrial use and the immediate

surrounding area is classified as

suburban residential. Therefore,

subsistence farming is not likely to

occur in the area, and City water will be

used for all activities requiring water,

such as consumption, bathing, watering

lawns, etc. This alternative is rejected

because the addition of institutional

controls is deemed not to provide

significant benefit, and to add to the

cost of decommissioning because of the

provision to 10 CFR 20.1403(e)

requiring funds in perpetuity for a third

party to implement the controls.

Furthermore, it is not necessary for NRC

to establish requirements prohibiting

use of ground water, as EPA and TDEC

are requiring remediation to drinking

water standards (see Section 3.0 above).

4.3 Alternatives Considered and

Rejected.

Require remediation of both

groundwater and soil to levels such that

the dose from all pathways meets

criteria for unrestricted use.

This alternative would require

calculation of the dose from existing

contamination in both soil and waterborne sources. Then, residual

contamination limits in both media

must be calculated. The residual

concentration in both media must then

be reduced to levels that would limit the

all-pathways-dose to 25 mrem/yr.

This alternative is rejected for the

following reasons: (a) The water in the

shallow aquifer is of lower quality, in

contact with a marsh, and contaminated

above EPA limits for drinking water

with pollutants not related to operations

at the site; (b) there are readily available

sources of inexpensive, clean water at

the site; (c) based on current practices

and water-well regulations in the region,

a new well would not tap the shallow,

unconsolidated aquifer in the North Site

area, which is located within a 100-year

flood plain; (d) only a small portion of

the shallow aquifer of the North Site is

contaminated at levels that would cause

drinking water dose above NRC’s

regulatory limit; and (e) The licensee is

committed to implementing appropriate

remediation of contaminated

groundwater under the continued

authority of the EPA and TDEC RCRA/

HSWA permit. Further, there would be

large additional cost to ship more than

300,000 ft 3 of moderately contaminated

soil to a licensed disposal facility.

5 Affected Environment

5.1 Site Location and Physical

Description

The NFS facility is located

immediately south of Erwin, Tennessee.

Erwin is a town of about 6,000 people

located in Unicoi County, about 15 mi

(24 km) south of Johnson City and 120

mi (190 km) east of Knoxville, TN.

Unicoi County is 200 mi 2 (520 km 2) in

NE Tennessee and has a population of

about 20,000. The area surrounding

Erwin is mostly within the Cherokee

National Forest. The facility comprises

about 62 acres (25 ha), of which about

24 acres (9.7 ha) are designated as the

North Site area. The site is situated in

a valley that parallels the Nolichucky

River, running roughly NE–SW. To the

southeast, the land rises up Banner Hill

and on to the Unaka mountains; to the

west across the Nolichucky River is

Looking Glass Mountain.

5.1.1 Climate

The climate in the Erwin area is

temperate with an average annual

temperature high of 73°F and an average

low of 38°F (USDA 1985). The average

high in January is 46°F and the low is

25°F. The average high in July is 87°F

and the low is 63°F. Precipitation is

moderate and evenly distributed

throughout the year. The average annual

precipitation for Erwin is 43.83 inches

(based on data from 1967–1990). The

average seasonal snowfall in Erwin is 15

inches and occurs within a five-month

period (November–March) (USDA

1985). Prevailing wind is from the

south-southwest. Average monthly wind

speed is highest, 8 mph, in March

(USDA 1985). Atmospheric data are

maintained at Erwin Utilities and at

NFS.

5.1.2 Surface Water

Surface water runoff from NFS drains

to Martin Creek either directly through

two 42-inch culverts parallel to the

northwest site boundary, or indirectly

via Banner Spring Branch. Martin Creek

discharges to the Nolichucky River via

North Indian Creek. Characteristics of

Banner Spring Branch, Martin Creek,

and the Nolichucky River are

summarized below.

Banner Spring Branch: Banner Spring

Branch emanates from a spring (Banner

Spring) located on the NFS property

upgradient of manufacturing facilities.

The source of Banner Spring is probably

fracture controlled groundwater from

the mountains southeast of the site.

Banner Spring has a continuous flow

rate of about 300 gallons/minute.

Neither Banner Spring nor Banner

Spring Branch are used as a source of

drinking water. Along the northern

corner of the site, Banner Spring Branch

empties into Martin Creek, a stream that

runs along the northeast boundary of the

NFS property.

Martin Creek: The base flow of Martin

Creek is 1,000 to 5,000 gallons per

minute with seasonal variations. Martin

Creek originates in the Unaka

mountains southeast of Erwin at an

elevation near 4,000 feet above sea level.

It follows a very straight course near the

NFS site leading some investigators to

conclude that its course follows a strike

slip fault adjacent to or downstream of

the NFS site. Martin Creek is a tributary

to North Indian Creek, which empties

into the Nolichucky River

approximately one and one-half miles

north of the NFS property.

Nolichucky River: The Nolichucky

River originates in the North Carolina

mountains to the southeast and has an

average flow rate of 450,000 gallons/

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices 27171

minute. In the vicinity of NFS, the river

follows a relatively straight course

parallel to the long axis of the facility

(southwest to northeast) and is generally

located from 800 to 1,000 feet to the

facility’s northwest. The nearest public

water supply on the Nolichucky River,

downstream of the plant site, is the

town of Jonesborough, Tennessee,

located approximately eight miles

northwest of Erwin.

5.1.3 Geology and Groundwater

The geology consists of six to fifteen

feet of unconsolidated alluvium

consisting of silts and clays, clayey

sand, and sand with varying amounts of

gravel and cobble. The alluvium

coarsens with depth into cobbles and

boulders. This cobble/boulder zone

overlies weathered, fractured bedrock

consisting of steeply dipping beds of

shale or shale interbedded with

dolomite and siltstone. The bedrock

exists at depths ranging from

approximately seven to twenty-nine feet

below ground surface (EcoTek 1994).

Both the alluvium and the shallow

bedrock contain groundwater under

unconfined conditions. No laterally

continuous physical separation exists

between the two lithologies. Recharge to

the alluvium and shallow bedrock is

predominantly from downward

infiltration of rainwater through the

vadose zone. Some upward component

of flow is evident within the deeper

bedrock (50+ feet) which is probably the

result of higher elevation recharge

through fracture systems in the

mountains to the southeast. Measured

heads in the bedrock wells are

consistent with and indicative of a

nonfractured dominated flow regime.

The thinly bedded, poorly competent

nature of the bedrock may contribute to

flow patterns more analogous to the

porous media model than the fracture

flow model. Limited evidence, such as

high well yields, exists for structure or

fracture controlled movement of

groundwater in the deeper zone (EcoTek

1994).

5.2 Facility Operations

The North Site area has two former

burial sites of waste disposed under 10

CFR 20.302 and 20.304, three wet ponds

used to hold process waste, and a

wetlands area. There is one temporary

building (410) in the southwest part of

the area. Prior to that time the area was

a farm, as was much of the surrounding

area.

The area being decommissioned is

located both inside and outside of the

plant protected area which is defined by

a double security fence. Within the

protected area are Banner Spring

Branch, a small marsh, open grasscovered grounds, the three surface

impoundments, and Pond 4. Banner

Spring Branch runs through the

property originating in the east just

outside the security fence and

discharging into Martin Creek to the

north. The grounds outside the plant

protected area, but inside the outer

access control fence (the perimeter

fence), include grass-covered fields,

wooded areas, and a marsh. Also

present are a burial ground and a

demolition landfill. Trees cover most of

the grounds outside the perimeter fence.

Temporary buildings located in the area

to be decommissioned include steel

frame, metal buildings. These buildings

are currently used in support of

remediation activities. Five trailers

located in the area provide offices, break

area, showers and storage. Four small

(less than 100 ft 2 sheds located in the

characterization area house analytical

equipment environmental sampling

equipment (Banner Spring Branch

Sampling Station and Sanitary Sewer

Sampling Station), water control

equipment (Backflow Preventer Bldg.),

and vehicle cover. Other structures

include a locked guard tower, a series of

abandoned, partially intact residences

located in the woods in the northeast

area of the site, concrete pads for

support of remediation equipment,

fencing, light poles, electrical

distribution facilities, pipes and

conduits, a concrete drainage ditch,

enclosed culverts, and miscellaneous

equipment (e.g., knockout tank, bladder

tanks).

5.3 Radiological Status of the Facility

5.3.1 Radiological status of structures

and equipment

Direct surveys were limited to four

sampling sheds and a guard tower

which are not likely to be affected by

remediation efforts. Surveys found the

amount of activity present on these

structures to be below the surface

contamination limits in NFS’ SNM–124

license. All other structures in the North

Site will be used to support

decommissioning operations and will be

surveyed at the time of their release

from the site.

5.3.2 Radiological Status of Surface

and Subsurface Soils

The primary radioactive contaminants

in the North Site are uranium (U-234, U235, and U-238), thorium (Th-228, Th230, and Th-232), plutonium (Pu-238,

Pu-239/240, Pu-241, and Pu-242),

americium 241, and technetium 99.

Levels of radioactive contamination

currently exceed the release criteria in

soil and sediment across much of the

North Site inside the plant protected

area. Contamination above the criteria is

present down to the level of auger

refusal in much of the protected area.

Contamination also exists between the

cobbles. Only a portion of the north east

corner of the plant protected area is not

contaminated above the release criteria.

Areas outside the plant protected area

that exceed the release criteria include

soil/sediment surrounding Banner

Spring Branch, the burial trenches, the

contaminated soil mound area, and

isolated occurrences between the

radiological burial ground trenches and

Banner Spring Branch. Radioactive

contamination primarily occurs on the

surface and does not extend beyond a

depth of about four feet except in the

burial ground where it extends

approximately 4–5 meters. Analytical

results from the burial trench cap

indicated only a few isolated areas

where contamination was present above

the release criteria. There is no

indication that soil contamination

extends off-site to the north and east.

Radiological soil contamination to the

west of the North Site is bounded by the

former streambed of Banner Spring

Branch which was released by the NRC

in 1987 (NRC 1987). Soil beneath the

current microwave security zone (area

between the inner and outer fences) at

the west site boundary was not included

in the NRC release and is contaminated

above the release criteria.

5.3.3 Radiological Status of Ground

and Surface Water

Banner Spring Branch and Martin

Creek contain contamination below

effluent concentration limits in

Appendix B to 10 CFR part 20.

Groundwater throughout the North Site

Area is contaminated to varying levels

ranging from a few ρCi/l, below release

limits, to more than 600 ρCi/l. The

primary contaminants are isotopes of

uranium and technetium-99. Tc-99 is

present in off-site wells to the west of

the site boundary in concentrations

above background, but a small fraction

(∼1%) of EPA limits. Uranium has not

yet been detected off-site. Based on no

ground water remediation, NFS

projections calculate concentrations

exceeding 30 ρCi/l in the alluvial

ground water migrating beyond the site

boundary as early as 2003; migration in

the deeper levels—cobbles and shallow

bedrock—occurs at a slower rate, but is

calculated to exceed 30 ρCi/l beyond the

site boundary within 1,000 years.

(Geraghty & Miller, 1996)

27172 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices

6 Environmental Impacts

6.1 Adverse Impacts

The International Commission on

Radiological Protection has determined

that the current level of protection from

radiation for man will ensure that other

species are not put at risk (ICRP, 1990).

The Department of Energy has issued an

interim standard with screening dose

limits for aquatic animals (1 rad/d),

riparian and terrestrial animals (0.1 rad/

d), and terrestrial plants (1 rad/d). These

doses are in excess of the 25 mrem/yr

limit for the release of this site.

Therefore, no separate environmental

risk assessment was performed.

6.1.1 Radiological Impacts to the

Public and Workers

Material contaminated above release

limits will be shipped to a licensed

disposal facility. The licensee’s

radiological protection program, which

is described in Chapter 4 of the

Decommissioning Plan, requires use of

hazardous work permits, etc. that will

limit doses to workers to less than or

equal to the limits in 10 CFR part 20.

Minor spills and/or releases may

occur as contaminated soil is being

prepared for shipment or during

transport to an offsite disposal facility.

However, considering that the majority

of the waste stream expected to be

generated during decommissioning

comprises contaminated soil, these

incidents would pose only negligible

impact to human health and the

environment. In the event of a spill of

this nature, decontamination efforts and

any required notification would be

performed in accordance with the NFS

Emergency Plan and emergency

procedures.

Residual concentrations of

radionuclides in soil are shown in Table

1. Based on the industrial and suburban

resident land use scenarios, the

radiological impact from the residual

contamination will not exceed 25

mrem/yr the public.

6.1.2 Non-Radiological Impacts

Portions of the site, primarily the

groundwater, are contaminated with

solvents (PCE, TCE, etc.) from NFS

activities. These materials are the

subject of an EPA and TDEC RCRA/

HSWA Permit requiring investigation

and remediation to EPA and Tennessee

standards in a time-frame agreed upon

between EPA, TDEC and NFS. Therefore

they are not addressed in this EA.

However, a pilot groundwater

remediation study has recently been

implemented to accommodate all

groundwater contaminants, i.e.,

radioactive and non-radioactive.

6.1.3 Historical and Archaeological

Resources

After considering the documentation

submitted, it is the opinion of the

Tennessee Historical Commission that

there are no national register of historic

places listed or eligible properties

affected by this undertaking. This

determination is made either because of

the location, scope and/or nature of the

undertaking, and/or because of the size

of the area of potential effect; or because

no listed or eligible properties exist in

the area of potential effect; or because

the undertaking will not alter any

characteristics of an identified eligible

or listed property that qualified the

property for listing in the National

Register or alter such property’s

location, setting or use. Therefore, this

office has no objections to proceeding

with the project.

6.1.4 Terrestrial Biota

There is a Federally Threatened Plant

in the vicinity of the NFS site: Virginia

spiraea (Spiraea virginiana). Because of

the industrial nature of the NFS site and

surrounding area, there is no suitable

habitat for this species at the site.

6.1.5 Aquatic Biota

There is a Federally Endangered

mussel species, Appalachian elktoe

(Alasmidonta raveneliana), near the

confluence of the Nolichucky River and

South Indian Creek. Because this is

upstream of the confluence of the

Nolichucky River and Martin Creek and

the NFS site, no impact is expected on

this species. No discharges from NFS

into Martin Creek are expected from

decommissioning activities.

6.1.6 Wetlands

There is a wetland area (0.2 acres)

near Pond 3 and Banner Spring that will

be removed as part of the proposed

decommissioning activities. This will be

replaced with a larger one (0.4 acres) in

the northeast corner of the North Site

Area in accordance with a permit from

TDEC. Banner Spring Branch will be

relocated and enclosed in a pipe for the

balance of plant life. To compensate for

this, NFS will improve a wetland area

near the federal fishery, approximately

three miles north of the site. TDEC and

US Fish and Wildlife Service will

authorize this activity by a

Memorandum of Agreement with NFS.

6.1.7 Water Resources

No ground water remediation will

take place as part of the proposed

alternative. The existing contamination,

primarily uranium and technetium, will

remain in the alluvial groundwater.

Some uranium and technetium are

calculated to migrate off-site to the west

in the shallow groundwater. As

discussed in Section 3.0, NFS will

remediate ground water to drinking

water standards in the future. However,

this groundwater will not be used as a

water supply. Therefore, it will not

contribute to a dose to members of the

public. Vertical migration of the

contamination is also calculated, but it

is not expected to reach the deep

aquifer, that is used as a drinking water

supply, within 1,000 years.

Banner Spring Branch will be

relocated during remediation activities

as discussed in § 6.1.6 above.

6.1.8 Construction Impacts

No building construction will occur

in this action except the removal of

temporary building 410, at the

completion of remediation. No adverse

effects will occur in the environment

from this activity.

6.2 Impacts to Aesthetic, Economic,

Cultural, Social, Air Quality, Noise

Resources and Habitat Destruction

There will be no discernable impacts

on aesthetics, socio-economics or

cultural resources because the work is

being done by existing staff and the

physical configuration of the facility

will remain the same as current.

There may be minor, temporary

impacts on air quality and noise during

remediation activities. NFS has dust

control measures in place, and the use

of equipment will not significantly

change from the current industrial

environment.

A part of a marsh area (wetland) will

be destroyed as part of the remediation

activities. This area will be replaced as

discussed in Section 6.1.6 above.

7 Planned Monitoring

This area will remain within licensee

control and will be monitored in

accordance with the pertinent provision

of the license for operational and

environmental monitoring.

8 Agencies and Individuals Consulted,

and Sources Used

8.1 Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Region IV has reviewed the

proposed action and:

• Concurs with the rationale that the

groundwater pathway can be eliminated

from consideration in calculating soil

cleanup levels and radioactive doses

from the sources of the North Site

• Maintain that the RCRA/HSWA

Permit issued to NFS will be used to

enforce appropriate groundwater pilot

studies and necessary groundwater

remediation of all contaminated

groundwater according to the most

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices 27173

recent ‘‘Handbook of Groundwater

Policies for RCRA Corrective Action’’

(EPA 530–D–00–001, updated 4/40/

2000). See http://www.epa.gov/

correctiveaction

• Maintain that the RCRA/HSWA

Permit issued to NFS will be used to

enforce appropriate and necessary

layered institutional controls (ICs)

according to the EPA document titled

‘‘Institutional Controls: A Site

Manager’s Guide to Identifying,

Evaluating and Selecting Institutional

Controls at Superfund and RCRA

Corrective Action Cleanups’’ (EPA 540–

F–00–005, OSWER 9355.0–74FS–P,

dated September 2000). Some examples

of ICs include easements, covenants,

well drilling prohibitions, zoning

restrictions, and special building permit

requirements. Deed restriction is a

phrase often used in remedy decision

documents to describe easements or

other forms of ICs; however, this is not

a traditional property law term and will

be avoided. Because fences are physical

barriers instead of administrative or

legal measures, they are not considered

to be ICs.

8.2 Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation

The State has reviewed the proposed

action and concurs with the conclusion

regarding radiological dose and

approval of the North Site

Decommissioning Plan.

8.3 Tennessee State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO)

After considering the documentation

submitted, it is SHPO’s opinion that

there are no national register of historic

places listed or eligible properties

affected by this undertaking.

8.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife (US FWS)

The US FWS has determined that no

listed species will be impacted by the

proposed action. FWS also concludes

that the EA supports the conclusion that

the proposed action is not likely to

adversely affect the environment. A

Memorandum of Agreement between

TDEC, USFWS and NFS will be

developed to regulate activities near the

federal fishery.

9 References

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC). 1987. Official Correspondence

from Leland C. Rouse, Chief, Fuel Cycle

Safety Branch, to NFS. July 24, 1987.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil

Conservation Service. 1985. Soil Survey

of Unicoi County, Tennessee. Carlie

McCowan. September 1985.

International Commission on

Radiological Protection. 1990. ICRP 60

§ 16.

NRC approved decommissioning plan

for Ponds 1, 2, and 3 (NFS 1991).

EcoTek 1994. 1992/1993 NFS

Hydrogeologic Investigation and

Monitoring Well Installation Program.

EcoTek, Inc. June 30, 1994.

Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS).

1999a. Potential Dose to Radiological

Contaminants in North Site Soil and

Groundwater, Revision 1. February

1999.

Final Report: Groundwater and

Constituent Transport modeling at the

Nuclear Fuel Services Facility; Geraghty

& Miller, Inc. 4/99.

NFS North Site Decommissioning

Plan, Revision 1, 7/99.

Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS).

1999. North Site Characterization Report

for Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Erwin,

Tennessee, Revision 1. July 1999.

U.S. Department of Energy. Interim

Technical Standard ‘‘A Graded

Approach for Evaluating Radiation

Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota.’’

June 2000.

Tennessee Historical Commission

2000. Letter from R. L. Harper to Larry

W. Camper. December 19, 2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4 2001. Letter from Leo

J. Romanowski, Jr. to Phil Ting.

February 21, 2001.

Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation 2001.

Letter from Debra Schults to Phil Ting.

February 20, 2001.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter

from Steven Alexander, U.S. FWS to J.C.

Shepherd, April 18, 2001.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The Commission has prepared the

above Environmental Assessment

related to the amendment of Special

Nuclear Material License SNM–124. On

the basis of the assessment, the

Commission has concluded that

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action would not be

significant and do not warrant the

preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement. Accordingly, it has been

determined that a Finding of No

Significant Impact is appropriate.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of

the NRC’s ‘‘Rules of Practice,’’ the

Environmental Assessment and the

documents related to this proposed

action will be available electronically

for public inspection from the Publicly

Available Records (PARS) component of

NRC’s document system (ADAMS).

ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web

site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/

ADAMS/index.html (the Public

Electronic Reading Room).

Opportunity For a Hearing

Based on the EA and accompanying

safety evaluation, NRC is preparing to

amend License SNM–124. The NRC

hereby provides that this is a proceeding

on an application for amendment of a

license falling within the scope of

Subpart L, ‘‘Informal Hearing

Procedures for Adjudication in

Materials Licensing Proceedings,’’ of

NRC’s rules and practice for domestic

licensing proceedings 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(d).

A request for a hearing must be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of

publication of this Federal Register

notice.

A request for hearing or petition for

leave to intervene must be filed with the

Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission either:

1. By delivery to the Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff of the Secretary at

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–2738; or

2. By mail or telegram addressed to

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001. Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff.

In addition to meeting other

applicable requirements of 10 CFR part

2 of the NRC’s regulations, a request for

a hearing filed by a person other than

an applicant must describe in detail:

1. The interest of the requester 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(h).

3. The requester’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(d).

In accordance with 10 CFR

§ 2.1205(f), each request for a hearing

must also be served, by delivering it

personally or by mail to:

1. The applicant, Nuclear Fuel

Services, Inc., 1205 Banner Hill Road,

Erwin, TN 37650; and

2. The NRC staff, by delivering to the

Executive Director for 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.

27174 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Notices

The NRC contact for this licensing

action is Mary T. Adams, who may be

contacted at (301) 415–7249 or by e-mail

at mta@nrc.gov for more information

about the licensing action.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of May 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Lidia A. Roche,

Acting Chief, Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch,

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 01–11755 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards; Joint Meeting of the ACRS

Subcommittees on Materials and

Metallurgy, Thermal-Hydraulic

Phenomena, and Reliability and

Probabilistic Risk Assessment;

Cancellation

The joint meeting of the ACRS

Subcommittees on Materials and

Metallurgy, Thermal-Hydraulic

Phenomena, and Reliability and

Probabilistic Risk Assessment

scheduled for May 25, 2001, Room T–

2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland has been canceled. Notice of

this meeting was previously published

in the Federal Register on Tuesday,

May 8, 2001 (66 FR 23280).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Michael T. Markley cognizant ACRS

staff engineer, (telephone 301/415–

6885) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.

(EDT).

Dated: May 10, 2001.

James E. Lyons,

Associate Director for Technical Support,

ACRS/ACNW.

[FR Doc. 01–12337 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Biweekly Notice; Applications and

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses Involving No Significant

Hazards Considerations

I. Background

Pursuant to Public Law 97–415, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(the Commission or NRC staff) is

publishing this regular biweekly notice.

Public Law 97–415 revised section 189

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (the Act), to require the

Commission to publish notice of any

amendments issued, or proposed to be

issued, under a new provision of section

189 of the Act. This provision grants the

Commission the authority to issue and

make immediately effective any

amendment to an operating license

upon a determination by the

Commission that such amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration, notwithstanding the

pendency before the Commission of a

request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all

notices of amendments issued, or

proposed to be issued from April 23,

2001, through May 4, 2001. The last

biweekly notice was published on May

2, 2001 (66 FR 22021).

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

following amendment requests involve

no significant hazards consideration.

Under the Commission’s regulations in

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation

of the facility in accordance with the

proposed amendment would not (1)

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated; or (2)

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated; or (3)

involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received before

action is taken. Should the Commission

take this action, it will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of issuance

and provide for opportunity for a

hearing after issuance. The Commission

expects that the need to take this action

will occur very infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. Written comments may

also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland from 7:30

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

Copies of written comments received

may be examined at the NRC Public

Document Room, located at One White

Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The

filing of requests for a hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By June 15, 2001, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Publicly available records will be

accessible and electronically from the

ADAMS Public Library component on

the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov

(the Electronic Reading Room). 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 a 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