Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 154 / Friday, August 8, 2008 / Notices 46337 

items). Records relating to audits, 

policies, procedures, legislation, 

regulations, and workload. The 

proposed disposition instructions are 

limited to paper records. 

6. National Reconnaissance Office, 

Management Services and Operations 

(N1–525–08–2, 1 item, 1 temporary 

item). Audio and video tapes of 

polygraph interviews of agency staff and 

contractors containing adverse 

information. 

7. Office of Personnel Management, 

Federal Investigative Services Division 

(N1–478–08–2, 8 items, 8 temporary 

items). Records pertaining to the 

government-wide security background 

investigation program including 

investigation case files, reports, indexes, 

adjudications, and appraisals of agency 

security/suitability investigation 

programs. 

8. Office of Personnel Management, 

Office of the Inspector General (N1–

478–08–1, 16 items, 16 temporary 

items). Records include administrative 

sanction files, audit files, investigative 

files, legislative files, and legal files. The 

proposed disposition instructions are 

limited to paper records for most items. 

Dated: August 1, 2008. 

Michael J. Kurtz, 

Assistant Archivist for Records Services—

Washington, DC. 

[FR Doc. E8–18380 Filed 8–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Notice of Permits Issued Under the 

Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 

AGENCY: National Science Foundation. 

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under 

the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, 

Public Law 95–541. 

SUMMARY: The National Science 

Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 

notice of permits issued under the 

Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 

This is the required notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 

Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, 

National Science Foundation, 4201 

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 2, 

2008, the National Science Foundation 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register of permit applications received. 

A permit was issued on August 5, 2008 

to: Kristin M. O’Brien, Permit No. 2009–

011. 

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–18317 Filed 8–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No.: 40–8905] 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact for 

Site Protection Measures From Surface 

Water Flow, License Amendment No. 

59; Rio Algom Mining, LLC, Ambrosia 

Lake, NM—SUA–1473 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Issuance of Environmental 

Assessment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas McLaughlin, Project Manager, 

Materials Decommissioning Branch, 

Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of 

Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC, 20555. Telephone: 

(301) 415–5869; fax number: (301) 415–

5369; e-mail: tgm@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

By letter dated October 24, 2007, as 

supplemented on January 31, 2008, and 

March 21, 2008, Rio Algom Mining, 

LLC, (Rio Algom, or the Licensee) 

submitted an application to the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 

requesting an amendment to Source 

Materials License SUA–1473 for the 

Ambrosia Lake Mill Facility, in 

Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico. Rio Algom 

seeks the approval of its proposed site 

erosion protection measures designed to 

prevent surface water flow from 

damaging its uranium mill tailings site. 

The NRC prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) for this proposed 

action in accordance with the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based 

on the EA, the NRC concluded that a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) is appropriate with respect to 

the proposed action. The amendment 

would be issued following the 

publication of this FONSI and EA in the 

Federal Register. 

The Licensee has indicated that the 

proposed site erosion protection 

measures from surface water flow are 

the final component of the overall site 

reclamation plan. The Licensee 

previously has addressed, and NRC has 

approved, the remaining site-wide 

reclamation plan elements through 

separate licensing actions, including the 

original reclamation plan for Tailings 

Cells 1, 2, and 3 (approved in September 

1990), mill demolition, relocation of 

lined evaporation pond sediments, soil 

decommissioning plan, and 

groundwater remediation. The 

expansion of Tailings Cell 2 was 

approved by License Amendment No. 

58. The current licensing action is to 

protect the Tailing Cells from erosion 

from surface water by constructing a 

channel to divert water flow around 

them. 

II. Environmental Assessment 

1.0 Background 

The Ambrosia Lake site is in the 

Ambrosia Lake Mining District of New 

Mexico, 25 miles north of Grants, New 

Mexico. Rio Algom began processing ore 

in 1958, and processed approximately 

33 million tons of ore through 1985. The 

site continued to be an active uranium 

production facility through December 

2002. Site reclamation activities 

commenced in 1989 with some work on 

the top surface of the largest tailings 

cell. There are three tailings/waste cells 

situated adjacent to each other at the Rio 

Algom site: The large Tailings Cell 1, 

Tailings Cell 2 to the west of Cell 1, and 

a small Cell 3 east of Cell 1 that was 

used to dispose of contaminated 

windblown material. Reclamation of 

Cell 1 is complete, and cover 

construction of Cells 2 and 3 is still 

ongoing and almost complete. 

Reclamation activities have at times 

included unlined evaporation pond 

residue excavation and disposal, 

contaminated windblown soil cleanup, 

tailings impoundment reclamation, 

surface water erosion protection feature 

construction, and mill building 

demolition. 

In meetings and discussions with the 

Licensee in 2006 and 2007, the NRC 

staff was informed that Rio Algom 

intended to leave remaining 

contaminants under Ponds 4, 5, and 6 

in place in the Arroyo del Puerto 

floodplain. Ponds 4, 5, and 6 were 

unlined and uranium, radium-226, and 

thorium-230, have been found to extend 

to 10 feet deep in some areas. The top 

4 to 5 feet of contaminated soil in these 

Ponds have been removed and the 

material placed in Tailings Cell 3, then 

the footprint was covered with 1 to 2 

feet of clean soil. The staff expressed 

concerns that the remaining 

contaminates under the Ponds needed 

to be protected from erosion due to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
46338 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 154 / Friday, August 8, 2008 / Notices 

periodic flooding that occurs in the 

Arroyo del Puerto. These Ponds extend 

over an area of about 50 acres and must 

be stabilized and protected from 

erosion. They are located inside the 

exterior diversion berm, but need to be 

protected from the effects of direct 

precipitation and the resulting overland 

runoff. RAMC proposes to provide a 3- 

inch thick layer of rock to protect the 

top slope from erosion. Rio Algom’s 

decision to leave this material in place 

has resulted in significant changes to 

the overall design of the Arroyo del 

Puerto channel. Major revisions 

included construction of a very large 

diversion channel and significant 

additions of riprap to protect against 

erosion and lateral migration of the realigned channel. 

The re-design and protection of the 

Arroyo del Puerto channel is the last 

phase of the Ambrosia Lake facility 

reclamation. The NRC staff recently 

approved License Amendment 58 which 

finalized the capping of the remaining 

mill tailing waste in Tailings Cell 2. An 

extensive EA was prepared for this 

licensing action (See ADAMS 

ML072670278 dated 10/31/2007) which 

included the discussion of land use, 

geology, surface and ground water, 

ecology (flora and fauna), climate, 

socioeconomic impact, historical and 

cultural resources, public and 

occupational health, and transportation. 

The scope of the current EA, which 

evaluates the construction of a channel 

to divert water flow away from the three 

Tailings Cells and Ponds 4, 5, and 6 to 

protect them from erosion, is limited to 

the construction impacts, as all other 

impacts were previously evaluated in 

the Tailings Cell 2 expansion EA 

completed in October 2007. 

2.0 The Proposed Action 

The proposed action is to amend NRC 

Source Materials License SUA–1473 to 

approve the construction of a channel to 

divert water flow away from the three 

Tailings Cells and Ponds 4, 5, and 6 to 

protect them from erosion caused by 

surface water flow. To comply with 

Criterion 6 of 10 CFR 40, Appendix A 

(which requires stability of mill Tailings 

Cells for 1000 years to the extent 

reasonably achievable and in any case 

for 200 years), the Licensee proposes to 

significantly modify the alignment of 

the original channel by constructing a 

new channel and berm on the east side 

of Ponds 4, 5, and 6. The overall design 

includes construction of: (1) A new 

exterior diversion channel and berm; (2) 

a new interior drainage channel; (3) 

modified riprap protection for mill 

Tailing Cell 3; and (4) additional riprap 

protection for Ponds 4, 5, and 6. Each 

of these design features requires rock 

riprap erosion protection to assure longterm stability. 

3.0 Need for the Proposed Action 

The need for the proposed action is to 

address NRC concerns about the 

potential periodic flood conditions of 

the original channel due to heavy rains, 

and the long-term stability for the three 

mill Tailings Cells, and for protection of 

Ponds 4, 5, and 6. Periodic heavy rains 

have the potential to wash away the 

covered uranium mill waste in the three 

Tailings Cells and under Ponds 4, 5 and 

6, and carry the uranium waste outside 

the property boundary of the Licensee. 

The purpose of the re-designed channel 

is to divert any flood water away from 

the three Tailings Cells and Ponds 4, 5 

and 6. This EA fulfills the NRC’s 

responsibilities under the Atomic 

Energy Act to make a decision on a 

proposed license amendment in a 

manner that ensures protection of the 

environment. 

4.0 The Environmental Impacts of the 

Proposed Action 

The potential direct impacts of the 

proposed action are short-term impacts 

from construction. Long-term and 

indirect impacts are considered as part 

of the previously cited analysis. The 

direct impacts from construction 

activities primarily would be dust 

generation due to excavating material to 

form the channel, noise generated by 

construction equipment, and water 

surface runoff. Fugitive dust from heavy 

equipment operation would be 

mitigated through the use of dust 

suppression methods on haul roads. 

Noise suppression devices will be worn 

by workers when necessary. The 

Licensee’s implementation of its 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits, 

its Storm Water Pollution Prevention 

Plan for the site, its site Health, Safety 

and Environment Management System, 

and NRC license requirements would 

provide adequate assurances to avoid 

adverse impacts to the environment. 

Additional ambient air monitoring 

stations have been installed to collect 

data from the dust produced during the 

work activity to demonstrate that 

control measures would be 

implemented and effective. These high 

volume air sampling stations measure 

the amount of natural Uranium, Th-230, 

Ra-226, and Pb-210, and the 

concentrations are compared to the 

limits described in License Condition 

No. 10. Potential impacts at the tailings 

cell area would be small since the area 

is already disturbed from site 

reclamation activities and the associated 

impacts were previously evaluated. 

The staff evaluated the potential 

impacts associated with the Licensee’s 

proposed construction of a channel to 

divert water from the three mill Tailings 

Cells and Ponds 4, 5, and 6. The staff 

finds that the mill tailings waste 

contained in the three Tailings Cells, 

and the contaminants in Ponds 4, 5, and 

6 would be adequately protected from 

the effects of erosion that can be caused 

by the periodic flooding of the Arroyo 

del Puerto. 

The Licensee prepared a technical 

memorandum to respond to New 

Mexico Department of Environmental 

Quality (NMDEQ) comments about the 

disruption or elimination of monitoring 

wells during the construction of the 

channel. The technical memorandum 

stated that no monitoring wells would 

be abandoned or replaced as the result 

of the construction of the new diversion 

channel. However, there are five wells 

within the area of construction that 

would have changes in their final 

surface elevations from construction 

activities. 

The NMDEQ and NRC staff also had 

concerns about the potential for surface 

water infiltration. The Licensee 

prepared a second technical 

memorandum to respond to the 

question of surface water infiltration 

and the potential for ground water 

recharge to the alluvial system beneath 

the channel from surface water flow. 

After reviewing the Licensee’s response 

in their second technical memorandum, 

NRC staff concluded that Rio Algom 

adequately explained that the 

infiltration potential within the 

Ambrosia Lake Mill site would be small. 

The following are the most significant 

points stated by the Licensee that 

supports its conclusion that infiltration 

(recharge to the water table) is small: 

• The drainage area for the Interior 

Drainage Channel is limited (less than a 

square mile—440 acres), thus, the 

surface runoff amounts would be small. 

• The soils in the vicinity of the 

Arroyo del Puerto at the Ambrosia Mill 

site are greater than 30 feet deep, and 

are composed of fine sandy silt to silty 

fine sand. Because of their fine texture 

and low permeability, they would retain 

more soil moisture than coarser textured 

soils. As a result, the evapotranspiration 

process would remove much of the soil 

moisture before it reaches the water 

table. 

The evaporation rate for this site (54 

inches/year) is greater (more than 6 

times) than the annual precipitation 

(8.83 inches/year). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 154 / Friday, August 8, 2008 / Notices 46339 

1The May 30, 2008 correspondence includes a 

copy of a negotiated service agreement proffered by 

Capital One to the Postal Service. 

5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed 

Action 

The staff considered denial of Rio 

Algom’s request (i.e., the no action 

alternative) as the only reasonable 

alternative to the proposed action. 

Denial of the Licensee’s request would 

result in no protection from the 

spreading of contaminants from the 

capped mill tailing cells or the 

contaminants in Ponds 4, 5, and 6 from 

potential flooding in the Arroyo del 

Puerto floodplain. 

6.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted 

This EA was prepared by the NRC 

staff, and coordinated with the NMDEQ. 

NRC staff provided a draft of its EA to 

NMDEQ for review. NMDEQ had 

multiple comments on the Draft EA and 

the overall design of the proposed 

channel. Several discussions were held 

with the staff of NMDEQ and their 

comments were incorporated into the 

Draft EA and the technical evaluation 

report which would accompany the 

license amendment. 

A cultural resource survey was 

conducted on the archeological site 

discovered during the site inspection, 

and concluded that no cultural resource 

sites are present, and that the area is 

ineligible for inclusion in the National 

Register. Rio Algom sent a letter to the 

State of New Mexico Department of 

Cultural Affairs (NMDCA), Historic 

Preservation Division (HPD), notifying 

them of the archeological site and the 

redesign of the channel and 1000-year 

(flood control) berm to avoid disturbing 

the area. The NRC staff contacted the 

NMDCA, HPD, which stated that the site 

was eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register, but concurred with 

the proposed realignment of the channel 

project to avoid the archeological site, 

and stated that, as long as the site is 

avoided, the project would not affect 

historic properties. The NRC staff has 

determined that no further consultation 

would be required under Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The NRC staff has determined that the 

proposed action would not affect any 

federally- or state-listed (threatened and 

endangered) species or their critical 

habitat. Therefore, no further 

consultation would be required under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act. The NRC staff advised the Licensee 

to contact the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) to inquire if this 

project would require a Section 404 

(Clean Water Act) permit. The NRC staff 

contacted the USACE about the Section 

404 permit and they requested that NRC 

send the technical memoranda from the 

licensee, the concurrence from NMDCA, 

HPD on the proposed channel design, 

and the Federal Register Notice (FRN) 

with the EA (See ADAMS 

ML081890038). The NRC staff sent the 

technical memorandums and 

concurrence from NMDCA, HPD to the 

USACE and will send the FRN when it 

is finalized. The USACE will then 

decide if a Section 404 permit is 

required. 

7.0 Conclusion 

The NRC staff prepared this EA in 

support of the proposed action. Based 

on the analysis contained in this EA, the 

staff concluded that there are no 

environmental impacts from the 

proposed action, and that the 

preparation of an Environmental Impact 

Statement is not warranted. 

Accordingly, the NRC determined that a 

Finding of No Significant Impact is 

appropriate. 

III. Further Information 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the Licensee’s 

letter and report dated October 24, 2007 

(See ADAMS ML073060379, 

ML073060380, ML073060381, 

ML073060382, and ML073060383), a 

report from the Licensee dated January 

31, 2008 (See ADAMS ML080350250, 

ML080350251, ML080350252, 

ML080350254, and ML080350259), a 

report from the Licensee dated March 

21, 2008 (See ADAMS ML080990026, 

ML080990027, ML080990034, and 

ML080990035), a technical 

memorandum from the Licensee 

dated May 8, 2008 (See ADAMS 

ML081280101), and a revised technical 

memorandum from the Licensee dated 

May 21, 2008 (See ADAMS 

ML081490526), all of which are 

available for public inspection, and can 

be copied for a fee, at the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852. 

The NRC maintains an Agency-wide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS), which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. These documents may be 

accessed through the NRC’s Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the internet 

at http://www.nrc.gov. 

Persons who do not have access to 

ADAMS or who have problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS may contact the PDR reference 

staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 

or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day 

of August, 2008. 

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Rebecca Tadesse, 

Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning 

and Uranium Recovery, Licensing Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management, and 

Environmental Protection, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. 

[FR Doc. E8–18289 Filed 8–7–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket No. C2008–3; Order No. 92] 

Complaint of Capital One Services, Inc. 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has initiated 

a case to address allegations of undue 

discrimination and other issues raised 

by Capital One Services, Inc. (Capital 

One) in a formal complaint. The 

allegations stem from Capital One’s 

interest in obtaining a rate agreement 

from the Postal Service on terms that are 

the same as or similar to those another 

major mailer has received. Accepting 

the case will provide an opportunity for 

review of pertinent issues. 

DATES: Notices of intervention are due 

on August 13, 2008. A prehearing 

conference will be held on August 14, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

electronically via the Commission’s 

Filing Online system at http:// 

www.prc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6820 and 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Complaint of Capital One Services, Inc. 

Regarding Discrimination and Other 

Violations of Law by the United States 

Postal Service (Complaint) was filed on 

June 19, 2008. The Complaint asserts 

several claims concerning Capital One’s 

unsuccessful attempts to enter into a 

negotiated service agreement similar to 

the agreement that the Postal Service 

recently commenced with Bank of 

America. In support of the Complaint, 

Capital One filed the Declaration of Ben 

Lamm, and correspondence between 

Capital One and the Postal Service 

dated May 15, 2008, May 27, 2008, May 

30, 2008, and June 4, 2008.1

The Answer of the United States 

Postal Service (Answer) in response to 

the Complaint was filed on July 21, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES