Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 56597 

NSF may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless the 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number 

and the agency informs potential 

persons who are to respond to the 

collection of information that such 

persons are not required to respond to 

the collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Under OMB regulations, the agency 

may continue to conduct or sponsor the 

collection of information while this 

submission is pending at OMB. 

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments 

to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance 

Officer, National Science Foundation, 

4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 295, 

Arlington, VA 22230, or by e-mail to 

splimpton@nsf.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Call 

or write, Suzanne Plimpton, Reports 

Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by 

e-mail to splimpton@nsf.gov. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, 

Monday through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Collection: Graduate Research 

Fellowship Program Evaluation. 

OMB Approval Number: 3145–NEW. 

Abstract: The purpose of this study is 

to provide evidence on the impact of the 

GRPF on individuals’ educational 

decision, career preparations, 

aspirations and progress, as well as 

professional productivity. This includes 

the study design and data collection as 

well as subsequent analysis and report 

writing. As part of NSF’s commitment to 

graduate student education in the U.S., 

the GRFP seeks to promote and 

maintain advanced training in science, 

technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) field by annually 

awarding roughly 1,000 fellowships to 

graduate student in research-based 

programs. As the first program 

evaluation since 2002, the GRFP 

evaluation comes on the heels of 

increased funding by NSF to supporting 

additional fellowship awards. 

NSF contracts with the National 

Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the 

University of Chicago to design, 

implement, and assess a study that will 

address relevant procedures and 

components of the GRFP in regards to 

the application and award process and 

support for Fellows and sponsoring 

institutions with an aim towards 

measuring and increasing the program’s 

effectiveness. 

There are four goals of the GRFP 

evaluation. The first goal is to maintain 

a high quality evaluation through 

consultation with an advisory group of 

national experts. The second goal is to 

assess impacts of the GRFP on graduate 

school experiences through a follow-up 

study of GRFP award recipients and 

other applicants. The third goal is to 

assess impacts of the GRFP on career 

and professional outcomes through 

analysis of GRFP participants and 

comparable national populations. The 

fourth goal is to assess the benefits of 

the GRFP on institutions that enroll 

GRFP Fellows. The evaluation is 

designed to address research questions 

that explore the influences of the GRFP 

on the following broad sets of variables: 

• Educational decisions, experiences, 

and graduate degree attainment of 

STEM graduate students; 

• Career preparation and aspirations; 

• Career activities, progress, and job 

characteristics following graduate 

school; 

• Professional productivity; 

• Workforce participation and career 

outcomes; 

• Graduate school institutions and 

student recruitment at GRFP-sponsoring 

institutions; 

• Faculty attitudes at GRFPsponsoring institutions; 

• Diversity of students participating 

in STEM fields at GRFP-sponsoring 

institutions. 

This survey would address two 

separate components of the planned 

GRPF evaluation. First, this component 

will assess the influence of GRFP 

awards on recipients’ graduate school 

experience and outcomes, which 

includes program of study and 

institution attended, professional 

productivity (e.g., publishes papers, 

conference presentations, etc.) during 

graduate schools and career aspirations. 

Second, the survey will evaluate the 

impact of participation in the GRPF on 

subsequent career options, progress and 

contributions to respondents’ 

professional fields. This will be 

conducted as a web-based survey. 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 30 minutes for 

current graduate students and 40 

minutes per graduates. 

Respondents: Individuals. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Form: 2,826 graduate students; 6,429 

graduates. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 5,699 hours (2,826 

graduate student respondents at 30 

minutes per response = 1,413 hours + 

6,429 graduate respondents at 40 

minutes per response = 4,286 hours). 

Frequency of Response: One time. 

Comments: Comments are invited on 

(a) whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

NSF, including whether the information 

shall have practical utility; (b) the 

accuracy of the NSF’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information on respondents, including 

through the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology; (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Dated: September 13, 2010. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23170 Filed 9–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–156; NRC–2010–0203] 

University of Wisconsin; University of 

Wisconsin Nuclear Reactor 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or the Commission) 

is considering issuance of a renewed 

Facility Operating License No. R–74, to 

be held by the University of Wisconsin 

(the licensee), which would authorize 

continued operation of the University of 

Wisconsin Nuclear Reactor (UWNR), 

located in Madison, Dane County, 

Wisconsin. Therefore, as required by 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Section 51.21, the 

NRC is issuing this Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would renew 

Facility Operating License No. R–74 for 

a period of 20 years from the date of 

issuance of the renewed license. The 

proposed action is in accordance with 

the licensee’s application dated May 9, 

2000, as supplemented by letter dated 

October 17, 2008. In accordance with 10 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

56598 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 

CFR 2.109, the existing license remains 

in effect until the NRC takes final action 

on the renewal application. 

Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is needed to 

allow the continued operation of the 

UWNR to routinely provide teaching, 

research, and services to numerous 

institutions for a period of 20 years. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its safety 

evaluation of the proposed action to 

issue a renewed Facility Operating 

License No. R–74 to allow continued 

operation of the UWNR for a period of 

20 years and concludes there is 

reasonable assurance that the UWNR 

will continue to operate safely for the 

additional period of time. The details of 

the NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be 

provided with the renewed license that 

will be issued as part of the letter to the 

licensee approving its license renewal 

application. This document contains the 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed action. 

The UWNR is located in the 

Mechanical Engineering Building on the 

main campus of the University of 

Wisconsin. The UWNR is housed in the 

Reactor Laboratory, a 13 meter (43 feet) 

by 22 meter (70 feet) room of 

conventional construction within the 

Mechanical Engineering Building. 

Throughout most of the Reactor 

Laboratory, the ceiling height is 

approximately 11 meters (36 feet) with 

a portion of the ceiling above the 

console area a height of only 7 meters 

(22 feet). The floor of the room is 

concrete. There is no basement or crawl 

space below the Reactor Laboratory 

floor. The walls are concrete and brick. 

The ceiling is a 2.25 centimeter (11⁄2

inch) steel deck with 5 centimeters (2 

inches) of rigid insulation and a 4-ply, 

built-up surface roof. The Mechanical 

Engineering Building also contains 

classrooms, laboratories, shops, and 

staff offices for the Departments of 

Mechanical Engineering, Industrial 

Engineering, and Engineering Physics. 

The Mechanical Engineering Building is 

near the southwestern border of the 

University of Wisconsin campus. The 

nearest property not owned by the 

University of Wisconsin is 130 meters 

(425 feet) from the reactor site. The 

reactor site is 700 meters (2,300 feet) 

south of the shore of Lake Mendota. The 

nearest permanent residence is 

approximately 150 meters (485 feet) 

west of the reactor site and the nearest 

dormitory is approximately 400 meters 

(1,300 feet) away. There are no nearby 

industrial, transportation, or military 

facilities that pose a threat to the 

UWNR. 

The UWNR is a heterogeneous pooltype nuclear reactor currently fueled 

with low-enriched uranium TRIGA 

(Training, Research, Isotope Production, 

General Atomics) fuel which is cooled 

by natural convection. The aluminumlined concrete pool is 2.5 meters (8 feet) 

wide, 3.7 meters (12 feet) long, and 8.5 

meters (27.5 feet) deep. Light water acts 

as the coolant and the moderator as well 

as being a biological shield. The 

reinforced concrete pool walls also 

serve as a biological shield. The core is 

reflected on two sides by graphite and 

on two sides by water. The waterreflected areas are being utilized as 

irradiation facility locations. The reactor 

is shielded by concrete and water. The 

core is normally covered by 6 meters (20 

feet) of water. Maximum steady-state 

power level is 1,000 kilowatts. 

Reactivity is controlled by three shim 

safety blades, a regulating blade, and a 

transient control rod. All control 

elements move vertically. The top and 

bottom reflector region is partially 

graphite and partially water. A detailed 

description of the reactor can be found 

in the licensee’s Safety Analysis Report. 

On June 11, 2009, the NRC issued an 

order for UWNR to convert from highenriched uranium fuel to low-enriched 

uranium fuel (Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML091390802). The conversion to lowenriched uranium fuel was completed 

and normal operations resumed on 

January 22, 2010. As part of the analysis 

for the conversion, the staff determined 

that the changes involved no significant 

hazards consideration, no significant 

increase in the amount of effluents, no 

significant change in the type of 

effluents that may be released off site, 

and no significant increase in individual 

or cumulative occupational radiation 

exposure. 

The licensee has not requested any 

further changes to the facility design or 

operating conditions as part of the 

application for license renewal. No 

significant changes have been made in 

the types or quantities of effluents that 

may be released offsite. 

The licensee has systems in place for 

controlling the release of radiological 

effluents and implements a radiation 

protection program to monitor 

personnel exposures and releases of 

radioactive effluents. The design of the 

experimental facilities, the reactor pool, 

and the reactor shield includes 

protective measures and devices which 

limit radiation exposures and limit 

releases of radioactive material to the 

environment. The systems and radiation 

protection program are appropriate for 

the types and quantities of effluents 

expected to be generated by continued 

operation of the reactor. Accordingly, 

there would be no increase in routine 

occupational or public radiation 

exposure as a result of license renewal. 

The proposed action will not 

significantly increase the probability or 

consequences of accidents. Therefore, 

license renewal would not change the 

environmental impact of facility 

operation. The NRC staff evaluated 

information contained in the licensee’s 

application and data reported to the 

NRC by the licensee for the last five 

years of operation to determine the 

projected radiological impact of the 

facility on the environment during the 

period of the renewed license. The NRC 

staff finds that releases of radioactive 

material and personnel exposures were 

all well within applicable regulatory 

limits. Based on this evaluation, the 

NRC staff concluded that continued 

operation of the reactor would not have 

a significant environmental impact. 

I. Radiological Impact 

Environmental Effects of Reactor 

Operations 

The radiation protection program at 

the reactor facility is similar to the 

campus radiation safety program but the 

reactor program has some specific 

aspects that apply only to the reactor 

facility. These protective measures and 

devices are discussed more thoroughly 

in the UWNR Safety Analysis Report. 

The ventilation system is designed to 

prevent the spread of airborne 

particulate radioactive material into 

occupied areas outside the Reactor 

Laboratory. It removes particulates with 

high efficiency filtration and assures 

that all releases of both gaseous and 

particulate activity are monitored and 

discharged at an elevated release point. 

Calculations and measurements have 

been performed by the licensee to 

determine production and release rates 

of the various activities that might be 

discharged due to normal operation. 

Argon-41 is the only activity released in 

significant quantities during normal 

operations. The maximum release rate 

for Argon-41 activity is 13.3 

microCuries per second (μCi/sec). Using 

the ventilation system rated flow-rate of 

9,600 standard cubic feet per minute, 

this activity is diluted to 2.94E–6 

microCuries per milliliter (μCi/ml) at 

the stack outlet. The resulting maximum 

concentration downwind is calculated 

to be 1.25E–9 μCi/ml. The maximum 

release rate of Argon-41 would occur 

with the reactor operating continuously 

at 1,000 kilowatts and all four beam 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 56599 

ports and the thermal column open. 

Such operation is not reasonable, but it 

does establish an upper limit to the 

activity that might be discharged. Using 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) COMPLY program, it was 

calculated that the maximally exposed 

receptor, in the above-mentioned worst 

case, would receive a dose of 0.6 

millirem/year if all activity generated 

was discharged continuously. Total 

gaseous radioactive releases reported to 

the NRC in the licensee’s annual reports 

were less than the air effluent 

concentration limits set by 10 CFR Part 

20, Appendix B. 

The only activity produced in liquid 

form in amounts sufficient to present a 

personnel exposure hazard is Nitrogen16, which is produced in the reactor 

coolant as it passes through the reactor 

core when operating at power levels 

above 100 kilowatts. Nitrogen-16 is 

controlled by use of the diffuser system, 

which reduces the dose rate at the pool 

surface to 2 to 3 millirem/hour during 

full power operation. If the diffuser 

system fails during full power 

operation, the dose rate at the pool 

surface is less than 100 millirem/hour. 

Small quantities of liquid radioactive 

waste are generated by regeneration of 

the demineralizer and from liquids 

irradiated as part of sample irradiation. 

The radiation level from such liquids is 

extremely low and does not produce 

radiation exposure hazards. Liquid 

wastes can be transferred to the campus 

University Safety Department, Radiation 

Safety Office, but most are placed into 

the holdup tank. The Reactor Laboratory 

occasionally discharges liquid waste 

from the holdup tank to the sewer 

system. Before discharging liquid waste 

into the sanitary sewer, the discharges 

are filtered so that no particulate 

activity above 0.5 micron size is 

discharged. Sampling, analysis, and 

release of the holdup tank contents are 

governed by a written procedure that 

assures releases are within 10 CFR Part 

20 Appendix B Table 3 limits, and that 

the pH of the aqueous liquid is within 

local limits for discharge to the sewer. 

Annual liquid releases have ranged from 

0 to 10,000 gallons, with 3,000 gallons 

being typical. The licensee maintains a 

pool leak surveillance program. The 

pool water leak surveillance program 

continues to monitor the pool water 

evaporation rate, the pool water makeup volume, and pool water 

radioactivity. The pool leak surveillance 

program indicated that approximately 

2,449 gallons of water have been 

released to the environment in 2008– 

2009 and 736 gallons in 2007–2008. The 

annual reports for 2006–2007 and 2005– 

2006 indicate there was no water 

released to the environment associated 

with pool surveillance; however, the 

2004–2005 annual report indicates that 

water had been released. The 

radionuclide of concern associated with 

pool water leakage would be hydrogen3 (tritium). Annual reports indicate that 

the maximum concentrations and 

maximum quantity released from the 

facility would have no significant 

impact. 

Annual reports reviewed from the last 

five years indicate that when solid 

waste is generated from use of the 

UWNR, it is transferred to the 

University of Wisconsin broad scope 

license for ultimate disposal in 

accordance with regulations set forth 

under that license. In the years that 

solid waste was generated, less than 400 

milliCuries of solid waste was 

transferred for disposal. 

Dosimeters are used for monitoring 

operating personnel and individuals 

that frequently conduct experiments. 

Electronic dosimeters are used for 

visitors and for tour groups. Doses 

received by visitors and tour groups are 

so low that they are often unmeasurable. 

The maximum dose rate permitted 

during any tour is 0.5 millirem/hour. 

The maximum dose rate permitted for 

non-radiation workers is 2.0 millirem/ 

hour. Visitors who are radiation workers 

but not part of the campus dosimetry 

program, such as visiting researchers, 

are allowed access to higher dose rates; 

however, rarely does the dose rate 

exceed 2.0 millirem/hour. No student 

dosimeter has ever received a 

measurable radiation exposure from 

reactor operation. Occupational 

exposures received by operations and 

maintenance personnel have historically 

been very low, seldom exceeding 0.5 

rem total effective dose equivalent in a 

year and usually below 100 millirem/ 

year. The occupational exposure limit 

for total effective dose equivalent from 

10 CFR 20.1201(a)(1)(i) is 5 rem per 

year. No changes that would lead to an 

increase in occupational dose are 

expected as a result of the proposed 

action. 

The licensee has in place an 

environmental monitoring program that 

uses area monitors placed in most 

volume occupied areas around the 

reactor laboratory. The area monitors are 

changed out quarterly. The exposure 

reading would indicate the maximum 

exposure an individual would receive if 

continuously present in that area. 

Presently, there are 26 monitoring 

points. Effluents are also monitored at 

the point of release. According to the 

licensee’s annual reports, the dose a 

person would receive if continuously 

present in any of the monitored areas 

would be less than limits set forth in 10 

CFR Part 20 for dose to the general 

public. 

The licensee conducts an 

environmental monitoring program to 

record and track the radiological impact 

of UWNR operation on the surrounding 

unrestricted area. The program consists 

of quarterly exposure measurements at 

four locations on the site boundary and 

at two control locations away from any 

direct influence from the reactor. 

Review of the last five annual reports 

submitted by the licensee indicates that 

radiation exposure at the monitoring 

locations were not significantly higher 

than those measured at the control 

locations. Based on the NRC staff’s 

review of the past five years of data, the 

NRC staff concludes that operation of 

the UWNR does not have any significant 

radiological impact on the surrounding 

environment. No changes in reactor 

operation that would affect off-site 

radiation levels are expected as a result 

of the license renewal. 

Environmental Effects of Accidents 

Accident analyses are discussed in 

Chapter 13 of the UWNR Safety 

Analysis Report and updated in the lowenriched uranium conversion report 

dated August 25, 2008 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML090760776). The 

maximum hypothetical accident for 

UWNR is postulated as damage to a fuel 

element resulting in failure of the fuel 

cladding. The likelihood of a major fuel 

element cladding failure is considered 

small. The elements must meet rigid 

quality control standards; pool water 

quality is carefully controlled; and care 

is taken in handling fuel. Though the 

likelihood is small, such a cladding 

failure is possible. In the event of such 

an accident, the amount of volatiles 

released to the room would be 11.28 

Curies. If this activity is distributed 

uniformly in the laboratory volume, the 

resulting concentration would be 5.18E– 

3 Ci/m3. The maximum dose to a worker 

in confinement for 5 minutes would be 

1.35 rem total effective dose equivalent, 

35.8 rem committed dose equivalent to 

the thyroid gland, and 278 millirem 

effective dose equivalent. The proposed 

action will not result in any changes 

that will increase the probability or 

consequences of accidents. 

II. Non-Radiological Impacts 

The UWNR is cooled by a system that 

contains three loops: The closed loop 

primary system; the closed loop 

intermediate coolant system; and the 

closed loop campus chilled water 

system. Heat from the primary coolant 

system is transferred to the intermediate 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

56600 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 

coolant system through the primary heat 

exchanger. Heat from the intermediate 

cooling system is then transferred to the 

campus chilled water system through 

the intermediate heat exchanger. The 

system is designed to maintain a 

pressure gradient towards the pool in 

order to prevent the inadvertent loss of 

pool water. A 5 centimeter (2 inch) 

diameter line whose rupture could have 

caused loss of pool water has been 

permanently plugged inside the 

concrete shield and is presently sealed 

off outside the shield. A pool drain line 

and valve have been eliminated. There 

are no valves in the system that, if 

opened, can drain the pool. The 

proposed action would not make any 

changes that would increase the nonradiological consequences of accidents. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Considerations 

The NRC has responsibilities that are 

derived from NEPA and from other 

environmental laws, which include the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), Coastal 

Zone Management Act (CZMA), 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (FWCA), and the Executive Order 

on Environmental Justice. The following 

presents a brief discussion of impacts 

associated with these laws and other 

requirements. 

I. Endangered Species Act 

No effects on the aquatic or terrestrial 

habitat in the vicinity of the facility, or 

to threatened, endangered, or protected 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act, would be expected. 

II. Coastal Zone Management Act 

The site occupied by the UWNR is not 

located within any managed coastal 

zones, nor do the UWNR effluents 

impact any managed coastal zones. 

III. National Historic Preservation Act 

The NHPA requires Federal agencies 

to consider the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties. 

There are a few historic sites located on 

the UW campus within 0.5 miles of the 

site but the closest to the site of the 

UWNR is the old U. S. Forest Products 

Laboratory. The location of the old U. S. 

Products Laboratory is approximately 31 

meters (100 feet) from the Mechanical 

Engineering Building where the UWNR 

is located. Continued operation of the 

UWNR will not affect this historic 

designation. It is unlikely that there 

would be any potential impacts of 

license renewal that would have an 

adverse effect on historic and 

archaeological resources at UWNR. 

IV. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

The licensee is not planning any 

water resource development projects, 

including any of the modifications 

relating to impounding a body of water, 

damming, diverting a stream or river, 

deepening a channel, irrigation, or 

altering a body of water for navigation 

or drainage. 

V. Executive Order 12898— 

Environmental Justice 

The environmental justice impact 

analysis evaluates the potential for 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects 

on minority and low-income 

populations that could result from the 

relicensing and the continued operation 

of the UWNR. Such effects may include 

human health, biological, cultural, 

economic, or social impacts. Minority 

and low-income populations are subsets 

of the general public residing around 

the UWNR, and all are exposed to the 

same health and environmental effects 

generated from activities at the UWNR. 

Minority Populations in the Vicinity 

of the UWNR—According to 2000 

census data, 9 percent of the population 

(approximately 1,014,000 individuals) 

residing within a 50-mile radius of 

UWNR identified themselves as 

minority individuals. The largest 

minority groups were Black or African 

American and Hispanic or Latino 

(32,000 persons or 3.2 percent), 

followed by Asian (21,000 or 2.0 

percent). According to the U.S. Census 

Bureau, about 12.7 percent of the Dane 

County population identified 

themselves as minorities, with persons 

of Black or African American origin 

comprising the largest minority group 

(6.1 percent). According to the census 

data 3-year average estimates for 2006– 

2008, the minority population of Dane 

County, as a percent of the total 

population, had increased to 15.5 

percent. 

Low-income Populations in the 

Vicinity of the UWNR—According to 

2000 Census data, approximately 10,500 

families and 75,000 individuals 

(approximately 4.1 and 7.4 percent, 

respectively) residing within a 50-mile 

radius of the UWNR were identified as 

living below the Federal poverty 

threshold in 1999. The 1999 Federal 

poverty threshold was $17,029 for a 

family of four. 

According to Census data in the 

2006–2008 American Community 

Survey 3-Year Estimates, the median 

household income for Wisconsin was 

$52,249, while 7.0 percent of families 

and 10.7 percent of the state population 

were determined to be living below the 

Federal poverty threshold. Dane County 

had a higher median household income 

average ($61,818) and a lower percent of 

families (4.6 percent) and similar 

percentage of individuals (10.9 percent) 

living below the poverty level, 

respectively. 

Impact Analysis—Potential impacts to 

minority and low-income populations 

would mostly consist of radiological 

effects; however, radiation doses from 

continued operations associated with 

this license renewal are expected to 

continue at current levels, and would be 

well below regulatory limits. 

Based on this information and the 

analysis of human health and 

environmental impacts presented in this 

environmental assessment, the proposed 

relicensing would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects 

on minority and low-income 

populations residing in the vicinity of 

UWNR. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to license renewal, 

the NRC considered denying the 

proposed action. If the NRC denied the 

request for license renewal, reactor 

operations would cease and 

decommissioning would be required. 

The NRC notes that, even with a 

renewed license, the UWNR will 

eventually be decommissioned, at 

which time the environmental effects of 

decommissioning would occur. 

Decommissioning would be conducted 

in accordance with an NRC-approved 

decommissioning plan, which would 

require a separate environmental review 

under 10 CFR 51.21. Cessation of 

facility operations would reduce or 

eliminate radioactive effluents and 

emissions. However, as previously 

discussed in this environmental 

assessment, radioactive effluents and 

emissions from reactor operations 

constitute a small fraction of the 

applicable regulatory limits. Therefore, 

the environmental impacts of license 

renewal and the denial of the request for 

license renewal would be similar. In 

addition, denying the request for license 

renewal would eliminate the benefits of 

teaching, research, and services 

provided by the UWNR. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with the agency’s stated 

policy, on July 1, 2010, the staff 

consulted with the State Liaison Officer 

regarding the environmental impact of 

the proposed action. In an electronic 

mail message dated July 2, 2010, the 

State Liaison Officer indicated that the 

State had no comments with respect to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2010 / Notices 56601 

the environmental assessment and for 

the Finding of No Significant Impact. 

In a communication dated July 9, 

2010, the Wisconsin State Historic 

Preservation Office agreed that no 

historic properties would be affected as 

a result of continued operation of the 

UWNR. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC 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 May 9, 2000 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML093570404), as supplemented by 

letter dated October 17, 2008 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML100740573). 

Documents may be examined, and/or 

copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR), located at One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 

Publicly available records will be 

accessible electronically from the 

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 

Room on 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 at 1–800–397–4209, or 

301–415–4737, or send an e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day 

of September 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Linh Tran, 

Senior Project Manager, Research and Test 

Reactors Licensing Branch, Division of Policy 

and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23114 Filed 9–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

Privacy Act of 1974: New System of 

Records 

AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). 

ACTION: Notice of a new system of 

records. 

SUMMARY: The Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (the Affordable Care 

Act), Public Law 111–148, was enacted 

on March 23, 2010; the Health Care and 

Education Reconciliation Act (the 

Reconciliation Act), Public Law 111– 

152, was enacted on March 30, 2010. 

The Affordable Care Act and 

implementing regulations (codified in 

HHS interim final rules (IFR) at 45 CFR 

Part 147) require that non-grandfathered 

health insurance plans and issuers 

offering group and individual coverage 

have effective internal claims and 

appeals and external review processes. 

The effective date for these 

requirements is plan or policy years 

beginning on or after September 23, 

2010. Regarding external review, the 

statute requires that health plans and 

issuers must comply with either a state 

external review process or a process 

meeting standards issued by the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) that is ‘‘similar to’’ a state process 

meeting requirements in section 2719 (a 

‘‘federal external review process’’). The 

IFR includes a transition period prior to 

July 1, 2011, during which time HHS 

will work with states to assist in making 

any necessary changes so that the state 

process will meet the minimum 

consumer protections identified in 45 

CFR 147.136 that must be met in order 

for the state process to apply. During 

this interim period, health insurance 

issuers in states with external review 

laws in effect prior to September 23, 

2010 will follow that state’s external 

review law to the extent applicable. In 

states that have not passed an external 

review law that is in effect on 

September 23, 2010, a health insurance 

issuer must follow an interim federal 

external review process that will be 

administered by the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM). The system of 

records will be created as OPM assists 

HHS by providing external reviews of 

adverse benefit determinations and final 

internal adverse benefit determinations 

as requested by eligible claimants and 

their authorized representatives 

(‘‘claimants’’). The system of records will 

include any data relevant to these 

external reviews, and OPM proposes to 

add this new system of records to its 

inventory of records systems subject to 

the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), 

as amended. This action is necessary to 

meet the requirements of the Privacy 

Act to publish in the Federal Register 

notice of the existence and character of 

records maintained by the agency (5 

U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)). 

DATES: This action will be effective 

without further notice on October 18, 

2010, unless comments are received that 

would result in a contrary 

determination. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

the Office of Personnel Management, 

ATTN: Christopher Layton, Health 

Claims Disputes External Review 

Services, 1900 E Street, NW., Rm. 3415, 

Washington, DC 20415. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Layton, 202–606–0004. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

program associated with this system of 

records is part of a broader initiative 

directed by HHS’s Office of Consumer 

Information and Insurance Oversight 

(OCIIO) to implement Section 2719 of 

the Affordable Care Act. HHS has 

discretion under the Act in the manner 

in which it implements the external 

appeals process, OPM administers a 

health insurance appeals program as 

part of its Federal Employees Health 

Benefits Program, and OPM has offered 

to permit HHS/OCIIO to utilize its 

existing appeals processes and 

frameworks to administer the interim 

federal appeals process (as modified by 

an interagency agreement). HHS/OCIIO 

has accepted that offer. Consequently, 

OPM has authority to administer the 

program, using an arrangement under 

the Economy Act, 31 U.S.C. 1535. 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

John Berry, 

Director. 

SYSTEM NAME: 

Health Claims Disputes External 

Review Services 

SYSTEM LOCATION: 

Office of Personnel Management, 

1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20415. 

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE

SYSTEM: 

This system will contain records on 

adverse benefit determinations and final 

internal adverse benefit determinations 

for claimants who qualify for external 

review according to the IFR and choose 

to appeal to OPM. Individuals may only 

appeal to OPM (1) if they are in a state 

that did not have an external review law 

in place on September 23, 2010, (2) if 

they purchase a health insurance policy 

or a group health plan from a health 

insurance issuer, (3) if they are in a nongrandfathered plan, and (4) if the plan 

or policy year begins on or after 

September 23, 2010. Health insurance 

issuers must notify claimants upon 

notice of an adverse benefit 

determination or final internal adverse 

benefit determination as to how to 

initiate an external review by OPM if 

they choose to do so. This notice must 

meet the requirements of 45 CFR Part 

147(b)(2)(ii)(E). 

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

In order to adjudicate an appeal, OPM 

requires claimants to submit a form with 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES