29730 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 

Declassification Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 

106–567, title VII, December 27, 2000, 

114 Stat. 2856), announcement is made 

for the following committee meeting: 

DATES: July 8, 2009. 

Time: 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: National Archives and 

Records Administration, 700 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 105, 

Washington, DC 20408. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

A. Agurkis, PIDB Staff, Information 

Security Oversight Office, National 

Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20408, 

telephone number (202) 357–5308. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To solicit 

public input concerning 

recommendations and proposed 

revisions to the classification and 

declassification policies found in 

Executive Order 12958, as amended, 

‘‘Classified National Security 

Information’’ (the Order). This action is 

being taken at the request of the 

National Security Advisor and in 

support of the ongoing review of the 

Order directed by the President on May 

27, 2009. 

This meeting will be open to the 

public. To ensure that the Board may 

hear from all interested parties, 

individuals interested in addressing the 

Board may be limited to 10 minutes. 

Due to space limitations and access 

procedures, the name and telephone 

number of individuals planning to 

attend must be submitted to the 

Information Security Oversight Office 

(ISOO) via e-mail, PIDB@nara.gov, no 

later than July 2, 2009. ISOO will 

provide additional instructions for 

gaining access to the location of the 

meeting. 

Dated: June 11, 2009. 

Mary Ann Hadyka, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–14691 Filed 6–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

National Science Board; Committee on 

Programs and Plans; Sunshine Act 

Meetings; Notice 

The National Science Board’s 

Committee on Strategy and Budget, 

pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR 

Part 614), the National Science 

Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

1862n–5), and the Government in the 

Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby 

gives notice in regard to the scheduling 

of meetings for the transaction of 

National Science Board business and 

other matters specified, as follows: 

DATE AND TIME: Friday, June 26, 2009 at 

2 p.m. 

SUBJECT MATTER: Discussion of future 

NSF budgets. 

STATUS: Closed. 

This meeting will be held by 

teleconference originating at the 

National Science Board Office, National 

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 

Arlington, VA 22230. Please refer to the 

National Science Board Web site (http: 

//www.nsf.gov/nsb) for information or 

schedule updates, or contact: Jennie 

Moehlmann, National Science 

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 

Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 

292–7000. 

Ann Ferrante, 

Writer-Editor. 

[FR Doc. E9–14914 Filed 6–19–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0255; Docket No. 030–06652] 

Notice of Availability of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for License 

Amendment to Byproduct Materials 

License No. 47–00260–02, for 

Termination of the License and 

Unrestricted Release of Two Union 

Carbide Corporation Facilities Located 

in South Charleston, WV 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Issuance of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for License 

Amendment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Hammann, Health Physicist, 

Commercial and R&D Branch, Division 

of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, 

Pennsylvania; telephone 610–337–5399; 

fax number 610–337–5269; or by e-mail: 

stephen.hammann@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering the 

issuance of a license amendment to 

Byproduct Materials License No. 47– 

00260–02. This license is held by Union 

Carbide Corporation (the Licensee) for 

its South Charleston Technology Park 

and South Charleston Plant located, 

respectively, at 3200 Kanawha Turnpike 

in South Charleston, West Virginia, and 

at 437 MacCorkle Avenue in South 

Charleston, West Virginia (the 

Facilities). Issuance of the amendment 

would authorize release of the Facilities 

for unrestricted use and termination of 

the NRC license. The Licensee requested 

this action in a letter dated March 7, 

2008. The NRC has prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

support of this proposed action in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations 

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

on the EA, the NRC has concluded that 

a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) is appropriate with respect to 

the proposed action. The amendment 

will be issued to the Licensee following 

the publication of this FONSI and EA in 

the Federal Register. 

II. Environmental Assessment 

Identification of Proposed Action 

The proposed action would approve 

the Licensee’s March 7, 2008, license 

amendment request, resulting in release 

of the Facilities for unrestricted use and 

the termination of its NRC materials 

license. License No. 47–00260–02 was 

issued on August 15, 1956, pursuant to 

10 CFR part 30, and has been amended 

periodically since that time. This 

license authorized the Licensee to use 

sealed and unsealed byproduct material 

for purposes of conducting research and 

development activities, sample analysis 

and instrument calibration. 

The Facilities are situated on 

approximately 850 acres of land and 

consists of undeveloped land and 

numerous buildings used for a variety of 

purposes, including office space and 

laboratories, storage, and 

manufacturing. The Facilities are 

located in a mixed commercial and 

industrial area. Within the Facilities, 

use of licensed materials was confined 

to Buildings 701, 707, 712, 720, 722, 

725, 727, 740, 741, 747, 770, 771, 773, 

776, 777, 778, and 785. 

In April, 2008, the Licensee ceased 

licensed activities and initiated a survey 

and decontamination of the Facilities. 

Based on the Licensee’s historical 

knowledge of the sites and the condition 

of the Facilities, the Licensee 

determined that only routine 

decontamination activities, in 

accordance with their NRC-approved, 

operating radiation safety procedures, 

were required. The Licensee was not 

required to submit a decommissioning 

plan to the NRC because worker cleanup 

activities and procedures are consistent 

with those approved for routine 

operations. The Licensee conducted 

surveys of the Facilities and provided 

information to the NRC to demonstrate 

that it meets the criteria in subpart E of 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 29731 

10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release 

and for license termination. 

Need for the Proposed Action 

The Licensee has ceased conducting 

licensed activities at the Facilities, and 

seeks the unrestricted use of its 

Facilities and the termination of its NRC 

materials license. Termination of its 

license would end the Licensee’s 

obligation to pay annual license fees to 

the NRC. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The historical review of licensed 

activities conducted at the Facilities 

show that such activities involved use 

of the following radionuclides with halflives greater than 120 days: hydrogen-3, 

carbon-14, iron-55, cobalt-60, nickel-63, 

strontium-90, cadmium-109, cesium137, and polonium-210. Prior to 

performing the final status survey, the 

Licensee conducted decontamination 

activities, as necessary, in the areas of 

the Facilities affected by these 

radionuclides. 

The Licensee finished conducting a 

final status survey on November 17, 

2008. This survey covered all buildings 

which used unsealed materials. The 

final status survey report was attached 

to the Licensee’s amendment request 

dated March 7, 2008. The Licensee 

elected to demonstrate compliance with 

the radiological criteria for unrestricted 

release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 

by using the screening approach 

described in NUREG–1757, 

‘‘Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning 

Guidance,’’ Volume 2. The Licensee 

used the radionuclide-specific derived 

concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), 

developed there by the NRC, which 

comply with the dose criteria in 10 CFR 

20.1402. These DCGLs define the 

maximum amount of residual 

radioactivity on building surfaces, 

equipment, and materials, and in soils 

that will satisfy the NRC requirements 

in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for 

unrestricted release. The Licensee’s 

final status survey results were below 

these DCGLs and are in compliance 

with the As Low As Reasonably 

Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 

CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that 

the Licensee’s final status survey results 

are acceptable. 

Based on its review, the staff has 

determined that the affected 

environment and any environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action are bounded by the impacts 

evaluated by the ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement in 

Support of Rulemaking on Radiological 

Criteria for License Termination of NRCLicensed Nuclear Facilities’’ (NUREG– 

1496) Volumes 1–3 (ML042310492, 

ML042320379, and ML042330385). The 

staff finds there were no significant 

environmental impacts from the use of 

radioactive material at the Facilities. 

The NRC staff reviewed the docket file 

records and the final status survey 

report to identify any non-radiological 

hazards that may have impacted the 

environment surrounding the Facilities. 

No such hazards or impacts to the 

environment were identified. The NRC 

has identified no other radiological or 

non-radiological activities in the area 

that could result in cumulative 

environmental impacts. 

The NRC staff finds that the proposed 

release of the Facilities for unrestricted 

use and the termination of the NRC 

materials license is in compliance with 

10 CFR 20. Based on its review, the staff 

considered the impact of the residual 

radioactivity at the Facilities and 

concluded that the proposed action will 

not have a significant effect on the 

quality of the human environment. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

Due to the largely administrative 

nature of the proposed action, its 

environmental impacts are small. 

Therefore, the only alternative the staff 

considered is the no-action alternative, 

under which the staff would leave 

things as they are by simply denying the 

amendment request. This no-action 

alternative is not feasible because it 

conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), 

requiring that decommissioning of 

byproduct material facilities be 

completed and approved by the NRC 

after licensed activities cease. The 

NRC’s analysis of the Licensee’s final 

status survey data confirmed that the 

Facilities meets the requirements of 10 

CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release and 

for license termination. Additionally, 

denying the amendment request would 

result in no change in current 

environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the no-action alternative are 

therefore similar, and the no-action 

alternative is accordingly not further 

considered. 

Conclusion 

The NRC staff has concluded that the 

proposed action is consistent with the 

NRC’s unrestricted release criteria 

specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because 

the proposed action will not 

significantly impact the quality of the 

human environment, the NRC staff 

concludes that the proposed action is 

the preferred alternative. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

NRC provided a draft of this 

Environmental Assessment to the State 

of West Virginia Office of 

Environmental Health Services for 

review on April 9, 2009. On June 4, 

2009, the State responded by telephone. 

The State agreed with the conclusions of 

the EA, and otherwise had no 

comments. 

The NRC staff has determined that the 

proposed action is of a procedural 

nature, and will not affect listed species 

or critical habitat. Therefore, no further 

consultation is required under Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act. The 

NRC staff has also determined that the 

proposed action is not the type of 

activity that has the potential to cause 

effects on historic properties. Therefore, 

no further consultation is required 

under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

III. Finding of No Significant Impact 

The NRC staff has prepared this EA in 

support of the proposed action. On the 

basis of this EA, the NRC finds that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts from the proposed action, and 

that preparation of an environmental 

impact statement is not warranted. 

Accordingly, the NRC has determined 

that a Finding of No Significant Impact 

is appropriate. 

IV. Further Information 

Documents related to this action, 

including the application for license 

amendment and supporting 

documentation, are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, 

you can access the NRC’s Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS), which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. The documents related to 

this action are listed below, along with 

their ADAMS accession numbers. 

1. NUREG–1757, ‘‘Consolidated 

NMSS Decommissioning Guidance’’; 

2. Title 10 Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, 

‘‘Radiological Criteria for License 

Termination’’; 

3. Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 51, ‘‘Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic 

Licensing and Related Regulatory 

Functions’’; 

4. NUREG–1496, ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement in 

Support of Rulemaking on Radiological 

Criteria for License Termination of NRCLicensed Nuclear Facilities’’; 

5. Termination Request Letter dated 

March 7, 2008 (ML083520561); 

29732 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 23, 2009 / Notices 

6. Request For Additional Information 

dated April 30, 2008 (ML081260393); 

and 

7. Deficiency Response Letter dated 

December 11, 2008 (ML083520561). 

If you do not have access to ADAMS, 

or if there are problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

These documents may also be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s PDR, O 1 F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. 

Dated at Region I, 475 Allendale Road, 

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 15th day 

of June 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

James P. Dwyer, 

Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division 

of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. 

[FR Doc. E9–14684 Filed 6–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–302; NRC–2009–0256] 

Crystal River Unit 3; Notice of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering issuance of an amendment 

to Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

72 issued to Florida Power Corporation, 

et al (the licensee) for operation of the 

Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear 

Generating Plant, located in Citrus 

County, Florida. 

The proposed amendment would 

revise the Crystal River Unit 3 (CR–3) 

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) 

Sections 5.4.3, ‘‘Structural Design 

Criteria’’ and 5.4.5.3, ‘‘Missile 

Analysis,’’ to include a statement 

regarding the design of the east wall of 

the CR–3 Auxiliary Building. The 

amendment would change the 

methodology used to qualify the east 

wall of the Auxiliary Building. The 

current methodology used the methods 

in American Concrete Institute (ACI) 

standard 318–63, ‘‘Building Code 

Requirements for Reinforced Concrete,’’ 

June 1963. The proposed methodology 

is based on ACI 349–97, ‘‘Code 

Requirements for Nuclear Safety Related 

Concrete Structures,’’ as endorsed by 

the Standard Review Plan (NUREG 

0800), Revision 2—March 2007, Section 

3.8.4 ‘‘Other Seismic Category 1 

Structures.’’ 

Before issuance of the proposed 

license amendment, the Commission 

will have made findings required by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s 

regulations. 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. Under 

the Commission’s regulations in Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR), Section 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. As required by 10 CFR 

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 

analysis of the issue of no significant 

hazards consideration, which is 

presented below: 

1. Does not involve a significant increase 

in the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated. 

The proposed LAR will revise the 

methodology used to qualify the east wall of 

the CR–3 Auxiliary Building for all expected 

and postulated loads including tornado wind 

and missile loading. The Yield Line Theory 

methodology is an industry standard that is 

used for the design and analysis of concrete 

slabs and is applied to CR–3 in accordance 

with American Concrete Institute (ACI) 349– 

97, ‘‘Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety 

Related Concrete Structures.’’ A change in 

the methodology of an analysis used to verify 

qualification of an existing structure will not 

have any impact on the probability of 

accidents previously evaluated. 

The analysis performed demonstrates that 

the CR–3 Auxiliary Building east wall will 

remain structurally intact following the worst 

case loadings assumed in the calculation. 

Therefore, this proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does not create the possibility of a new 

or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated. 

The function of the CR–3 Auxiliary 

Building wall is to house and protect the 

equipment that is important to safety from 

damage during normal operation, transients, 

and design basis accidents. The use of ACI 

349–97 for qualifying the east wall of the CR– 

3 Auxiliary Building has no impact on the 

capability of the structure. A calculation that 

uses the Yield Line Theory methodology 

demonstrated that the structure meets 

required design criteria. This ensures that the 

wall is capable of performing its design basis 

function without alteration or compensatory 

actions of any kind. No changes to any plant 

system, structure, or component (SSC) are 

proposed. No changes to any plant operating 

practices, procedures, computer firmware/ 

software will occur. 

Therefore, the proposed change will not 

create the possibility of new or different type 

of accident from any previously evaluated. 

3. Does not involve a significant reduction 

in a margin on safety. 

The design basis of the plant requires 

structures to be capable of withstanding 

normal and accident loads including those 

from a design basis tornado. The 

requirements of ACI 349–97, as applied in an 

approved plant calculation, demonstrated 

that the east wall of the CR–3 Auxiliary 

Building is capable of performing its design 

function. There is a slight reduction in 

conservatism between the method used for 

the remaining Class 1 structures, ACI 318–63 

and ACI 349–97, but the calculation 

performed validates the requirement that the 

east wall of the Auxiliary Building will 

protect the important to safety systems, 

structures, and components located in 

proximity to the wall from damage. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

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 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example, 

in derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after