Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 32983 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 70–7005; NRC–2009–0283] 

Issuance of Environmental 

Assessment and Draft Finding of No 

Significant Impact for Modification of 

Exemption From Certain NRC 

Licensing Requirements for Special 

Nuclear Material for Waste Control 

Specialists, LLC, Andrews County, TX 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Environmental Assessment and 

Draft Finding of No Significant Impact. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has prepared an 

Environmental Assessment for the 

issuance of an Order under Section 274f 

of the Atomic Energy Act that would 

modify an Order issued to Waste 

Control Specialists, LLC (WCS) on 

November 5, 2004. In accordance with 

10 CFR 51.33, the NRC has also 

prepared a draft Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for public 

review and comment. The current 

action is in response to a request by 

WCS dated December 10, 2007. The 

November 5, 2004 Order was published 

in the Federal Register on November 12, 

2004 (69 FR 65468). The November 5, 

2004 Order, which modified an initial 

Order issued to WCS on November 21, 

2001, exempted WCS from certain NRC 

regulations and permitted WCS, under 

specified conditions, to possess waste 

containing special nuclear material 

(SNM), in greater quantities than 

specified in 10 CFR Part 150, at WCS’s 

facility located in Andrews County, 

Texas, without obtaining an NRC 

license pursuant to 10 CFR part 70. 

DATES: The public comment period on 

the draft FONSI closes on August 10, 

2009. Written comments should be 

submitted as described in the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. 

Comments submitted by mail should be 

postmarked by August 10, 2009 to 

ensure consideration. Comments 

received or postmarked after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the Commission is able to assure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before August 10, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Members of the public are 

invited and encouraged to submit 

comments to the Chief, Rulemaking and 

Directives Branch, Mail Stop TWB–05 

B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. Please note Docket No. 70–7005 

when submitting comments. Comments 

will also be accepted by e-mail at 

NRCREP@nrc.gov or by facsimile to 

(301) 415–5369, Attention: David D. 

Brown. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David D. Brown, Sr. Project Manager, 

Environmental and Performance 

Assessment Directorate, 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) 415–6116; 

Fax number: (301) 415–5369; e-mail: 

david.brown@nrc.gov. 

NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS): 

Publicly available documents created or 

received at the NRC are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

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

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

the public can gain entry into ADAMS, 

which provides text and image files of 

NRC’s public documents. If you do not 

have access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s 

PDR reference staff at 1–899–397–4209, 

301–415–4737, or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Environmental Assessment 

Background 

As stated above, the 2004 Order 

exempted WCS from certain NRC 

regulations and permitted WCS, under 

specified conditions, to possess waste 

containing SNM, in greater quantities 

than specified in 10 CFR part 150, at 

WCS’s facility located in Andrews 

County, Texas, without obtaining a NRC 

license pursuant to 10 CFR part 70. The 

2004 Order permits WCS to possess 

SNM without regard for mass. Rather 

than relying on mass to ensure 

criticality safety, concentration-based 

limits were applied, such that 

accumulations of SNM at or below these 

concentration limits would not pose a 

criticality safety concern. The 

methodology used to establish these 

limits is discussed in two Safety 

Evaluation Reports (SERs) prepared by 

NRC in support of the initial Order 

issued in November 2001 and an 

amended Order issued in November 

2004. 

In its December 2007 request, WCS 

seeks NRC approval to modify the 

conditions of the 2004 Order to: 

Discontinue confirmation sampling 

upon receipt of waste that WCS verifies 

is adequately characterized by a waste 

generator to be uniform and which 

contains less than one-thousandth of the 

SNM concentration limits presented in 

Condition 1; and to meet the 

confirmatory sampling requirements of 

Condition 7 of the Order for sealed 

sources using surface smear surveys. By 

letter dated January 22, 2008, the NRC 

informed WCS that it would also clarify 

Condition 2, which states that waste 

must not contain ‘‘pure forms’’ of 

chemicals containing carbon, fluorine, 

magnesium, or bismuth in bulk 

quantities. As a result of its review of 

WCS’ December 10, 2007, request, the 

NRC, upon its own initiative, is 

clarifying the requirements for spatial 

uniformity of SNM concentrations in 

the waste, as described in Conditions 1, 

6, and 7 of the Order. In addition, NRC 

is revising Condition 4 of the Order, 

which limits the amount of highly water 

soluble SNM WCS may possess. 

Site and Facility Description 

WCS operates a 5.4 km2 (1,338-acre) 

hazardous waste disposal facility and a 

hazardous waste, low-level radioactive 

waste (LLW), and mixed waste (MW) 

processing and storage facility in 

western Andrews County, TX and 

eastern Lea County, NM. The WCS 

facility is located near the southwestern 

edge of the Southern High Plains where 

surface elevations range from about 

1,040 to 1,070 meters (3,415 to 3,500 ft) 

above mean sea level. The site lies on 

a broad topographic ridge that forms a 

surface water drainage divide between 

the Pecos and Colorado Rivers. The 

region receives approximately 23 cm (9 

inches) of rain annually and is atop a 

solid base of Triassic red bed clay 

(Hydraulic Conductivity: 10¥8 cm/s, [3 

× 10¥5 ft/day]) with the first 

groundwater, which is not potable and 

too salty for irrigation use, found 240– 

300 m (800–1000 ft) below the surface. 

The primary land use within an eightkilometer (five-mile) radius of the WCS 

facility is grazing and ranching. Future 

water uses in the area will include 

industrial, domestic, livestock, and 

agricultural purposes. Oil and gas 

exploration and production activities 

have also been conducted in the vicinity 

of the WCS facility. Other businesses in 

proximity to the site include the 

Wallach Quarry (crushed stone, sand 

and gravel) and Sundance, Inc. (oil 

recovery and solids disposal), both 

located about 1.6 kilometers (one mile) 

west of the facility. The Lea County 

Landfill is located approximately 1.6 

kilometers (one mile) southwest of the 

facility. In addition, construction of the 

Louisiana Enrichment Services (LES) 

uranium enrichment facility is currently 

underway in Lea County, NM and is 

located approximately 1.6 kilometers 

(one mile) west of the WCS facility. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
32984 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

Major structures at the WCS facility 

include: 

• On-site rail spur and rail-unloading 

facility for hazardous waste only; 

• Maintenance building; 

• Administration building with 

analytical and radiological laboratories; 

• Container Storage Building; 

• Stabilization and Mixed Waste 

Treatment (Combined) Building; 

• Bulk/Bin Storage Units; 

• RCRA subtitle C landfill; 

• Ten-acre storage area for lowspecific-activity (LSA) waste; 

• 11e(2) byproduct material landfill 

Facility (Authorized May 2008—under 

construction); 

• Federal LLW/MW landfill Facility 

(license issuance pending); 

• Texas Compact LLW landfill 

Facility (license issuance pending); and 

• Chemical oxidation (Proposed). 

Licenses and Permits Issued Under 

Various Federal and State Laws 

On January 14, 2009, WCS received a 

licensing order that denied hearing 

requests, and allowed a license for 

disposal of LLW to be issued once 

ownership in fee can be demonstrated 

by the applicant. The LLW disposal 

license may not be issued, signed, or 

granted until surface and mineral 

ownership can be demonstrated. WCS 

has proposed two separate LLW 

disposal facilities: 

1. The compact waste disposal facility 

(CWF) would be allowed to accept LLW 

as defined in Section 401.004 of the 

Texas Health and Safety Code for 

commercial disposal of compact waste; 

and 

2. The Federal Waste Facility (FWF) 

would be allowed to accept LLW that is 

the responsibility of the Federal 

government under the Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as 

amended by the Low-Level Radioactive 

Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. 

The LLW land disposal facilities have 

the following limits in the pending 

license: 

• 736,238 m3 (962,963 yd3) of LLW 

and MW generated/owned by the 

Federal government of which 

approximately 229,366 m3 (300,000 yd3) 

is expected to be canister disposal and 

506,872 m3 (662,963 yd3) is expected to 

be non-canister (bulk) disposal; and 

• 65,412 m3 (85,556 yd3) of LLW 

generated within the Texas Compact. 

Other WCS permits and 

authorizations are summarized below: 

Byproduct Material Disposal Facility 

License 

• Issued: May 29, 2008, by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ). 

• Authorization: Receipt and disposal 

of byproduct material as defined in Title 

25 of the Texas Administrative Code, 

Section 289.260(c)(4). 

• Authorization covers dry, discrete 

solid objects and containerized bulk 

(i.e., soil or soil-like) byproduct material 

received by road only (no rail). 

• Containers shall be flexible or rigid 

drums, pails, boxes, sacks, or similar 

containers that are sealed and do not 

tear, split, or rupture upon handling, 

placement, and compaction in the 

disposal unit, or lose their structural 

strength and integrity when contacting 

water. Acceptable containers include 

(but are not limited to) U.S. Department 

of Transportation (U.S. DOT) containers. 

Containers shall not contain free liquids 

or more than 15% void space. 

Low Level Radioactive Waste 

Treatment, Processing & Storage License 

(License R04971) 

• Issued: February 1997. 

• Amended: April 29, 2009, by the 

TCEQ. 

• Authorization: Treatment, 

processing, and storage of low-level 

radioactive wastes shipped by road only 

(including Greater Than Class C (GTCC), 

sealed sources, solids, and liquids). 

• November 5, 2004—Exemption 

from Part 70 (Special Nuclear Material 

(SNM) concentration-based limitations). 

Industrial Solid Waste and Hazardous 

Waste Storage, Processing, and Disposal 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act Wastes (RCRA) Permit 

• Issued: August 5, 1994 by the Texas 

National Resource Conservation 

Commission (TNRCC). 

• Renewed: October 5, 2005, by the 

TCEQ. 

• Authorization: Treatment, storage, 

and land disposal of over 2,000 RCRA 

waste codes. 

• WCS holds a RCRA part B 

equivalent permit to receive ignitable, 

corrosive, toxic, and select reactive 

hazardous waste. 

Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System Permit 

• Issued: December 2, 1999 by TCEQ. 

• Renewed: May 31, 2005. 

• Authorization: Treatment and 

discharge of liquid wastes. 

Toxic Substances Control Act Land 

Disposal Authorization 

• Issued: November 22, 1999 by the 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

• Renewed: September 19, 2005, by 

the EPA. 

• Authorization: Treatment, storage, 

and land disposal of Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) wastes, including 

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and 

PCB contaminated materials such as 

debris, spill solids, transformers 

(drained and flushed), and transformer 

carcasses. 

• PCB liquids are acceptable for 

bulking and off-site treatment. 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) 

• March 21, 1997 letter from EPA, 

Region 6. 

• Authorization: EPA determination 

under 40 CFR 300.440 that the WCS 

facility is acceptable for receipt of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants from CERCLA response 

actions. 

Under the State and Federal permits 

and authorizations described above, 

WCS is authorized to use the following 

waste treatment technologies: 

• Chemical oxidation. 

• Chemical reduction. 

• Deactivation. 

• Micro- and macro-encapsulation 

(debris only). 

• Neutralization. 

• Stabilization. 

• Controlled reaction. 

Waste shipments are received in a 

variety of sealed packages such as 

standard 208-liter (55-gallon) steel 

drums, rectangular steel boxes, 

intermodal, roll-offs, waste generatordesigned canisters, or from a list of 400 

radioactive material packages certified 

by the DOE for transport by road only. 

The facility is accessible by rail or 

nearby interstate highway. It can 

accommodate over 110 rail cars within 

its secured and guarded fence perimeter. 

It has a ten-kilometer (approximately 

six-mile) private rail spur leading to the 

site and on-site rail and truck offloading capabilities. Although rail 

facilities are available on-site, 

radioactive waste is currently not 

authorized to be received at the site by 

rail. 

Review Scope 

The purpose of this EA is to assess the 

environmental impacts of WCS’s 

December 10, 2007, request to modify 

its 2004 Order and additional actions 

taken by NRC staff to: 

(1) Clarify Condition 2 of the 

November 2004 Order; 

(2) Clarify the requirements for spatial 

uniformity of the waste; and 

(3) Revise Condition 4 of the 2004 

Order, which limits the amount of 

highly water soluble SNM WCS may 

possess. 

This EA does not approve nor deny 

the requested action. A separate Safety 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 32985 

Evaluation Report (SER) has been 

prepared in support of approval of the 

requested action. The 2004 Order is 

only applicable to activities authorized 

by TCEQ License R04971 for processing 

and storage of LLW. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action is to grant WCS’s 

December 10, 2007, request to modify 

the conditions of the 2004 Order, with 

certain additional modifications. As 

modified by NRC staff, the proposed 

action is to discontinue confirmation 

sampling upon receipt of waste that 

WCS verifies is adequately 

characterized by a waste generator to be 

uniform and which contains less than 

one-tenth of the SNM concentration 

limits presented in Condition 1, and to 

discontinue the confirmatory sampling 

requirements of Condition 7 of the 2004 

Order for sealed sources. By letter dated 

January 22, 2008, the NRC informed 

WCS that it would also clarify 

Condition 2, which states that waste 

must not contain ‘‘pure forms’’ of 

chemicals containing carbon, fluorine, 

magnesium, or bismuth in bulk 

quantities. The NRC is also clarifying 

the requirements for spatial uniformity 

of SNM concentrations in the waste, as 

described in Conditions 1, 6, and 7 of 

the 2004 Order, and revising Condition 

4 of the 2004 Order, that limits the 

amount of highly water soluble SNM 

WCS may possess pursuant to TCEQ 

License R04971 for processing and 

storage of LLW. 

Purpose and Need for Proposed Action 

WCS is making this request as a result 

of two issues it has identified with the 

implementation of the 2004 Order. The 

first issue pertains to the potential for 

WCS workers to receive radiation dose 

without commensurate benefit to overall 

public and worker safety. This issue 

arises when certain high dose rate and 

debris waste is received by WCS and 

WCS workers, in accordance with the 

requirements of the 2004 Order, are in 

close proximity to, or in contact with, 

the waste for the purpose of taking 

confirmatory samples to measure SNM 

concentrations in the waste, even when 

the SNM concentration in these wastes 

are known by other means to be very 

low. 

The second issue identified by WCS 

also pertains to how the confirmatory 

sampling requirements of the Order 

should be applied to sealed sources. 

WCS states that direct confirmatory 

sampling is not practical, and 

recommends that it perform surface 

smear surveys in lieu of destructive 

direct sampling. 

In its December 10, 2007, request, 

WCS also informed the NRC that it 

plans to accept bulk quantities of waste 

containing very low concentrations of 

SNM that have been homogeneously 

commingled by the generator with inert 

compounds so that the final waste no 

longer contains just SNM or ‘‘pure 

forms’’ of carbon, fluorine, magnesium, 

and bismuth. Condition 2 of the 

November 2004 Order prohibits receipt 

of ‘‘pure forms’’ of these chemicals. In 

its review of this information, the NRC 

determined that Condition 2 of the 

November 2004 Order should be more 

clearly stated. As noted in a letter to 

WCS dated January 22, 2008, the NRC 

stated that it finds no criticality safety 

concerns with the waste that WCS plans 

to accept, provided the waste is less 

than 40% magnesium fluoride by 

volume and less then 50% magnesium 

fluoride by weight. In its January 22, 

2008, letter, the NRC also stated that it 

plans to clarify the meaning of 

Condition 2 in this modification to the 

2004 Order. 

During review of the proposed 

changes requested by WCS, the NRC 

staff also decided to clarify the 

requirements for spatial uniformity of 

SNM concentrations in waste received 

by WCS contained within Conditions 1, 

6, and 7 of the 2004 Order. The spatial 

uniformity requirement in Condition 1 

states that, ‘‘The SNM must be 

homogeneously distributed throughout 

the waste. If the SNM is not 

homogeneously distributed, then the 

limiting concentrations must not be 

exceeded on average in any contiguous 

mass of 600 kilograms.’’ This 

requirement is based on an NRC nuclear 

criticality safety evaluation described in 

the SER for the November 2001 Order. 

However, there is a second requirement 

in Conditions 6 and 7 of the 2004 Order, 

that prescribe a statistical test for spatial 

uniformity that would be performed on 

sample results. The statistical test states 

that waste is non-homogeneous when 

the maximum sample result, that cannot 

exceed the limits in Condition 1, and 

minimum testing values performed by 

the generator, is greater than five times 

the average value. The definition of 

spatial uniformity in Condition 1 has a 

technical basis founded on principles of 

nuclear criticality safety. The 

requirement in Condition 6 and 7 does 

not. Therefore, the NRC is removing the 

second requirement contained in 

Conditions 6 and 7 and making 

conforming changes to the remainder of 

the Order. 

The NRC is also revising Condition 4 

of the 2004 Order, as described in a 

separate Safety Evaluation Report, to: 

(1) Eliminate the individual package 

mass limits for highly water soluble 

SNM, because 10 CFR part 71 and 49 

CFR provide sufficient regulation of 

packaging and transportation of fissile 

materials, from which this Order does 

not exempt WCS; and 

(2) Impose a limit on the total mass of 

highly water soluble SNM that may be 

possessed pursuant to this Order to 

amounts less than those of SNM of low 

strategic significance, as defined in 10 

CFR 73.2. 

Therefore, the purpose and need for 

the proposed action is four-fold: 

(1) To revise and clarify certain 

requirements of the November 2004 

Order to address potential worker safety 

concerns associated with the 

implementation of waste generator and 

WCS confirmatory sampling 

requirements; 

(2) To clarify the prohibition on the 

presence of certain chemicals contained 

in the waste, as stated in Condition 2 of 

the 2004 Order; 

(3) To clarify the requirements in the 

2004 Order for spatial uniformity of 

SNM concentrations in waste; and 

(4) To revise Condition 4, which 

pertains to limits on highly water 

soluble forms of SNM. 

Alternatives 

In addition to the proposed action, the 

NRC considered one alternative. The 

alternative action was to deny WCS’ 

request and thus not revise the Order 

(i.e., the no-action alternative). 

Environmental Impacts of No Action 

Alternative 

For the no-action alternative, the 

environmental impacts would be the 

same as those evaluated in the EA that 

supports the 2004 Order. The 2004 EA 

concluded that the 2004 Order would 

have no significant radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts. 

However, as noted above, the current 

confirmatory sampling requirement for 

high dose and debris waste may result 

in doses to workers without a 

commensurate benefit to overall nuclear 

safety. 

Environmental Impacts of Proposed 

Action 

With regard to the confirmatory 

sampling requirements of the November 

2004 Order, and as described further in 

the SER for the current modification to 

the Order, the NRC believes that when 

SNM concentrations in waste are 

expected to be below 10% of the limits 

in Condition 1, as determined by a 

waste generator in support of the 

written certification required by 

Condition 6, the radiation hazard to 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
32986 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 

workers involved in both generator 

sampling and WCS confirmatory waste 

sampling activities will, in many cases, 

outweigh the benefit to criticality safety. 

As a result, the NRC, in consultation 

with WCS and the TCEQ, will remove 

the graded-approach to sampling 

requirements from the Order, in favor of 

a simpler threshold for sampling 

requirements, which applies to both the 

generator and WCS, at 10% of the 

Condition 1 limits. 

No detrimental environmental 

impacts are expected as a result of 

modifying the waste generator and 

confirmatory sampling requirements of 

the Order. Sampling requirements do 

not alter in any way the types, amounts, 

or characteristics of wastes received at 

the facility. As a result, there would be 

no substantive changes in the handling, 

storage, or treatment of wastes at the 

facility. The change in sampling 

requirements is not expected to 

significantly alter the need for labor 

resources at WCS. However, as further 

described in the SER for this modified 

Order, there is a benefit to overall 

worker radiological safety as a result of 

reducing generator and WCS 

confirmatory sampling requirements for 

high dose rate and debris waste 

containing low concentrations of SNM, 

and not requiring destructive direct 

sampling of sealed sources. 

No detrimental environmental 

impacts are expected as a result of 

clarifying Condition 2 of the Order. As 

described further in the SER, Condition 

2 is modified such that specific mass 

limits for carbon, fluorine and bismuth 

in the waste are provided in lieu of a 

vague general prohibition on ‘‘pure 

forms’’ of magnesium, carbon, fluorine 

and bismuth. This clarification is not 

expected to significantly alter the types, 

amounts, or characteristics of wastes 

received at the facility. In addition, 

worker radiation doses are not expected 

to change as a result of a change in 

specific mass limits for carbon, fluorine 

and bismuth. As a result, there would be 

little or no substantive changes in the 

handling, storage, or treatment of wastes 

at the facility. 

No detrimental environmental 

impacts are expected as a result of 

clarifying the requirements for spatial 

uniformity of SNM concentrations in 

wastes received at WCS. No changes are 

made to either the Condition 1 SNM 

concentration limits, or the maximum 

contiguous mass of waste over which 

the limiting concentrations of Condition 

1 must be met (i.e., 600 kilograms). 

Therefore, these modifications to the 

2004 Order do not alter in any way the 

types, amounts, or characteristics of 

wastes received at the facility, and 

worker doses would remain unchanged. 

As a result, there would be no 

substantive changes in the handling, 

storage, or treatment of wastes at the 

facility. 

No detrimental environmental 

impacts are expected as a result of 

revising the requirements for highly 

water soluble forms of SNM in wastes 

received at WCS. There is a reduction of 

the risk of container leaks involving 

highly water soluble forms of SNM, 

given that the Order now limits the total 

possession of highly water soluble forms 

of SNM to amounts of SNM less than 

SNM of low strategic significance, as 

defined by 10 CFR 73.2. As a result, 

there would be no substantive changes 

in the handling, storage, or treatment of 

wastes at the facility, and no significant 

changes in radiation hazards to workers. 

Other conditions of the Order would 

remain unchanged. As before, WCS is 

permitted to possess SNM without 

regard for mass, except that possession 

of highly water soluble forms of SNM is 

limited to amounts of SNM less than 

SNM of low strategic significance, as 

defined by 10 CFR 73.2. To ensure 

criticality safety, an SNM concentration 

limit is applied to wastes containing 

both soluble and insoluble forms, such 

that accumulations of SNM at or below 

this concentration limit would not pose 

a criticality safety concern. 

Effluent releases and potential doses 

to the public are regulated by the State 

of Texas and are not anticipated to 

change as a result of this action. WCS 

will continue to conduct its radiation 

protection program with an emphasis on 

maintaining doses as low as reasonably 

achievable. Occupational exposure is 

expected to remain within regulatory 

limits, and may decrease as a result of 

eliminating sampling intervals for high 

dose rate and debris waste. 

The proposed action would not result 

in any changes in the transportation 

impacts identified in the 2001 EA. All 

other environmental impacts would be 

the same as evaluated in the EAs that 

support the 2001 and 2004 Orders. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

A draft copy of this EA was provided 

to officials from the Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). By emails dated March 11 and April 14, 

2009, the TCEQ recommended certain 

changes to clarify the descriptions of 

certain WCS facilities, to identify the 

correct State agencies having authority 

in certain areas, and to clarify the status 

of the pending LLW disposal facility 

license. The NRC staff has modified the 

EA to address the TCEQ comments. 

The proposed action does not involve 

the development of additional land. 

Hence, the NRC has determined that the 

proposed action will not affect listed 

species or critical habitat. Therefore, no 

further consultation is required under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act. Likewise, the NRC staff has 

determined that the proposed action 

does not have the potential to adversely 

affect cultural resources. Therefore, no 

consultation is required under Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

II. Draft Finding of No Significant 

Impact 

The NRC has concluded that the 

proposed action to grant a modification 

to WCS’ exemption from the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 70 is, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 70.17, authorized by 

law and will not endanger life or 

property or the common defense and 

security and is otherwise in the public 

interest. 

The NRC has prepared this EA in 

support of the proposed action to 

modify WCS’ November 2004 Order 

which grants an exemption from the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 70. On the 

basis of this EA, NRC has concluded 

that there are no significant 

environmental impacts and the issuance 

of a modified Order does not warrant 

the preparation of an Environmental 

Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has 

been determined that a Finding of No 

Significant Impact is appropriate. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.33(e), a final 

determination to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or a 

final FONSI for the proposed action will 

not be made until the last day of the 

public comment period has expired on 

August 10, 2009. 

III. Further Information 

Documents related to this action, 

including the application for 

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 

Document Access and Management 

System (ADAMS), which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. The ADAMS accession 

numbers for the documents related to 

this notice are: 

Document description Accession No. 

January 2009 Safety Evaluation Report ........................ ML081550674 

January 22, 2008, NRC acknowledgement of WCS 

request .............................. ML080150622 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Notices 32987 

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See e.g., Exchange Rule 1080(b)(i)(A) which 

defines customer order as [sic] ‘‘* * * is any order 

entered on behalf of a public customer, and does 

not include any order entered for the account of a 

broker-dealer, or any account in which a brokerdealer or an associated person of a broker-dealer has 

any direct or indirect interest.’’ 

4The Exchange previously referred to the 

electronic order delivery, routing, execution and 

reporting system as AUTOM. This system provided 

for the automatic entry and routing of equity option 

and index option orders to the Exchange trading 

floor. See Exchange Rule 1080. The Exchange filed 

a rule change which replaced the terms AUTOM 

and AUTO–X with the Phlx XL System, such that 

references to both terms refer to Phlx XL. See 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 

28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR–Phlx– 

2009–32). Therefore, in light of the rule change 

references to AUTOM have been replaced with the 

Continued 

Document description Accession No. 

December 10, 2007, WCS 

request for modification to 

Order ................................. ML073550638 

November 2004 Letter to 

WCS re: SNM exemption 

request .............................. ML043020621 

November 2001 Letter to 

WCS re: SNM exemption 

request .............................. ML030130085 

If you do not have access to ADAMS 

or if there are problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the NRC’s 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 Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day 

of June 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Patrice M. Bubar, 

Deputy Director, Environmental Protection 

and Performance Assessment Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–16143 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

Board Votes To Close July 15, 2009, 

Meeting 

At its closed session meeting on June 

23, 2009, the Board of Governors of the 

United States Postal Service voted 

unanimously to close to public 

observation its meeting to be held on 

July 15, 2009, in Washington, DC via 

teleconference. The Board determined 

that no earlier public notice was 

possible. 

ITEMS CONSIDERED: 

1. Financial Matters. 

2. Strategic Issues. 

3. Pricing. 

4. Personnel Matters and 

Compensation Issues. 

5. Governors’ Executive Session— 

discussion of prior agenda items and 

Board Governance. 

GENERAL COUNSEL CERTIFICATION: The 

General Counsel of the United States 

Postal Service has certified that the 

meeting is properly closed under the 

Government in the Sunshine Act. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Requests for information about the 

meeting should be addressed to the 

Secretary of the Board, Julie S. Moore, 

at (202) 268–4800. 

Julie S. Moore, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–16373 Filed 7–7–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12– P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–60188; File No. SR–Phlx– 

2009–48] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

Proposed Rule Change Relating to the 

Cancellation Fee 

June 29, 2009. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 1, and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on June 19, 

2009, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. 

(‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed 

rule change as described in Items I, II, 

and III below, which Items have been 

prepared by the Exchange. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to aggregate 

options orders within a specified time 

period for the purpose of assessing the 

Cancellation Fee. In addition, the 

Exchange purposes several technical 

amendments to delete obsolete language 

and further clarify the Fee Schedule. 

While changes to the Exchange’s fee 

schedule pursuant to this proposal are 

effective upon filing, the Exchange has 

designated this proposal to be effective 

on July 1, 2009. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on the Exchange’s Web site 

at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/ 

micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings, at the 

principal office of the Exchange, and at 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

Exchange included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

Exchange has prepared summaries, set 

forth in sections A, B, and C below, of 

the most significant aspects of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of the proposed rule 

change is to amend the manner in 

which the Cancellation Fee is assessed 

on members. In order to calculate the 

Cancellation Fee, the Exchange 

proposes to aggregate and count as one 

executed customer 3 option order all 

customer orders from the same member 

organization that are executed in the 

same series on the same side of the 

market at the same price within a 300 

second period. The Exchange believes 

the level of cancelled orders remains 

high. Some customers are seeking to 

avoid the fee by executing large 

quantities of small orders in out-of-themoney options to offset their 

cancellation activity in more actively 

traded options. The Exchange believes 

this modification to the calculation of 

the Cancellation Fee is necessary for the 

Exchange to recover costs associated 

with system congestion. 

Currently, the Exchange assesses a 

Cancellation Fee of $ 2.10 per order on 

member organizations for each 

cancelled electronically 4 delivered 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with NOTICES