Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Notices 34597 

Need for the Proposed Action 

These exemptions are needed in times 

of molybdenum-99 shortages in the 

United States to ensure that available 

technetium-99m is used for patient 

treatment. On May 14, 2009, the Chalk 

River National Research Universal 

reactor in Canada experienced an 

unexpected shutdown that has resulted 

in an extended shutdown for safety 

repairs. The Chalk River reactor 

produces approximately 50 percent of 

the United States supply of 

molybdenum-99 used to produce 

molybdenum-99/technetium-99m 

generators. This resulted in a United 

States and worldwide shortage of 

molybdenum-99 for generator 

production and technetium-99m for 

medical uses. The High Flux Reactor in 

Petten, the Netherlands, also produces a 

substantial amount of molybdenum-99 

used to produce generators in the 

United States and the world. The reactor 

in Petten is currently operating on a 

temporary operating permit and 

expected to be shut down in early 2010 

for a number of months for repairs. This 

will also cause molybdenum-99 and 

technetium-99m shortages in the United 

States and the world. The supply chain 

for fission-produced isotopes is fragile 

and may shrink dramatically at any time 

when these two, or the other three aging 

international reactors currently 

producing these isotopes, are shut down 

for safety or routine maintenance. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

During times of supply shortages, 

there is less molybdenum-99 and 

technetium-99m available for 

molybdenum-99/technetium-99 

generator production. There are also 

fewer generators to elute, and fewer 

technetium-99m radioactive drugs 

produced. The exemption will: (1) 

Allow lower quantities of technetium99m to be used for calibrations and 

delay the calibration test, making 

quantities available for patient 

administrations; (2) allow a licensee to 

obtain unsealed byproduct material 

from another licensee other than 

directly from the manufacturer or 

commercial nuclear pharmacy; and (3) 

allow a licensee with sufficient product 

to transfer excess to another authorized 

licensee for patient administration. The 

exemptions do not relieve the licensee 

from NRC environmental release 

requirements or worker dose or public 

dose requirements associated with the 

elution of molybdenum-99/technetium99m generators, preparation of 

technetium-99m radioactive drugs, 

administration of the technetium-99m 

radioactive drugs to patients, handling 

of these radioactive materials, or 

handling of radioactive waste. All of 

those protections remain in place. 

Neither molybdenium-99 nor 

technetium-99m is a volatile 

radionuclide. Molybdenum-99 remains 

attached to the generator resins and 

technetium-99m stays suspended in the 

eluent. Both radionuclides have short 

half-lives. None of the proposed 

exemptions affects how the licensee 

handles these radionuclides. Their 

medical use when there are no shortages 

results in minimal impact on the 

environment and public dose exposures. 

During times of shortage, medical use 

licensees will have less technetium-99m 

to use and there will be fewer patients 

receiving technetium-99m radioactive 

drugs even when maximizing the 

medical use of available technetium99m. Therefore, the proposed action 

will not result in an increase in the 

release of radioactive material into the 

environment or increase public 

radiation exposure. There will be no 

impact on the environment as a result 

of the proposed action. 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As required by Section 102(2)(E) of 

NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4322(2)(E)), possible 

alternatives to the final action have been 

considered. The NRC identified only 

one reasonable alternative for 

consideration: the no action alternative. 

This no action alternative would not 

result in any adverse impact on the 

environment but would negatively 

impact the medical use licensees’ 

provision of medical care to their 

patients. During shortages in the United 

States and the world of molybdenum99, the supply of technetium-99m 

available to administer to patients is less 

than the amount needed to perform 

important cardiac, cancer, and other 

imaging procedures. Using technetium99m to perform calibration tests at 

maximum activities and at preset 

intervals instead of for patient 

administrations would prevent a 

number of patients from receiving these 

needed procedures. Temporary relief 

from the national standards should not 

result in significantly different patient 

radiation dosages because most 

instruments used to measure patient 

dosages today are stable if not moved 

and provided with reasonable climate 

controls. Also, performing the test at 

lower activity levels will provide 

confidence that the instrument is still 

calibrated over the levels of routine 

technetium-99m dosages. For higher 

dosages requiring written directives, the 

licensee can use the activity provided 

with the radioactive drug to assure 

patient safety. Not granting an 

exemption to permit distribution to and 

receipt of excess generators and 

technetium-99m by other authorized 

medical use licensees that do not have 

any also would reduce the number of 

patients receiving needed procedures. 

For these reasons, the NRC did not 

adopt the no action alternative. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

No alternative use of resources was 

considered due to the reasons stated 

above. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

No other agencies or persons were 

contacted regarding this proposed 

action. 

Identification of Source Used 

None. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Based on the above environmental 

assessment, the NRC finds that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined that a Finding of 

No Significant Impact is appropriate 

and preparation of an environmental 

impact statement is not warranted. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day 

of July 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Duane E. White, 

Acting Chief, Radioactive Materials Safety 

Branch, Division of Materials Safety and State 

Agreements, Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental Management 

Programs Safety and Safeguards. 

[FR Doc. E9–16916 Filed 7–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0313] 

License Renewal Interim Staff 

Guidance LR–ISG–2006–02: Staff 

Guidance Regarding the Acceptance 

Reviews for Environmental 

Requirements for License Renewal 

Applications; Notice of Withdrawal 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The NRC is withdrawing its 

proposed License Renewal Interim Staff 

Guidance (LR–ISG), LR–ISG–2006–02, 

‘‘Staff Guidance on Acceptance Review 

for Environmental Reports for License 

Renewal Applications,’’ which was 

noticed in the Federal Register (72 FR 

7694 on February 16, 2007). This 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
34598 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Notices 

1Notice of Establishment of Rates and Class Not 

of General Applicability (Priority Mail Contract 11), 

June 11, 2009 (Notice). 

2PRC Order No. 222, Notice and Order 

Concerning Filing of Priority Mail Contract 11 

Negotiated Service Agreement, June 17, 2009 (Order 

No. 222). 

3Request of the United States Postal Service to 

Add Priority Mail Contract 11 to Competitive 

Product List, June 23, 2009 (Request). 

4Attachment A to the Notice. 

5Attachment A to the Request. 

6Attachment B to the Request. 

7Attachment B to the Notice. 

proposed LR–ISG was intended to aid 

NRC staff in conducting environmental 

acceptance reviews, and identify 

information to include in environmental 

reports (ERs). The proposed LR–ISG also 

provided an acceptance review 

checklist. 

The staff informed NEI and other 

stakeholders of the opportunity to 

comment on the proposed LR–ISG– 

2006–02 by letter dated February 8, 

2007 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML063190440). The staff noted that the 

guidance in this proposed LR–ISG 

would be incorporated into a future 

update of Environmental Standard 

Review Plan (ESRP), NUREG–1555, 

‘‘Standard Review Plans for 

Environmental Reviews for Nuclear 

Power Plants.’’ NEI provided comments 

on the proposed LR–ISG in a letter 

dated April 16, 2007 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML071090137). No other 

stakeholders provided comments. 

The NRC is currently preparing a 

proposed rule to amend its regulations 

in Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations regarding findings 

on environmental impacts related to 

license renewal. Specifically, the 

proposed rule will reestablish the scope 

of the environmental impact issues 

which must be addressed in conjunction 

with the review of applications for 

license renewal. As part of this 

rulemaking, the NRC staff will issue for 

comments a revised Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. 

Concurrent with this update, the staff 

will also publish a revised Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Preparation of Environmental 

Reports for License Renewal 

Applications, and a revised 

Environmental Standard Review Plan, 

Standard Review Plans for 

Environmental Reviews for Nuclear 

Power Plants. Consequently, the staff 

has determined that ongoing efforts to 

update the aforementioned documents 

will obviate the need for LR–ISG–2006– 

02. Comments received to date on LR– 

ISG–2006–02 will be appropriately 

considered as part of such efforts to 

update existing guidance. 

ADDRESSES: Documents created or 

received after November 1, 1999, are 

available electronically at the NRC’s 

Public Electronic Reading Room on the 

Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. From this site, the 

public can gain entry into the NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS). If you 

do not have access to the Internet or if 

there are any problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the NRC Public Document Room 

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

415–4737, or by e-mail at 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ian Spivack, Division of License 

Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone 301–415–2564; or email Ian.Spivack@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC 

issues LR–ISGs to communicate insights 

and lessons learned, and to address 

emergent issues not addressed in certain 

license renewal guidance documents. 

The NRC staff and stakeholders can use 

approved LR–ISGs until their guidance 

is incorporated into a formal license 

renewal guidance document revision. 

The NRC posts ISGs on the NRC public 

Web page at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/doc-collections/isg. 

For the reasons stated above, the NRC 

has determined that LR–ISG–2006–02 is 

not needed. The staff considers this LR– 

ISG withdrawn and closed. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day 

of July 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Samson S. Lee, 

Deputy Director, Division of License Renewal, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E9–16920 Filed 7–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. MC2009–27 and CP2009–37; 

Order No. 231] 

Priority Mail Contract 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of contract approval. 

SUMMARY: This document informs the 

public that the Commission has 

reviewed and approved the Postal 

Service’s recent request to add a new 

Priority Mail contract to its list of 

competitive offerings. It also addresses 

other procedural and legal matters 

aspects of the review and approval. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202–789–6824 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY HISTORY: 

Regulatory History, 74 FR 30179 (June 

24, 2009). 

I. Background 

II. Comments 

III. Commission Analysis 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

The Postal Service seeks to add a new 

product identified as Priority Mail 

Contract 11 to the Competitive Product 

List. For the reasons discussed below, 

the Commission approves the Request. 

I. Background 

On June 11, 2009, the Postal Service 

filed a notice, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

3632(b)(3) and 39 CFR 3015.5, 

announcing that it has entered into an 

additional contract (Priority Mail 

Contract 11), which it attempts to 

classify within the previously proposed 

Priority Mail Contract Group product.1

In support, the Postal Service filed the 

proposed contract and referenced 

Governors’ Decision 09–6 filed in 

Docket No. MC2009–25. Id. at 1. The 

Notice has been assigned Docket No. 

CP2009–37. 

In response to Order No. 222,2 and in 

accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 

CFR 3020 subpart B, the Postal Service 

filed a formal request to add Priority 

Mail Contract 11 to the Competitive 

Product List as a separate product.3 The 

Postal Service asserts that the Priority 

Mail Contract 11 product is a 

competitive product ‘‘not of general 

applicability’’ within the meaning of 39 

U.S.C. 3632(b)(3). This Request has been 

assigned Docket No. MC2009–27. 

In support of its Notice and Request, 

the Postal Service filed the following 

materials: (1) A redacted version of the 

contract which, among other things, 

provides that the contract will expire 3 

years from the effective date, which is 

proposed to be the day that the 

Commission issues all regulatory 

approvals; 4 (2) requested changes in the 

Mail Classification Schedule product 

list; 5 (3) a Statement of Supporting 

Justification as required by 39 CFR 

3020.32; 6 and (4) certification of 

compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a).7

In the Statement of Supporting 

Justification, Mary Prince Anderson, 

Acting Manager, Sales and 

Communications, Expedited Shipping, 

asserts that the service to be provided 

under the contract will cover its 

attributable costs, make a positive 

contribution to coverage of institutional 

costs, and will increase contribution 

toward the requisite 5.5 percent of the 

Postal Service’s total institutional costs. 

Request, Attachment B, at 1. W. Ashley 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES