[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27168-27174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11755]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70-143]


Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact of 
License Amendment for Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., and Notice of 
Opportunity To Request a Hearing

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Amendment of Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Materials License 
SNM-124 to Approve Partial Site Decommissioning Plan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering the amendment 
of Special Nuclear Material License SNM-124 to approve the North Site 
Decommissioning Plan at the Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., facility 
located in Erwin, TN, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment in 
support of this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1  Introduction

1.1  Background

    Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) began operations at the Erwin, 
Tennessee facility in 1957. From then until 1981, portions of the North 
Site (NS) area were used for disposal of radioactive waste in 
accordance with 10 CFR 20.304. Since that time, the area has not been 
used for licensed operations. In 1991, NFS began partial remediation of 
the NS. These activities included removing the sludges from Ponds 1, 2, 
and 3, and removal of accessible waste in the Pond 4 area under 
authorization from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 
Excavation of the (Sec. 20.304) burial area began in 1997. All previous 
work is authorized by license amendment and is not the subject of this 
environmental assessment. By request for license amendment dated July 
30, 1999 (NFS North Site Decommissioning Plan, Rev. 1), NFS requested 
authorization to use the land use scenarios and residual radioactive 
concentrations described below to meet the requirements of suitability 
for release for unrestricted use as defined in NRC regulations. NFS has 
no plans at this time to release the NS area from their NRC license.
    In 1997, NRC issued radiological criteria for license termination 
in 10 CFR part 20 subpart E. Section 20.1402 defines the radiological 
criteria for suitability for unrestricted use: 25 mrem/yr total 
effective dose equivalent from all pathways. As part of the rule-making 
to institute this regulation, an environmental impact statement 
determined that there was no significant impact on human health and 
safety at this level of exposure.

1.2  Geographic and Temporal Boundaries of the Environmental Assessment 
(EA)

    The geographic scope of this EA is limited to the NS area of the 
NFS site, as defined in NRC license SNM-124. At the time of license 
termination for the entire NFS site, the results of the NS area final 
status survey may be reassessed in order to incude any possible dose 
contribution from the NS area in the dose assessment for the entire 
site and any impact from possible recontamination of the NS area.
    Consistent with 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, the time of compliance 
for deriving the proposed cleanup levels is 1,000 years. Evaluation of 
dose impacts past this point is not considered to be necessary. When 
predicting thousands of years into the future, uncertainties become 
very large because of major potential changes in the hydrogeologic 
regime at the site over such long periods of time. The consequences of 
exposure to residual radioactivity levels such as those proposed are 
small and considering the large uncertainties, long-term modeling of 
possible doses would have little value. In addition, because of the 
long half-lives of the radioactive materials in question, no 
significant changes in potential impacts are anticipated until 
thousands of years after release.

2  Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

    The licensee is remediating the North Site area so that it will be 
suitable for unrestricted use in accordance with the criteria in 10 CFR 
20.1402. This action is required by 10 CFR 70.38 (Timeliness Rule) and 
a 1994 NRC Order.

3  Description of Proposed Action

    Approval of the license amendment request will authorize 
decommissioning of the North Site by removal of contaminated soil to 
levels at or below

[[Page 27169]]

the proposed derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) presented 
in Table 1. These levels were calculated using the RESRAD computer code 
so that the indicated concentration of a single isotope would comply 
with a dose limit of 25 mrem/yr specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. If 
multiple isotopes are present, the individual concentration limits will 
be reduced to comply with the dose limit. Meeting these levels will 
permit release of the property for unrestricted use. Groundwater 
encountered during soil excavation will be pumped and treated at either 
the Wastewater or Groundwater Treatment Facilities. Upon completion of 
soil remediation, a final status survey of the North Site will be 
performed. Backfill of remediated areas with clean soil will begin 
after the final status survey demonstrates the area has been 
sufficiently decommissioned. Groundwater will be monitored for several 
years after excavation to determine uranium levels once residual 
radioactivity in soil is reduced to acceptable levels.
    Also, pursuant to the hazardous waste permit issued to NFS in 1991-
1993 under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Amendments (RCRA/HSWA) authority, EPA and TDEC are also requiring 
NFS to conduct appropriate monitoring, groundwater pilot studies and 
remediation until the EPA and Tennessee drinking water standards for 
hazardous and radioactive constituents are satisfied. This permit will 
also be used to establish and enforce any necessary institutional 
controls.

3.1  Proposed Action: Release for Unrestricted Use

    The proposed action is to remove solid waste material from the 
existing burial areas, previously disposed in accordance with 10 CFR 
20.304, and to remove contaminated material and soil until the residual 
concentrations of radionuclides are at or below those shown in Table 1. 
The major activities include the following:
    Remove Building 400, surrounding tanks, utilities, and 
structures.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These tasks will begin prior to approval of this plan. 
Removal of Building 400 and associated utilities and equipment is 
being performed under the NRC approved decommissioning plan for 
Ponds 1, 2, and 3 (NFS 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Decontaminate and Decommission (D & D) \2\ area north of Banner 
Spring working east to west. The excavation area is bounded by Banner 
Spring Branch and the security zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ D&D of the area includes excavating contaminated soil, 
conducting a final survey of the area, and backfilling the 
excavation. D&D of some areas may be performed concurrently (i.e., 
excavation of one area may begin before backfilling of another area 
is completed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relocate or temporarily reroute Banner Spring Branch and the plant 
drainage system.
    D&D Banner Spring Branch streambed and Ponds 1 and 2.
    D&D Banner Spring Branch outside the protected area.
    D&D security zone areas.
    D&D northwest area.
    Remove 205 Substation and the guard tower and D&D area.
    Remove Building 410 and D&D area.

    Table 1--Soil/Sediment DCGLs \1\ ( Ci/g) for North Site
                             Decommissioning
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Radionuclide                           DCGL 2,3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U-238.........................................................       306
U-235.........................................................        74
U-233/234 \4\.................................................       642
Th-232........................................................       3.7
Th-230........................................................        17
Am-241........................................................       130
Pu-242........................................................       148
Pu-241........................................................      4365
Pu-240........................................................       141
Pu-239........................................................       140
Pu-238........................................................       155
Tc-99.........................................................      414
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Values are for single nuclides; actual residual concentrations will
  be calculated using unity rule.
\2\ Ingrowth of daughters radionuclides are taken into account in these
  DCGLs.
\3\ DCGLs derived using RESRAD pathway analysis model.
\4\ DCGL for U233/234 is collectively proposed.

    Contaminated soil which exceeds the applicable release criteria 
will be stockpiled and covered as appropriate, transported to Building 
410 or another area for processing, or loaded directly into containers. 
This material will be disposed in a licensed facility. Details of this 
alternative are provided in Section 3 of the NFS North Site 
Decommissioning Plan. Soils that meet the criteria in Table 1 will 
remain on site.

3.2  Analyses

    A dose assessment was performed by NFS for both industrial or 
suburban residential use of the land after license termination. The 
licensee selected radionuclide-specific DCGLs for the soil from this 
dose assessment and selected the most restrictive limit for the 
radionuclide from the set of scenarios.\3\ These DCGLs are listed in 
Table 1 above. Because the limits are radionuclide-specific, the 
licensee would then use the sum of fractions to verify that the final 
concentrations result in a dose equal to or less than 0.25 mSv/y (25 
mrem/y).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NFS's report ``Potential Dose Due to Radioactive 
Contamination in Soil and Groundwater in the North NFS Plant Site, 
Revision 1.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the analysis, the licensee proposed that groundwater 
pathways be eliminated from consideration as part of the dose modeling 
for soil DCGLs. The staff has agreed with this approach for the 
following reasons:
     The water in the shallow aquifer is of lower quality, is 
in contact with a marsh, and contaminated above EPA limits for drinking 
water with pollutants not related to operations at the site;
     There are readily available sources of inexpensive, clean 
water at the site;
     Based on current practices and water-well regulations in 
the region, a new well would not tap the shallow, unconsolidated 
aquifer in the North Site area, which is located within the 100-year 
flood plain of the Nolichucky River;
     Only a small portion of the shallow aquifer of the North 
Site is contaminated at levels that would cause drinking water dose 
above NRC's regulatory limit; and
     The licensee is committed to implementing appropriate 
remediation of contaminated groundwater under the continued authority 
of the EPA and TDEC RCRA/HSWA permit.
    Therefore, the calculation of soil DCGLs with no water-borne 
pathways is a reasonable assessment of potential future dose estimates.

4  Decommissioning Alternatives

    NRC considered alternatives to the proposed action. These are 
described below.

4.1  No Action

    This alternative is to leave the site in its current, contaminated 
condition. This would leave large volumes of contaminated soil and 
groundwater. Leaving the site in this condition would not comply with 
NRC regulations requiring remediation of unused outdoor areas and poses 
a potential threat to public health and safety. Therefore, this 
alternative is not acceptable.

4.2  Alternative Actions Considered and Decision Rationale

4.2.1  Approval of the amendment request, but with additional 
conditions restricting use of the site to industrial development only 
with no groundwater use.
    A dose assessment was performed by NFS for both the postulated 
industrial land-use scenario and a construction scenario. Results of 
this dose assessment were used to determine radionuclide-

[[Page 27170]]

specific dose-to-source factors (mrem/y per pCi/g in soil) for site 
contaminants. These are presented in the NFS report ``Potential Dose 
Due to Radioactive Contamination in Soil and Groundwater in the North 
NFS Plant Site, Revision 1''. Based on TEDE dose limits of 25 mrem/y to 
the average member of the critical group (industrial worker and/or 
construction worker) and 100 mrem/y if controls failed, these dose-to-
source factors were used to derive a set of restricted release soil 
concentration guideline levels (CGLs). Site characterization results 
were compared (on a sum-of-fractions basis) to the set of restricted-
release DCGLs to estimate the volume of soil that would need to be 
removed from the site to meet the DCGLs. Approximately 864,000 ft 
3 of material (including an estimated 500,000 ft 
3 of debris and soil from the North Site burial trenches) 
was determined to require removal to achieve the set of restricted-
release DCGLs. This alternative was rejected by NFS because it does not 
meet the goal of unrestricted release at license termination.
4.2.2  Approval of the amendment request, but with additional 
conditions imposing legally enforceable restrictions prohibiting use of 
groundwater.
    This alternative is similar to 4.3, but does not limit land use to 
industrial activities. It would add a prohibition against the use of 
groundwater from the shallow alluvial formation. The remediation 
activities are the same as those in the proposed alternative. NFS has 
presented data on current use of land and groundwater that demonstrates 
that there is no anticipated use of the groundwater in the alluvial 
formation because it is of poor quality and because of the availability 
of inexpensive, high quality water from the City of Erwin (see 
Sec. 3.2). Current zoning in the area is for industrial use and the 
immediate surrounding area is classified as suburban residential. 
Therefore, subsistence farming is not likely to occur in the area, and 
City water will be used for all activities requiring water, such as 
consumption, bathing, watering lawns, etc. This alternative is rejected 
because the addition of institutional controls is deemed not to provide 
significant benefit, and to add to the cost of decommissioning because 
of the provision to 10 CFR 20.1403(e) requiring funds in perpetuity for 
a third party to implement the controls. Furthermore, it is not 
necessary for NRC to establish requirements prohibiting use of ground 
water, as EPA and TDEC are requiring remediation to drinking water 
standards (see Section 3.0 above).

4.3  Alternatives Considered and Rejected.

    Require remediation of both groundwater and soil to levels such 
that the dose from all pathways meets criteria for unrestricted use.
    This alternative would require calculation of the dose from 
existing contamination in both soil and water-borne sources. Then, 
residual contamination limits in both media must be calculated. The 
residual concentration in both media must then be reduced to levels 
that would limit the all-pathways-dose to 25 mrem/yr.
    This alternative is rejected for the following reasons: (a) The 
water in the shallow aquifer is of lower quality, in contact with a 
marsh, and contaminated above EPA limits for drinking water with 
pollutants not related to operations at the site; (b) there are readily 
available sources of inexpensive, clean water at the site; (c) based on 
current practices and water-well regulations in the region, a new well 
would not tap the shallow, unconsolidated aquifer in the North Site 
area, which is located within a 100-year flood plain; (d) only a small 
portion of the shallow aquifer of the North Site is contaminated at 
levels that would cause drinking water dose above NRC's regulatory 
limit; and (e) The licensee is committed to implementing appropriate 
remediation of contaminated groundwater under the continued authority 
of the EPA and TDEC RCRA/HSWA permit. Further, there would be large 
additional cost to ship more than 300,000 ft 3 of moderately 
contaminated soil to a licensed disposal facility.

5  Affected Environment

5.1 Site Location and Physical Description

    The NFS facility is located immediately south of Erwin, Tennessee. 
Erwin is a town of about 6,000 people located in Unicoi County, about 
15 mi (24 km) south of Johnson City and 120 mi (190 km) east of 
Knoxville, TN. Unicoi County is 200 mi 2 (520 km 
2) in NE Tennessee and has a population of about 20,000. The 
area surrounding Erwin is mostly within the Cherokee National Forest. 
The facility comprises about 62 acres (25 ha), of which about 24 acres 
(9.7 ha) are designated as the North Site area. The site is situated in 
a valley that parallels the Nolichucky River, running roughly NE-SW. To 
the southeast, the land rises up Banner Hill and on to the Unaka 
mountains; to the west across the Nolichucky River is Looking Glass 
Mountain.
5.1.1  Climate
    The climate in the Erwin area is temperate with an average annual 
temperature high of 73 deg.F and an average low of 38 deg.F (USDA 
1985). The average high in January is 46 deg.F and the low is 25 deg.F. 
The average high in July is 87 deg.F and the low is 63 deg.F. 
Precipitation is moderate and evenly distributed throughout the year. 
The average annual precipitation for Erwin is 43.83 inches (based on 
data from 1967-1990). The average seasonal snowfall in Erwin is 15 
inches and occurs within a five-month period (November-March) (USDA 
1985). Prevailing wind is from the south-southwest. Average monthly 
wind speed is highest, 8 mph, in March (USDA 1985). Atmospheric data 
are maintained at Erwin Utilities and at NFS.
5.1.2  Surface Water
    Surface water runoff from NFS drains to Martin Creek either 
directly through two 42-inch culverts parallel to the northwest site 
boundary, or indirectly via Banner Spring Branch. Martin Creek 
discharges to the Nolichucky River via North Indian Creek. 
Characteristics of Banner Spring Branch, Martin Creek, and the 
Nolichucky River are summarized below.
    Banner Spring Branch: Banner Spring Branch emanates from a spring 
(Banner Spring) located on the NFS property upgradient of manufacturing 
facilities. The source of Banner Spring is probably fracture controlled 
groundwater from the mountains southeast of the site. Banner Spring has 
a continuous flow rate of about 300 gallons/minute. Neither Banner 
Spring nor Banner Spring Branch are used as a source of drinking water. 
Along the northern corner of the site, Banner Spring Branch empties 
into Martin Creek, a stream that runs along the northeast boundary of 
the NFS property.
    Martin Creek: The base flow of Martin Creek is 1,000 to 5,000 
gallons per minute with seasonal variations. Martin Creek originates in 
the Unaka mountains southeast of Erwin at an elevation near 4,000 feet 
above sea level. It follows a very straight course near the NFS site 
leading some investigators to conclude that its course follows a strike 
slip fault adjacent to or downstream of the NFS site. Martin Creek is a 
tributary to North Indian Creek, which empties into the Nolichucky 
River approximately one and one-half miles north of the NFS property.
    Nolichucky River: The Nolichucky River originates in the North 
Carolina mountains to the southeast and has an average flow rate of 
450,000 gallons/

[[Page 27171]]

minute. In the vicinity of NFS, the river follows a relatively straight 
course parallel to the long axis of the facility (southwest to 
northeast) and is generally located from 800 to 1,000 feet to the 
facility's northwest. The nearest public water supply on the Nolichucky 
River, downstream of the plant site, is the town of Jonesborough, 
Tennessee, located approximately eight miles northwest of Erwin.
5.1.3  Geology and Groundwater
    The geology consists of six to fifteen feet of unconsolidated 
alluvium consisting of silts and clays, clayey sand, and sand with 
varying amounts of gravel and cobble. The alluvium coarsens with depth 
into cobbles and boulders. This cobble/boulder zone overlies weathered, 
fractured bedrock consisting of steeply dipping beds of shale or shale 
interbedded with dolomite and siltstone. The bedrock exists at depths 
ranging from approximately seven to twenty-nine feet below ground 
surface (EcoTek 1994). Both the alluvium and the shallow bedrock 
contain groundwater under unconfined conditions. No laterally 
continuous physical separation exists between the two lithologies. 
Recharge to the alluvium and shallow bedrock is predominantly from 
downward infiltration of rainwater through the vadose zone. Some upward 
component of flow is evident within the deeper bedrock (50+ feet) which 
is probably the result of higher elevation recharge through fracture 
systems in the mountains to the southeast. Measured heads in the 
bedrock wells are consistent with and indicative of a nonfractured 
dominated flow regime. The thinly bedded, poorly competent nature of 
the bedrock may contribute to flow patterns more analogous to the 
porous media model than the fracture flow model. Limited evidence, such 
as high well yields, exists for structure or fracture controlled 
movement of groundwater in the deeper zone (EcoTek 1994).

5.2  Facility Operations

    The North Site area has two former burial sites of waste disposed 
under 10 CFR 20.302 and 20.304, three wet ponds used to hold process 
waste, and a wetlands area. There is one temporary building (410) in 
the southwest part of the area. Prior to that time the area was a farm, 
as was much of the surrounding area.
    The area being decommissioned is located both inside and outside of 
the plant protected area which is defined by a double security fence. 
Within the protected area are Banner Spring Branch, a small marsh, open 
grass-covered grounds, the three surface impoundments, and Pond 4. 
Banner Spring Branch runs through the property originating in the east 
just outside the security fence and discharging into Martin Creek to 
the north. The grounds outside the plant protected area, but inside the 
outer access control fence (the perimeter fence), include grass-covered 
fields, wooded areas, and a marsh. Also present are a burial ground and 
a demolition landfill. Trees cover most of the grounds outside the 
perimeter fence. Temporary buildings located in the area to be 
decommissioned include steel frame, metal buildings. These buildings 
are currently used in support of remediation activities. Five trailers 
located in the area provide offices, break area, showers and storage. 
Four small (less than 100 ft 2 sheds located in the 
characterization area house analytical equipment environmental sampling 
equipment (Banner Spring Branch Sampling Station and Sanitary Sewer 
Sampling Station), water control equipment (Backflow Preventer Bldg.), 
and vehicle cover. Other structures include a locked guard tower, a 
series of abandoned, partially intact residences located in the woods 
in the northeast area of the site, concrete pads for support of 
remediation equipment, fencing, light poles, electrical distribution 
facilities, pipes and conduits, a concrete drainage ditch, enclosed 
culverts, and miscellaneous equipment (e.g., knockout tank, bladder 
tanks).

5.3  Radiological Status of the Facility

5.3.1  Radiological status of structures and equipment
    Direct surveys were limited to four sampling sheds and a guard 
tower which are not likely to be affected by remediation efforts. 
Surveys found the amount of activity present on these structures to be 
below the surface contamination limits in NFS' SNM-124 license. All 
other structures in the North Site will be used to support 
decommissioning operations and will be surveyed at the time of their 
release from the site.
5.3.2  Radiological Status of Surface and Subsurface Soils
    The primary radioactive contaminants in the North Site are uranium 
(U-234, U-235, and U-238), thorium (Th-228, Th-230, and Th-232), 
plutonium (Pu-238, Pu-239/240, Pu-241, and Pu-242), americium 241, and 
technetium 99. Levels of radioactive contamination currently exceed the 
release criteria in soil and sediment across much of the North Site 
inside the plant protected area. Contamination above the criteria is 
present down to the level of auger refusal in much of the protected 
area. Contamination also exists between the cobbles. Only a portion of 
the north east corner of the plant protected area is not contaminated 
above the release criteria.
    Areas outside the plant protected area that exceed the release 
criteria include soil/sediment surrounding Banner Spring Branch, the 
burial trenches, the contaminated soil mound area, and isolated 
occurrences between the radiological burial ground trenches and Banner 
Spring Branch. Radioactive contamination primarily occurs on the 
surface and does not extend beyond a depth of about four feet except in 
the burial ground where it extends approximately 4-5 meters. Analytical 
results from the burial trench cap indicated only a few isolated areas 
where contamination was present above the release criteria. There is no 
indication that soil contamination extends off-site to the north and 
east. Radiological soil contamination to the west of the North Site is 
bounded by the former streambed of Banner Spring Branch which was 
released by the NRC in 1987 (NRC 1987). Soil beneath the current 
microwave security zone (area between the inner and outer fences) at 
the west site boundary was not included in the NRC release and is 
contaminated above the release criteria.
5.3.3  Radiological Status of Ground and Surface Water
    Banner Spring Branch and Martin Creek contain contamination below 
effluent concentration limits in Appendix B to 10 CFR part 20. 
Groundwater throughout the North Site Area is contaminated to varying 
levels ranging from a few Ci/l, below release limits, to more 
than 600 Ci/l. The primary contaminants are isotopes of 
uranium and technetium-99. Tc-99 is present in off-site wells to the 
west of the site boundary in concentrations above background, but a 
small fraction (~1%) of EPA limits. Uranium has not yet been detected 
off-site. Based on no ground water remediation, NFS projections 
calculate concentrations exceeding 30 Ci/l in the alluvial 
ground water migrating beyond the site boundary as early as 2003; 
migration in the deeper levels--cobbles and shallow bedrock--occurs at 
a slower rate, but is calculated to exceed 30 Ci/l beyond the 
site boundary within 1,000 years. (Geraghty & Miller, 1996)

[[Page 27172]]

6  Environmental Impacts

6.1  Adverse Impacts

    The International Commission on Radiological Protection has 
determined that the current level of protection from radiation for man 
will ensure that other species are not put at risk (ICRP, 1990). The 
Department of Energy has issued an interim standard with screening dose 
limits for aquatic animals (1 rad/d), riparian and terrestrial animals 
(0.1 rad/d), and terrestrial plants (1 rad/d). These doses are in 
excess of the 25 mrem/yr limit for the release of this site. Therefore, 
no separate environmental risk assessment was performed.
6.1.1  Radiological Impacts to the Public and Workers
    Material contaminated above release limits will be shipped to a 
licensed disposal facility. The licensee's radiological protection 
program, which is described in Chapter 4 of the Decommissioning Plan, 
requires use of hazardous work permits, etc. that will limit doses to 
workers to less than or equal to the limits in 10 CFR part 20.
    Minor spills and/or releases may occur as contaminated soil is 
being prepared for shipment or during transport to an offsite disposal 
facility. However, considering that the majority of the waste stream 
expected to be generated during decommissioning comprises contaminated 
soil, these incidents would pose only negligible impact to human health 
and the environment. In the event of a spill of this nature, 
decontamination efforts and any required notification would be 
performed in accordance with the NFS Emergency Plan and emergency 
procedures.
    Residual concentrations of radionuclides in soil are shown in Table 
1. Based on the industrial and suburban resident land use scenarios, 
the radiological impact from the residual contamination will not exceed 
25 mrem/yr the public.
6.1.2  Non-Radiological Impacts
    Portions of the site, primarily the groundwater, are contaminated 
with solvents (PCE, TCE, etc.) from NFS activities. These materials are 
the subject of an EPA and TDEC RCRA/HSWA Permit requiring investigation 
and remediation to EPA and Tennessee standards in a time-frame agreed 
upon between EPA, TDEC and NFS. Therefore they are not addressed in 
this EA. However, a pilot groundwater remediation study has recently 
been implemented to accommodate all groundwater contaminants, i.e., 
radioactive and non-radioactive.
6.1.3  Historical and Archaeological Resources
    After considering the documentation submitted, it is the opinion of 
the Tennessee Historical Commission that there are no national register 
of historic places listed or eligible properties affected by this 
undertaking. This determination is made either because of the location, 
scope and/or nature of the undertaking, and/or because of the size of 
the area of potential effect; or because no listed or eligible 
properties exist in the area of potential effect; or because the 
undertaking will not alter any characteristics of an identified 
eligible or listed property that qualified the property for listing in 
the National Register or alter such property's location, setting or 
use. Therefore, this office has no objections to proceeding with the 
project.
6.1.4  Terrestrial Biota
    There is a Federally Threatened Plant in the vicinity of the NFS 
site: Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana). Because of the industrial 
nature of the NFS site and surrounding area, there is no suitable 
habitat for this species at the site.
6.1.5  Aquatic Biota
    There is a Federally Endangered mussel species, Appalachian elktoe 
(Alasmidonta raveneliana), near the confluence of the Nolichucky River 
and South Indian Creek. Because this is upstream of the confluence of 
the Nolichucky River and Martin Creek and the NFS site, no impact is 
expected on this species. No discharges from NFS into Martin Creek are 
expected from decommissioning activities.
6.1.6  Wetlands
    There is a wetland area (0.2 acres) near Pond 3 and Banner Spring 
that will be removed as part of the proposed decommissioning 
activities. This will be replaced with a larger one (0.4 acres) in the 
northeast corner of the North Site Area in accordance with a permit 
from TDEC. Banner Spring Branch will be relocated and enclosed in a 
pipe for the balance of plant life. To compensate for this, NFS will 
improve a wetland area near the federal fishery, approximately three 
miles north of the site. TDEC and US Fish and Wildlife Service will 
authorize this activity by a Memorandum of Agreement with NFS.
6.1.7  Water Resources
    No ground water remediation will take place as part of the proposed 
alternative. The existing contamination, primarily uranium and 
technetium, will remain in the alluvial groundwater. Some uranium and 
technetium are calculated to migrate off-site to the west in the 
shallow groundwater. As discussed in Section 3.0, NFS will remediate 
ground water to drinking water standards in the future. However, this 
groundwater will not be used as a water supply. Therefore, it will not 
contribute to a dose to members of the public. Vertical migration of 
the contamination is also calculated, but it is not expected to reach 
the deep aquifer, that is used as a drinking water supply, within 1,000 
years.
    Banner Spring Branch will be relocated during remediation 
activities as discussed in Sec. 6.1.6 above.
6.1.8  Construction Impacts
    No building construction will occur in this action except the 
removal of temporary building 410, at the completion of remediation. No 
adverse effects will occur in the environment from this activity.

6.2  Impacts to Aesthetic, Economic, Cultural, Social, Air Quality, 
Noise Resources and Habitat Destruction

    There will be no discernable impacts on aesthetics, socio-economics 
or cultural resources because the work is being done by existing staff 
and the physical configuration of the facility will remain the same as 
current.
    There may be minor, temporary impacts on air quality and noise 
during remediation activities. NFS has dust control measures in place, 
and the use of equipment will not significantly change from the current 
industrial environment.
    A part of a marsh area (wetland) will be destroyed as part of the 
remediation activities. This area will be replaced as discussed in 
Section 6.1.6 above.

7  Planned Monitoring

    This area will remain within licensee control and will be monitored 
in accordance with the pertinent provision of the license for 
operational and environmental monitoring.

8  Agencies and Individuals Consulted, and Sources Used

8.1  Environmental Protection Agency

    EPA Region IV has reviewed the proposed action and:
     Concurs with the rationale that the groundwater pathway 
can be eliminated from consideration in calculating soil cleanup levels 
and radioactive doses from the sources of the North Site
     Maintain that the RCRA/HSWA Permit issued to NFS will be 
used to enforce appropriate groundwater pilot studies and necessary 
groundwater remediation of all contaminated groundwater according to 
the most

[[Page 27173]]

recent ``Handbook of Groundwater Policies for RCRA Corrective Action'' 
(EPA 530-D-00-001, updated 4/40/2000). See http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction
     Maintain that the RCRA/HSWA Permit issued to NFS will be 
used to enforce appropriate and necessary layered institutional 
controls (ICs) according to the EPA document titled ``Institutional 
Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and 
Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective 
Action Cleanups'' (EPA 540-F-00-005, OSWER 9355.0-74FS-P, dated 
September 2000). Some examples of ICs include easements, covenants, 
well drilling prohibitions, zoning restrictions, and special building 
permit requirements. Deed restriction is a phrase often used in remedy 
decision documents to describe easements or other forms of ICs; 
however, this is not a traditional property law term and will be 
avoided. Because fences are physical barriers instead of administrative 
or legal measures, they are not considered to be ICs.

8.2  Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

    The State has reviewed the proposed action and concurs with the 
conclusion regarding radiological dose and approval of the North Site 
Decommissioning Plan.

8.3  Tennessee State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

    After considering the documentation submitted, it is SHPO's opinion 
that there are no national register of historic places listed or 
eligible properties affected by this undertaking.

8.4  U.S. Fish and Wildlife (US FWS)

    The US FWS has determined that no listed species will be impacted 
by the proposed action. FWS also concludes that the EA supports the 
conclusion that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect 
the environment. A Memorandum of Agreement between TDEC, USFWS and NFS 
will be developed to regulate activities near the federal fishery.

9  References

    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Official 
Correspondence from Leland C. Rouse, Chief, Fuel Cycle Safety Branch, 
to NFS. July 24, 1987.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1985. 
Soil Survey of Unicoi County, Tennessee. Carlie McCowan. September 
1985.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990. ICRP 60 
Sec. 16.
    NRC approved decommissioning plan for Ponds 1, 2, and 3 (NFS 1991).
    EcoTek 1994. 1992/1993 NFS Hydrogeologic Investigation and 
Monitoring Well Installation Program. EcoTek, Inc. June 30, 1994.
    Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS). 1999a. Potential Dose to 
Radiological Contaminants in North Site Soil and Groundwater, Revision 
1. February 1999.
    Final Report: Groundwater and Constituent Transport modeling at the 
Nuclear Fuel Services Facility; Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 4/99.
    NFS North Site Decommissioning Plan, Revision 1, 7/99.
    Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS). 1999. North Site 
Characterization Report for Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Erwin, 
Tennessee, Revision 1. July 1999.
    U.S. Department of Energy. Interim Technical Standard ``A Graded 
Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial 
Biota.'' June 2000.
    Tennessee Historical Commission 2000. Letter from R. L. Harper to 
Larry W. Camper. December 19, 2000.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 2001. Letter from 
Leo J. Romanowski, Jr. to Phil Ting. February 21, 2001.
    Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 2001. Letter 
from Debra Schults to Phil Ting. February 20, 2001.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter from Steven Alexander, U.S. 
FWS to J.C. Shepherd, April 18, 2001.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    The Commission has prepared the above Environmental Assessment 
related to the amendment of Special Nuclear Material License SNM-124. 
On the basis of the assessment, the Commission has concluded that 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action would not be 
significant and do not warrant the preparation of an Environmental 
Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of 
No Significant Impact is appropriate.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ``Rules of Practice,'' 
the Environmental Assessment and the documents related to this proposed 
action will be available electronically for public inspection from the 
Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system 
(ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Opportunity For a Hearing

    Based on the EA and accompanying safety evaluation, NRC is 
preparing to amend License SNM-124. The NRC hereby provides that this 
is a proceeding on an application for amendment of a license falling 
within the scope of Subpart L, ``Informal Hearing Procedures for 
Adjudication in Materials Licensing Proceedings,'' of NRC's rules and 
practice for domestic licensing proceedings in 10 CFR Part 2. Pursuant 
to Sec. 2.1205(a), any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding may file a request for a hearing in accordance with 
Sec. 2.1205(d). A request for a hearing must be filed within thirty 
(30) days of the date of publication of this Federal Register notice.
    A request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be 
filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission either:
    1. By delivery to the Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff of the 
Secretary at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852-2738; or
    2. By mail or telegram addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
    In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR part 
2 of the NRC's regulations, a request for a hearing filed by a person 
other than an applicant must describe in detail:
    1. The interest of the requester in the proceeding;
    2. How that interest may be affected by the results of the 
proceeding, including the reasons why the requestor should be permitted 
a hearing, with particular reference to the factors set out in 
Sec. 2.1205(h).
    3. The requester's areas of concern about the licensing activity 
that is the subject matter of the proceeding; and
    4. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is 
timely in accordance with Sec. 2.1205(d).
    In accordance with 10 CFR Sec. 2.1205(f), each request for a 
hearing must also be served, by delivering it personally or by mail to:
    1. The applicant, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., 1205 Banner Hill 
Road, Erwin, TN 37650; and
    2. The NRC staff, by delivering to the Executive Director for 
Operations, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852, or by mail, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

[[Page 27174]]

    The NRC contact for this licensing action is Mary T. Adams, who may 
be contacted at (301) 415-7249 or by e-mail at [email protected] for more 
information about the licensing action.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of May 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Lidia A. Roche,
Acting Chief, Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle 
Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 01-11755 Filed 5-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P