[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3281-3283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-1460]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 40-8989]


Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact for Exemption From Certain NRC Licensing 
Requirements for Special Nuclear Material for Envirocare of Utah, Inc.

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an Order pursuant to Section 274f of the Atomic Energy Act 
that would modify an Order transmitted to Envirocare of Utah, Inc. 
(Envirocare) on May 24, 1999. The Order was published in the Federal 
Register on May 21, 1999 (64 FR 27826). The 1999 Order exempted 
Envirocare from certain NRC regulations and permitted Envirocare, under 
specified conditions, to possess waste containing special nuclear 
material (SNM), in greater quantities than specified in 10 CFR part 
150, at Envirocare's low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility located in 
Clive, Utah, without obtaining an NRC license pursuant to 10 CFR part 
70. The 1999 Order permits Envirocare to possess SNM without regard for 
mass. Rather than relying on mass to ensure criticality safety, 
concentration-based limits are being 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 the 1999 SER that supported the 1999 Order.
    Envirocare is licensed by the State of Utah, an NRC Agreement 
State, under a 10 CFR part 61 equivalent license for

[[Page 3282]]

the disposal of LLW. Envirocare is also licensed by Utah to dispose of 
mixed-radioactive and hazardous wastes. In addition, Envirocare has an 
NRC license (SMC-1559) to dispose of waste containing 11(e)2 byproduct 
material.
    In letters dated July 3, 2002, and July 29, 2002, Envirocare 
requested that the 1999 Order be amended as discussed below. Staff's 
safety analysis for the revisions to the 1999 Order are discussed in 
the companion Safety Evaluation Report (SER).

II. Environmental Assessment (EA)

Identification of Proposed Action

    Envirocare proposes that NRC amend the 1999 Order as follows: (1) 
Include stabilization of liquid waste streams containing SNM; (2) 
include the thermal desorption process; (3) change the homogenous 
contiguous mass limit from 145 kg to 600 kg; (4) change the language 
and SNM limit associated with footnotes ``c'' and ``d'' of Condition 1 
to reflect all materials in Conditions 2 and 3; and (5) omit the 
confirmatory testing requirements for debris waste.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The 1999 Order limited certain mixed waste processing activities to 
those specifically approved in the Order. Envirocare is expanding its 
mixed waste processing capabilities to include stabilization of liquid 
waste streams and thermal desorption for economic reasons. Moreover, 
Envirocare's State of Utah licenses have been modified to include these 
processes, and revision of the 1999 Order is required to allow for 
treatment by these processes of waste streams containing SNM. 
Envirocare has been operating under the Order since 1999 and believes 
that some conditions need to be clarified.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff considered two alternatives to the proposed action. 
One alternative to the proposed action would be to not revise the 
exemption (no-action alternative). Another alternative would be to 
revise the exemption as requested by Envirocare but with additional 
conditions.

Affected Environment

    NRC has prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) (NUREG-
1476), SERs, and EAs for its licensing action. The affected environment 
is discussed in detail in NUREG-1476.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives

    No Action Alternative: For the no-action alternative, the 
environmental impacts would be the same as evaluated in the 
Environmental Assessment (64 FR 26463, May 14, 1999) to support the 
1999 Order. The regulations regarding SNM possession in 10 CFR part 150 
set mass limits whereby a licensee is exempted from the licensing 
requirements of 10 CFR part 70 and can be regulated by an Agreement 
State. The licensing requirements in 10 CFR part 70 apply to persons 
possessing greater than critical mass quantities (as defined in 10 CFR 
150.11). The principle emphasis of 10 CFR part 70 is criticality safety 
and safeguarding SNM against diversion or sabotage. The NRC staff 
considers that criticality safety can be maintained by relying on 
concentration limits, under the specified conditions. These 
concentration limits are considered an alternative definition of 
quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass to the weight limits 
in 10 CFR 150.11; thereby, assuring the same level of protection. The 
1999 EA concluded that the 1999 Order would have no significant 
radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts.
    Proposed Action: For the proposed actions, the environmental 
impacts of changing the homogenous contiguous mass limit from 145 kg to 
600 kg and changing the language and SNM limit associated with 
footnotes ``c'' and ``d'' of Condition 1 to reflect all materials in 
Conditions 2 and 3 would have the same environmental impacts as the 
1999 Order and the no action alternative. In the SER supporting the 
revision to the 1999 Order, staff concluded that including 
stabilization of liquid waste streams containing SNM and thermal 
desorption process, and omitting the confirmatory testing requirements 
for debris waste could increase the risk of an inadvertent criticality. 
The environmental impacts from a criticality accident at the Envirocare 
site would include human health impacts to worker and possible loss of 
life to a few workers. Given the proximity of the public, human health 
impacts to the public (such as motorist on adjacent roadways) would not 
be expected to be significant. Gaseous and particulate emissions during 
the criticality could contaminate land outside the restricted area. 
Cleanup of this contamination would have some short-term impact on the 
environment.
    Proposed Action with Additional Conditions: In the SER supporting 
the revision to the 1999 Order, staff identified additional conditions 
that would be required to ensure sufficient protection of health, 
safety, and the environment. These include limiting the mass of SNM in 
liquid waste, requiring SNM concentration testing following thermal 
desorption treatment, reducing the concentration limit associated with 
footnote ``c'', and reducing the allowable concentration when 
confirmatory sampling and testing is not conducted by Envirocare. These 
conditions would result in the same environmental impact as the no 
action alternative.

Preferred Alternative

    The staff has concluded in the SER, dated January 14, 2003, for 
this exemption request that the proposed action (i.e., revise the 
exemption as request by Envirocare without additional conditions) would 
not provide sufficient protection of health, safety, and the 
environment. Therefore, staff's preferred alternative is to revise the 
1999 Order with additional conditions. These include limiting the mass 
of SNM in liquid waste, requiring SNM concentration testing following 
thermal desorption treatment, reducing the concentration limit 
associated with footnote ``c'', and reducing the allowable 
concentration when confirmatory sampling and testing is not conducted 
by Envirocare. The staff has concluded that with these revised 
conditions, the conclusion in the 1999 EA associated with the 1999 
Order remain valid.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    Officials from the State of Utah, Department of Environmental 
Quality, Division of Radiation Control were contacted about this EA for 
the proposed action and had no comments. Because the proposed action is 
not expected to have any impact on treated or endangered species or 
historic resources, the Fish and Wildlife Service and State of Utah 
Historic Preservation Officer were not consulted.

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed 
in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51. Based 
upon the foregoing EA, the NRC finds that the preferred alternative of 
revising the exemption with additional conditions will not 
significantly impact the quality of the human environment.
    Accordingly, the NRC has decided not to prepare an EIS for the 
proposed exemption.

IV. Further Information

    The requests for modifying the Order are available for inspection 
at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html ML021900394 and ML022180270. The January 14, 2003, 
Safety Evaluation is available at

[[Page 3283]]

ML023470587. The 1999 EA is available in the Federal Register at 64 FR 
26463 (May 14, 1999). Documents may also be obtained from NRC's Public 
Document Room at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Public Document 
Room, Washington, DC 20555. Any questions with respect to this action 
should be referred to Timothy Harris, Environmental and Performance 
Assessment Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-6613, Fax: (301) 415-
5398.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 14th day of January, 2003.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Lawrence E. Kokajko,
Acting Chief, Environmental and Performance Assessment Branch, Division 
of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 03-1460 Filed 1-22-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P