[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 207 (Monday, October 27, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61235-61238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-27009]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70-143]


Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Environmental Assessment and 
Issuance of Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Proposed 
Amendment to License No. SNM-124 for the Blended Low-Enriched Uranium 
Preparation Facility

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Finding of no significant impact and availability of 
environmental assessment.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Ramsey, Fuel Cycle Facilities 
Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Mail Stop T8-A33, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-7887 
and email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the 
issuance of a license amendment to NRC Materials License No. SNM-124 to 
authorize operation of the Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Preparation 
Facility (BPF) in Erwin, Tennessee and has prepared an Environmental 
Assessment (EA) in support of this action. Based upon the EA, the NRC 
has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is 
appropriate, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
will not be prepared.
    Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) request for the proposed action was 
initially noticed by the NRC along with a notice of opportunity to 
provide comments and request a hearing on January 7, 2003 (see 68 FR 
796).

II. Environmental Assessment

Background

    The NFS facility in Erwin, TN is authorized under SNM-124 to 
manufacture high-enriched nuclear reactor fuel. NFS is undertaking the 
Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Project (BLEU Project) to manufacture low-
enriched nuclear reactor fuel. NFS is constructing a new complex at the 
Erwin site to house the operations involving low-enriched uranium. On 
July 27, 2003, Amendment 39 to License SNM-124 was issued to authorize 
storage of low-enriched uranium in the new complex. This was the first 
of three amendments planned for the BLEU Project. Manufacturing 
operations in the new complex have not been authorized yet.
    NFS is requesting this amendment to authorize operations at the 
Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Preparation Facility (BPF). This is the 
second of the three amendments planned for the BLEU Project. The BLEU 
Project involves blending high-enriched uranium with unenriched 
(natural) uranium to produce low-enriched uranium. This is called 
``downblending.'' Much of the

[[Page 61236]]

downblending will be performed at other facilities, but NFS plans to 
perform some downblending at its facility. The BPF operations will be 
located within the older facility because that facility is already 
authorized to handle high-enriched uranium. After the high-enriched 
uranium is downblended and converted to a low-enriched uranium liquid, 
it will be transferred from the BPF to the new complex.
    NFS plans to submit a third amendment request to authorize 
manufacturing operations in the new complex. Only storage of low-
enriched uranium is authorized in the new complex at this time.

Review Purpose

    The purpose of this EA is to assess the environmental impacts of 
the proposed license amendment. It does not approve the request. This 
EA is limited to the proposed BPF operations at the Erwin Plant and any 
cumulative impacts on existing plant operations. The existing 
conditions and operations for the Erwin facility were evaluated by NRC 
for environmental impacts in a 1999 EA related to the renewal of the 
NFS license (Ref. 1) and a 2002 EA related to the first amendment for 
the BLEU Project (Ref. 2). Some of the operations proposed for the BPF 
were previously authorized in the 200 Complex and the impact of those 
operations was assessed in the 1999 EA. In addition, the 2002 EA 
assessed the impact of the entire BLEU Project (including BPF 
operations) using information available at that time. This assessment 
presents the up-to-date information and analysis the staff used to 
determine that issuance of a FONSI is appropriate and that an EIS will 
not be prepared.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is to amend NRC Materials License SNM-124 to 
authorize processing operations in the BPF. The BPF is being 
constructed within Building 333 in the protected area of the NFS site 
(formerly Building 301). The operations will convert high-enriched 
uranium materials to high-enriched uranyl nitrate (UN) solutions. The 
high-enriched UN solutions will be blended with natural UN solutions to 
produce low-enriched UN solutions. Blending of natural uranium and 
high-enriched uranium was previously authorized in the 200 Complex and 
some of the operations proposed for the BPF were assessed during the 
1999 license renewal.
    However, some of the operations are new and require a license 
amendment. The 200 Complex is being decommissioned and the blending 
operation is being moved to Building 333. The building is already in 
place and most construction activities are associated with renovating 
the building. The duration of the project will be five years from the 
time material is delivered to the site.
    The BPF operations are composed of five processes--the Uranium 
Metal Process, Uranium Aluminum Alloy Process, Solvent Extraction 
Process, Enrichment Downblending Process, and Uranium Recovery Process.
    [sbull] The Uranium Metal Process involves the conversion of 
uranium metal to uranium oxide in a furnace, and the dissolution of the 
uranium oxide in nitric acid.
    [sbull] The Uranium Aluminum Alloy Process involves: (1) 
Dissolution of the aluminum with a caustic solution (sodium hydroxide); 
(2) separation of uranium solid; (3) dissolution of the uranium in 
nitric acid; (4) measurement of the special nuclear material (SNM) in 
the UN solution; and (5) measurement of the SNM in the used caustic 
solution.
    [sbull] The Solvent Extraction Process involves: (1) Extracting the 
uranium from the impure UN solution with an organic solvent solution; 
(2) extracting the uranium from the organic solvent solution to produce 
a pure UN solution; (3) boiling the UN solution to adjust the 
concentration; and (4) treatment of the stripped solvent for reuse, and 
(5) processing of waste solutions.
    [sbull] The Enrichment Downblending Process involves blending high-
enriched UN solution with natural UN solution to produce low-enriched 
UN solution.
    [sbull] The Uranium Recovery Process involves taking items 
contaminated with high-enriched uranium and rinsing them with nitric 
acid to remove the uranium. The resulting solution is transferred to 
the Solvent Extraction Process.

Need for Proposed Action

    Framatome ANP Inc. has contracted with NFS to downblend surplus 
high-enriched uranium material to a low-enriched uranium product. The 
NFS product is expected to be converted to commercial reactor fuel for 
a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) nuclear power reactor; however, the 
NFS proposed action is limited to the production of low-enriched UN 
solutions as feed material to the new BLEU Complex. The BLEU Project is 
part of a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) program to reduce stockpiles 
of surplus high-enriched uranium through re-use or disposal as 
radioactive waste. Re-use is considered the favorable option by the DOE 
because: (1) Weapons grade material is converted to a form unsuitable 
for nuclear weapons (addressing a proliferation concern); (2) the 
product can be used for peaceful purposes; and (3) the commercial value 
of the surplus material can be recovered (Ref. 3). An additional 
benefit of re-use is to avoid unnecessary use of limited radioactive 
waste disposal space.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    The only alternative available to the NRC is no action (i.e., deny 
the amendment request). Other alternatives to the proposed action are 
addressed in the DOE Environmental Impact Statement (Ref. 3) and are 
not re-analyzed in this EA.

Affected Environment

    The affected environment for the proposed action and the 
alternative is the NFS site. A full description of the site and its 
characteristics is given in the 1999 EA related to the renewal of the 
NFS license (Ref. 1) and a 2002 EA related to the first amendment for 
the BLEU Project (Ref. 2). The NFS facility is located in Unicoi 
County, Tennessee, about 32 km (20 mi) southwest of Johnson City, 
Tennessee. The plant is about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) southwest of the Erwin 
city limits. The site occupies about 28 hectares (70 acres). The site 
is bounded to the northwest by the CSX Corporation (CSX) railroad 
property and the Nolichucky River, and by Martin Creek to the 
northeast. The plant elevation is about 9 m (30 ft) above the nearest 
point on the Nolichucky River.
    The area adjacent to the site consists primarily of residential, 
industrial, and commercial areas, with a limited amount of farming to 
the northwest. Privately owned residences are located to the east and 
south of the facility. Tract size is relatively large, leading to a low 
housing density in the areas adjacent to the facility. The CSX railroad 
right-of-way is parallel to the western boundary of the site. 
Industrial development is located adjacent to the railroad on the 
opposite side of the right-of-way. The site is bounded by Martin Creek 
to the north, with privately owned, vacant property and low-density 
residences.

Effluent Releases and Monitoring

    A full description of the effluent monitoring program at the site 
is provided in the 1999 EA related to the renewal of the NFS license 
(Ref. 1) and a 2002 EA related to the first amendment for the BLEU 
Project (Ref. 2). The NFS Erwin Plant conducts effluent and 
environmental monitoring programs to evaluate potential public health 
impacts and comply with the

[[Page 61237]]

NRC effluent and environmental monitoring requirements. The effluent 
program monitors the airborne, liquid, and solid waste streams produced 
during operation of the NFS Plant. The environmental program monitors 
the air, surface water, sediment, soil, groundwater, and vegetation in 
and around the NFS Plant.
    Airborne, liquid, and solid effluent streams that contain 
radioactive material are generated at the NFS Plant and monitored to 
ensure compliance with NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 20. Each effluent 
is monitored at or just before the point of release. The results of 
effluent monitoring are reported on a semi-annual basis to the NRC in 
accordance with 10 CFR 70.59.
    Airborne and liquid effluents are also monitored for 
nonradiological constituents in accordance with State discharge 
permits. For the purpose of this EA, the State of Tennessee is expected 
to set limits on effluents under its regulatory control that are 
protective of health and safety and the local environment. On October 
10, 2002, the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board issued a discharge 
permit for airborne effluents from the BPF.

Environmental Impact of Proposed Action

    A full description of the environmental impacts of the proposed 
action is provided in the 1999 EA related to the renewal of the NFS 
license (Ref. 1) and a 2002 EA related to the first amendment for the 
BLEU Project (Ref. 2). The previously authorized operations are 
analyzed in the 1999 EA and the new operations are analyzed in the 2002 
EA. For the proposed action, construction and processing operations 
will result in the release of low levels of chemical and radioactive 
constituents to the environment. Under accident conditions, higher 
concentrations of materials could be released to the environment over a 
short period of time. Based on the information provided by NFS and 
summarized in the EA's referenced above, the safety controls to be 
employed for the proposed action appear to be sufficient to ensure 
planned operations will be safe. Detailed accident analyses have been 
performed by NFS in an integrated safety assessment (ISA). NRC's review 
of the ISA will ensure compliance with the performance requirements in 
10 CFR Part 70. This will provide additional confidence that potential 
accidents have been adequately evaluated before making a decision on 
the proposed action.
    For normal operations, the effluent air emissions from the BPF will 
be discharged through the existing main NFS stack. While some effluents 
for the proposed action are expected to increase, the total annual dose 
estimate for the maximally exposed individual from all planned 
effluents is less than 0.01 milliseivert (mSv) or 1 millirem (mrem). 
This result is well below the annual public dose limit of 1 mSv (100 
mrem) in 10 CFR 20.1301, and the constraint on air emissions to the 
environment of 0.1 mSv (10 mrem) in 10 CFR part 20.1101. BPF operations 
are not expected to increase the dose to workers at the NFS facility 
because the types and quantity of material, and the processing, will be 
similar to what is already licensed at the site. Surface water quality 
at the NFS site is currently protected by enforcing release limits and 
monitoring programs. No significant change in surface water impacts is 
expected from BPF operations. The proposed action will not discharge 
any effluents to the groundwater; therefore, no adverse impacts to 
groundwater are expected. BPF operations will be conducted in existing 
facilities; therefore, no adverse impacts to local land use, biotic 
resources, or cultural resources are expected. The proposed action 
involves transportation of feed material to the NFS site. All 
transportation will be conducted in accordance with the applicable NRC 
and U.S. Department of Transportation regulations; therefore no adverse 
impacts from transportation activities are expected.

Environmental Impact of No Action Alternative

    Under the no action alternative, NFS would not be able to carry out 
its contract obligations to produce a commercial product from U.S. 
Government surplus, weapons-usable, high-enriched uranium. Failure to 
fulfill its role in the DOE program could cause DOE to select other 
alternatives for disposition of the surplus material that may be less 
cost effective and incur greater environmental impacts. For example, 
the disposal option would incur additional costs and consume available 
disposal space that may be better utilized for non-reusable wastes. If 
NFS were not able to fulfill its contract, DOE may transfer the 
downblending work to other facilities.
    Based on its review, the NRC staff has concluded that the 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are 
insignificant.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

    On May 31, 2002, the NRC staff contacted the Director of the 
Division of Radiological Health in the Tennessee Department of 
Environment and Conservation (TDEC) concerning the 2002 EA (Ref. 2) and 
the potential impact of the BLEU Project on the environment. On August 
6, 2003, the NRC staff contacted the Director of the TDEC Division of 
Radiological Health concerning the revised environmental impacts in 
this EA. On August 22, 2003, the Director responded that they had 
reviewed the draft EA and had no comments.
    On May 22, 2002, the NRC staff contacted the Tennessee Historical 
Commission, Division of Archeology concerning the 2002 EA (Ref. 2) and 
the potential effect of the BLEU Project on historical resources. No 
additional consultation was made because the proposed action is 
entirely within existing facilities and the facility description in the 
amendment request (Ref. 4) is not significantly different from the 
facility description in the 2002 EA.
    On June 6, 2002, the NRC staff contacted the Fish and Wildlife 
Service concerning the 2002 EA (Ref. 2) and the potential effect of the 
BLEU Project on endangered species. No additional consultation was made 
because the proposed action is entirely within existing facilities and 
the facility description in the amendment request (Ref. 4) is not 
significantly different from the facility description in the 2002 EA.

References

    Unless otherwise noted, a copy of this document and the references 
listed below will be available electronically for public inspection in 
the NRC Public Document Room or 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/reading-rm/adams.html (the 
Public Electronic Reading Room).

    1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental 
Assessment for Renewal of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-
124,'' January 1999, ADAMS No. ML031150418.
    2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental 
Assessment for Proposed License Amendments to Special Nuclear 
Material License No. SNM-124 Regarding Downblending and Oxide 
Conversion of Surplus High-Enriched Uranium,'' June 2002, ADAMS No. 
ML021790068.
    3. U.S. Department of Energy, ``Disposition of Surplus High 
Enriched Uranium Final Environmental Impact Statement'', DOE/EIS-
0240, Volume 1, June 1996. This document is available to the public 
from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal 
Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
    4. B.M. Moore, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Letter to U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory

[[Page 61238]]

Commission, ``License Amendment Request for BLEU Preparation 
Facility,'' October 11, 2002, ADAMS No. ML023380210.
    5. B.M. Moore, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Letter to U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``ISA Summary for BLEU Preparation 
Facility Processes,'' October 14, 2002, ADAMS No. ML023090172.
    6. B.M. Moore, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Letter to U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Supplemental Information to 
Complete an Environmental Review for the BLEU Preparation 
Facility,'' May 28, 2003, ADAMS No. ML031560494.

III. Finding of no Significant Impact

    Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC staff has considered the 
environmental consequences of amending NRC Materials License SNM-124 to 
authorize operation of the BPF. On the basis of this assessment, the 
Commission has concluded that environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action would not be significant and the Commission is making a 
finding of no significant impact. Accordingly, preparation of an 
environmental impact statement is not warranted.

IV. Further Information

    For further details, see the references listed above. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room 
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O-1F21, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Document Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by 
e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, the 20th day of October 2003.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kevin M. Ramsey,
Project Manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle 
Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 03-27009 Filed 10-24-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P