[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3342-3344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-613]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70-1201]


Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of 
No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Framatome ANP, Inc., 
Lynchburg, VA

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Billy Gleaves, Project Manager, Fuel 
Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, 
Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD, 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-
5848; fax number: (301) 415-5955; e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has received a 
license amendment request from Framatome ANP, Inc., Lynchburg, VA (FANP 
Lynchburg) dated September 1, 2005 (Ref. 1, 2), to amend Special 
Nuclear Material License (SNM)-1168 (Ref. 3) to use the International 
Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) Publication 68 for Derived 
Air Concentration (DAC) and the Annual Limit on Intake (ALI) 
determinations (Ref. 4). In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 
part 51, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was performed by the NRC 
staff in support of its review of FANP Lynchburg's license amendment 
request. The conclusion of the EA is a Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI) for the proposed licensing action. The amendment will be issued 
following the publication of this notice.

II. Environmental Assessment

Background

    The FANP Lynchburg facility is authorized, under Materials License 
SNM-1168, to possess nuclear materials for the fabrication and assembly 
of nuclear power fuel components. Principal activities in the 
fabrication facility include the processing of low-enriched uranium (< 
5.1%), received as UO2 pellets. Uranium pellets are received 
and then transported to a pellet vault after the receipt inspection 
process is completed. The fuel pellets are then inserted into rods, 
which are then assembled into fuel bundles. Finished fuel bundles are 
then packaged and loaded onto truck transport for delivery

[[Page 3343]]

to the receiving utility. Other activities conducted in conjunction 
with nuclear fuel fabrication include: Fabrication of poison rods; 
download of finished fuel bundles and rods; repair of returned fuel 
assemblies; laboratory operations; and waste disposal operations.
    Inhalation of dust in radiologically controlled areas poses an 
internal radiation hazard, and the NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 20 
require licensees to implement certain protective measures to minimize 
that hazard. These measures include taking a variety of air samples, 
using respirators in certain work areas, posting airborne radioactivity 
warning signs outside the work areas, and putting the potentially 
exposed workers on a routine bioassay program to assess their intakes 
and verify the effectiveness of the protection program. Many of these 
protective measures are triggered when the air concentrations in the 
workplace reach specified fractions of the air concentrations tabulated 
in 10 CFR part 20, Appendix B.
    FANP Lynchburg has requested to amend its license to permit the use 
of values other than those tabulated in 10 CFR part 20 as the basis for 
triggering protective measures, and for assessing the internal dose to 
its workers. The basis for the amendment request is the recommendations 
in ICRP 68. In the amendment application, FANP Lynchburg maintains that 
the assessment of the radiological hazard based on 10 CFR part 20, 
Appendix B, requires it to implement monitoring and protection programs 
at levels that are out of proportion with the true level of hazard, and 
do not significantly add to worker protection. FANP Lynchburg believes 
that granting the exemption would enable it to reduce the size of its 
internal exposure program while, at the same time, providing a level of 
protection proportional to the actual hazard. FANP Lynchburg references 
an NRC staff requirements memorandum (SECY-99-077) (Ref. 5), which 
directs the staff to grant exemptions to 10 CFR part 20 on this 
modeling issue on a case-by-case basis.

Review Scope

    In accordance with 10 CFR part 51, this EA serves to: (1) Present 
information and analysis for determining whether to issue a FONSI or to 
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); (2) fulfill the NRC's 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act when no EIS is 
necessary; and (3) facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is 
necessary. Should the NRC issue a FONSI, no EIS would be prepared and 
the license amendment would be granted.
    The EA serves to evaluate and document the impacts of the proposed 
amendment. Activities beyond the proposed changes have previously been 
evaluated and documented in the 2003 EA as part of the FANP Lynchburg 
license renewal (Ref. 6). The 2003 document remains the most current EA 
for activities outside the scope of the proposed amendment.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is to amend the NRC Materials License SNM-1168 
to authorize the use of DAC and ALI values based on ICRP 68, entitled 
Dose Coefficients for Intake of Radionuclides by Worker (Ref. 4).

Affected Environment

    The affected environment for the proposed activity is the FANP 
Lynchburg site. A full description of the site and its characteristics 
are given in the 2003 EA for the renewal of the NRC license for FANP 
Lynchburg (Ref. 6).

Effluent Releases and Monitoring

    A full description of the effluent monitoring program at the site 
is provided in the 2003 EA for the renewal of the NRC license for FANP 
Lynchburg (Ref. 6). Monitoring programs at the FANP Lynchburg facility 
comprise effluent monitoring of air and water and environmental 
monitoring of various media (air, soil, vegetation, and groundwater). 
This program provides a basis for evaluation of public health and 
safety impacts, for establishing compliance with environmental 
regulations, and for development of mitigation measures if necessary. 
The monitoring program is not expected to change as a result of the 
proposed action. In the 2003 renewal, the NRC reviewed the location of 
the environmental monitoring program sampling points, the frequency of 
sample collection, and the trends in the sampling program results. The 
data, taken in conjunction with the environmental pathway and exposure 
analysis, leads the NRC to conclude that the monitoring program 
provides adequate protection of public health and safety.

Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action

Radiological Impacts
    The basic limits on radiation exposures, as well as the minimum 
radiation protection practices required of any NRC licensee, are 
specified in 10 CFR part 20, ``Standards for Protection Against 
Radiation'' (Ref. 7). The models used in 10 CFR part 20 to regulate 
internal doses are those described in the ICRP Publications 26 and 30, 
adopted by the ICRP in 1977 and 1978, respectively (Ref. 8, 9). Much of 
the basic structure of these models were developed in 1966. However, 
some of its components and parameters were altered somewhat between 
1966 and their formal adoption by the ICRP in 1978. In the same year 
that the Commission approved the final 10 CFR part 20 rule (1991), the 
ICRP published a major revision of its radiation protection 
recommendations, ICRP 60 (Ref. 10). During the several years following 
this revision, the ICRP published a series of reports in which it 
described the components of an extensively updated and revised internal 
dosimetry model. Due to the restrictions in 10 CFR part 20, the NRC 
licensees are not permitted to use the revised and updated internal 
dosimetry models without receiving an exemption to the regulations.
    Although the dose per unit intake calculated, using the new models, 
does not differ by more than a factor of about two from the values in 
10 CFR part 20 for most radionuclides, the differences are substantial 
for some, particularly for the isotopes of thorium, uranium, and some 
of the transuranic radionuclides. For example, for inhalation of 
insoluble thorium-232 (232Th), the dose per unit intake 
calculated using the revised ICRP lung model, is a factor of about 15 
times lower than that in 10 CFR part 20. Because protective measures 
are based on the hazard, and since the hazard is proportional to dose, 
10 CFR part 20 requires significantly more protective measures when 
using 232Th than would be warranted based on the revised 
models.
    Using the updated ICRP 68 standard would enable FANP Lynchburg to 
reduce the size of its internal exposure program while, at the same 
time, providing a level of protection proportional to the actual 
hazard. This is FANP Lynchburg's primary concern, and it has requested 
to be allowed to use DAC and ALI values based on the dose coefficients 
listed in ICRP 68. The NRC staff concluded that FANP Lynchburg has 
historically maintained worker doses as low as reasonably achievable 
and is qualified to utilize the ICRP 68 in a manner equivalent to 10 
CFR 20.1201(d), (i.e. doses at a level lower than the NRC's regulatory 
limit of 5 rem, in its Radiation Safety Program). Therefore, FANP 
Lynchburg's request for an exemption under 10 CFR 20.2301 is 
acceptable, because it gives its workers equivalent radiological 
protection as required by 10 CFR part

[[Page 3344]]

20. Thus, the exemption is authorized by law and will not result in an 
undue hazard to life or property.

Nonradiological Impacts

    The NRC determined that there are no non-radiological impacts 
associated with the proposed action.

Cumulative Impacts

    The NRC determined that there are no cumulative impacts associated 
with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    The NRC considered one alternative to the proposed action, which 
was to deny the amendment request. This alternative was rejected 
because the impacts of the proposed action on the health and safety of 
the workers, the public, and the environment were determined to be 
insignificant. In addition, the licensee will be able to save time and 
resources using the updated ICRP 68 models. The new models will 
maintain doses within the regulatory limit, while allowing the licensee 
to remove unwarranted protective measures required by the old models.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

    The NRC contacted the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 
(VDEQ) concerning this request. There were no comments, concerns or 
objections from VDEQ.
    Because the proposed action is entirely within existing facilities, 
and does not involve new or increased effluents or accident scenarios, 
the NRC has concluded that there is no potential to affect endangered 
species or historic resources, and therefore consultation with the 
State Historic Preservation Society and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service was not performed.

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based on the EA, the staff concludes that the proposed action will 
not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. 
Accordingly, the staff has determined that preparation of an EIS is not 
warranted.

IV. Further Information

    The following documents are related to the proposed action:
    1. C.F. Holman, Framatome ANP, Inc., letter to the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, ``Amendment Request to Use of ICRP 68 for ALI 
and DAC Values,'' September 1, 2005 (ML052550120).
    2. The NRC administrative review, documented in a letter to 
Framatome ANP, Inc. dated September 23, 2005 (ML052640365).
    3. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Special Nuclear Material 
License SNM-1168 Amendment 7, October 3, 2005 (ML052840071).
    4. International Commission on Radiological Protection, ``Dose 
Coefficients for Intake of Radionuclides by Worker,'' Publication 68, 
Elsevier Science, 1995.
    5. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``SRM-SECY-99-0077--To 
Request Commission Approval to Grant Exemptions from Portions of 10 CFR 
Part 20,'' April 21, 1999 (ML042750086).
    6. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental 
Assessment for the Renewal Framatome ANP, Inc., Lynchburg, Virginia,'' 
April 2, 2003 (ML030940720).
    7. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, ``Standards for Protection 
Against Radiation,'' Part 20, Chapter 1, Title 10, Energy.
    8. International Commission on Radiological Protection, 
``Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological 
Protection,'' Publication 26, Elsevier Science, 1977.
    9. International Commission on Radiological Protection, ``Limits 
for the Intake of Radionuclides by Workers,'' Publication 30, Elsevier 
Science, 1978.
    10. International Commission on Radiological Protection, ``1990 
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological 
Protection,'' Publication 60, Elsevier Science, 1991.
    The NRC 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 accession 
numbers for documents contained in ADAMS are provided with the 
reference. 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 
via e-mail to [email protected].
    The documents in ADAMS may also be viewed electronically on the 
public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1 F21, One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction 
contractor will copy documents for a fee.

    Dated at Rockville, MD this 13th day of January, 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William C. Gleaves,
Project Manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle 
Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and 
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E6-613 Filed 1-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P