[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 123 (Monday, June 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36701-36705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15599]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0440; Docket No. 40-8989]
Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for Modification of Exemption From Certain U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Requirements for Special
Nuclear Material for Energy Solutions LLC, Clive, UT
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Final Finding of No Significant
Impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared an
Environmental Assessment for the issuance of an Order as authorized by
Section 274f of the Atomic Energy Act that would modify an Order issued
to EnergySolutions, LLC (formerly Envirocare of Utah, Inc.) on May 7,
1999 (64 FR 27826; May 21, 1999). In accordance with 10 CFR 51.33, the
NRC prepared a draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this
amendment, which was published for public review and comment on October
7, 2009 (74 FR 51622). The public comment period closed on November 6,
2009. NRC received 12 comments from 4 commenters. The Order responds to
a request by EnergySolutions dated September 26, 2006, to amend the
package mass limits contained in Condition 4 of their 2006 Order, and
to add or revise other conditions. The May 7, 1999, Order exempted
EnergySolutions from certain NRC regulations and permitted
EnergySolutions, under specified conditions, to possess waste
containing special nuclear material (SNM), in greater quantities than
specified in 10 CFR Part 150 at its facility located in Clive, Utah,
without obtaining an NRC license under 10 CFR Part 70. As discussed
below, the Order has been amended four times since it was issued in
1999.
ADDRESSES: You can access publicly available documents related to this
notice using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Public
File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
available
[[Page 36702]]
electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain
entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and supporting
materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2009-0440.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nishka Devaser, Project Manager,
Environmental and Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State
Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-5196;
Fax number: (301) 415-5369; E-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
EnergySolutions is licensed by the State of Utah, an NRC Agreement
State, to operate a disposal facility for LLW. EnergySolutions is also
licensed by Utah to dispose of mixed waste, hazardous waste, and
11(e).2 byproduct material.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of a fifth amendment to an Order that was initially issued to
Envirocare of Utah, Inc. on May 7, 1999 (64 FR 27826; May 21, 1999).
NRC previously amended the Order on January 30, 2003 (68 FR 7399;
February 13, 2003), December 16, 2003 (68 FR 74986; December 29, 2003),
July 22, 2005 (70 FR 44123; August 1, 2005), and May 30, 2006 (71 FR
34165; June 13, 2006). The amended Order would continue to grant
EnergySolutions an exemption from the requirements for an NRC license
under 10 CFR part 70. The amendment is necessary if EnergySolutions is
to receive steel piping waste containing residual special nuclear
material (SNM) without first obtaining a 10 CFR part 70 license. The
steel piping waste will be generated by the Department of Energy as it
decommissions the K-25 gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment facility in
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
The 1999 Order exempted Envirocare (now EnergySolutions) from
certain NRC regulations and permitted the company, under specified
conditions, to possess waste containing SNM in greater quantities than
specified in 10 CFR part 150, at the Envirocare low-level waste (LLW)
disposal facility located in Clive, Utah, without obtaining an NRC
license under 10 CFR part 70. The 1999 Order permitted Envirocare to
possess SNM below specified concentrations, without regard for the mass
of the SNM in the waste. The January 2003 amendment to the Order
addressed certain waste treatment processes; a change in the
homogeneous contiguous mass limit from 145 kg to 600 kg; clarified
certain language of the Order; and removed the confirmatory testing
requirements for debris waste. The December 2003 amendment to the
Order: Amended Condition 1 to include criticality-based concentration
limits without magnesium oxide; modified the units of the table in
Condition 1 from picocuries of SNM per gram of waste material to gram
of SNM per gram of waste material; and revised the language of
Condition 5 to be consistent with the revised units in the table in
Condition 1. The July 2005 amendment to the Order: Modified the table
in Condition 1 to include criticality-based limits for uranium-233 and
plutonium isotopes in waste containing up to 20 percent of materials
listed in Condition 2 (e.g., magnesium oxide); included criticality-
based limits in the table in Condition 1 for plutonium isotopes in
waste with unlimited materials in Condition 2 and in waste with
unlimited quantities of materials in Conditions 2 and 3 (e.g.,
beryllium); provided criticality-based limits for uranium-235 as a
function of enrichment in waste containing up to 20 percent of
materials listed in Condition 2 and in waste containing none of the
materials listed in Condition 2; and authorized additional mixed waste
treatment technologies under the Order. The May 2006 amendment made an
administrative change to accommodate a change in the name of the
company from Envirocare of Utah, Inc. to EnergySolutions LLC.
The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance
with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has
concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is
appropriate for the proposed action, as modified.
II. Environmental Assessment (EA)
Proposed Action
By letters dated September 26, 2006 (ML063040029), December 4, 2006
(ML0735321280), July 16, 2007 (ML073520212), September 13, 2007
(ML073440260), and January 15, 2009 (ML090510588), EnergySolutions
requested an amendment to its 2006 Order. EnergySolutions requested an
amendment of the package mass limits contained in Condition 4 of the
Order, and the addition or revision of other conditions. As described
in its September 2007 nuclear criticality safety evaluation,
EnergySolutions requested these additional changes to the Order so that
it can receive and dispose of Oak Ridge K-25 gaseous diffusion plant
piping from the Department of Energy (DOE) in larger containers than
would be allowable under the 2006 Order. Under the amended Order
EnergySolutions would receive piping waste from the decommissioning of
the K-25 facilities in gondola railcars, each containing up to 3.6 kg
(7.9 lbs) of uranium-235 in the form of highly water soluble uranyl
fluoride. EnergySolutions also proposed the addition of other
conditions to the Order to ensure criticality safety during receipt,
on-site storage, movement, emplacement, and disposal of K-25 waste.
Upon consideration of EnergySolutions' request, the NRC is considering
conditions that would restrict: The areal density of highly water
soluble SNM in disposal embankments at the Clive, UT site; and the
amount of water that should be present during receipt, on-site storage,
movement, emplacement, and disposal of K-25 waste. The amended Order
would only allow EnergySolutions to receive and dispose of the plant
piping and would not exempt EnergySolutions from other applicable laws.
EnergySolutions or any other entity transporting the waste will have to
obtain any necessary permits or authorizations at the time of
transport.
Site and Facility Description
The EnergySolutions LLW disposal facility in Clive, UT is located
128 kilometers (80 miles) west of Salt Lake City, UT. The site is arid
and receives about 20 centimeters (8 inches) of precipitation annually.
A description of the site and its history is available in the Utah
Division of Radiation Control safety evaluation report for the
EnergySolutions license renewal.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Utah Division of Radiation Control, EnergySolutions
(Formerly Envirocare of Utah) LLRW Disposal Facility Radioactive
Material License Renewal: Safety Evaluation Report.'' June 14, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All low-level radioactive waste received at the Clive facility must
contain radioactive constituents. The low-level radioactive waste
embankment is constructed from materials native to the site or
available in close proximity to the site. Due to
[[Page 36703]]
requirements regarding the long-term stability of the embankment, the
principal design features of the embankment do not rely upon synthetic
materials to provide stability and isolation of the wastes from the
environment. The principal construction materials are the naturally
low-permeability clay taken from between the ground surface and the
unconfined aquifer and the rock riprap and filter material taken from
pits located within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the facility. The
vertical minimum separation between the bottom of the disposed LLW and
the historic high water table is 4 meters (13 feet).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid, pg 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a liner is constructed over a specific area of the Class A
LLW disposal embankment, at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) of debris-
free soil is placed on top of the liner; followed by another 30
centimeters (12 inches) of waste as a protection to the integrity of
the liner.\3\ Both of these layers of protective soil are compacted
with rubber tired equipment. Thereafter, the area is available for
placement of waste containers and materials. Waste that is removed from
the shipping container is typically compacted into 61 centimeter (24
inch) waste lifts. Waste that consists of debris that does not have a
dimension less than 25 centimeters (10 inches) is disposed of using
controlled low strength material (CLSM) in a different disposal area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid, pg 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need for the Proposed Action
Condition 4 of the 2006 Order limits the mass of highly water
soluble SNM that may be contained in individual waste packages. For
example, the 2006 Order limits the amount of highly water soluble
uranium-235 in each waste package to 350 grams. Relatively small waste
packages that contain highly water soluble uranium compounds in which
the uranium-235 concentration limits of Condition 1 are met (e.g., 6.2
x 10-4 grams uranium-235 per gram of waste), would normally
contain small mass quantities of uranium-235, which would not exceed
the 350 gram package mass limit. But EnergySolutions believes that the
K-25 waste must be processed in larger quantities to be cost effective.
This would be accomplished by shipping the waste in large capacity 100-
ton gondola railcars, which could result in shipments that exceed the
current package mass limits in Condition 4 of the 2006 Order; the
concentration of residual uranyl fluoride in the K-25 piping waste in
the railcars would likely remain a fraction of the concentration limits
in Condition 1 of the 2006 Order. Therefore, EnergySolutions requested
an amendment to Condition 4 of the 2006 Order to allow the receipt of
K-25 steel piping waste in large gondola railcars. EnergySolutions also
proposed additional conditions to ensure the criticality safety of this
waste during receipt, unloading, on-site storage, emplacement, and
disposal of the waste.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The NRC staff considered one alternative to the proposed action.
The alternative to the proposed action is denial of the request to
amend the 2006 Order (no-action alternative).
Affected Environment
The NRC prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) (NUREG-
1476) for its previous licensing action at the EnergySolutions site to
authorize disposal of 11e.(2) byproduct material. The affected
environment is discussed in detail in NUREG-1476. (ML100820353)
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 Assessments that supported
the issuance of original Order (64 FR 26463; May 14, 1999) and its
amendments (68 FR 3281; January 23, 2003, 68 FR 59645; October 16,
2003, 70 FR 41241; July 18, 2005) In these prior EAs, the staff
concluded that the issuance of the Order would have no significant
adverse environmental impacts.
Proposed Action
For the proposed action, the environmental impacts would be similar
to those described in the previous EAs noted above, with the exception
of environmental impacts associated with: Receipt and unloading of 100-
ton capacity gondola railcars containing K-25 piping waste, each of
which contains residual deposits of highly water soluble uranyl
fluoride in quantities in excess of the limits in Condition 4 of the
2006 Order (i.e., up to 3.6 kilograms of uranium-235); and placement in
disposal embankments of piping waste containing highly water soluble
uranyl fluoride at areal densities of up to 1 kilogram uranium-235 per
square meter.
The proposed action would not significantly alter land or water
usage at the Clive facility, or result in new construction. Facility
effluents would remain essentially unchanged, since this action would
not alter the types or quantities of waste that EnergySolutions is
currently authorized to receive and dispose of. Disposal of Class A LLW
is currently licensed by the State of Utah, for which no significant
changes are anticipated other than incorporation into the radioactive
materials license of a revision to Condition 4 to impose an areal
density limit for highly water soluble SNM, including requirements to
minimize water intrusion into the waste containing highly water soluble
forms of uranium during receipt, unloading, onsite storage, and waste
emplacement operations.
The proposed action, which allows the use of large waste packages,
would result in a reduction of the use of waste packaging, which would
generate less packaging waste. Also, fewer transportation consignments
would be required to transport waste from Oak Ridge, TN to the Clive,
UT disposal facility, which would reduce transportation-related
impacts. The proposed action would also further reduce the risk of
accidental nuclear criticality, and the resulting worker and public
radiation doses from the proposed action by imposing an areal density
limit on disposal of highly water soluble forms of uranium, which is
not currently required by the 2006 Order.
The proposed action would not significantly alter available
disposal capacity at the Clive facility, or significantly change the
performance of disposed waste. The radiation dose rates from K-25
decommissioning waste, which contains uranium and trace amounts of
other radioactive material, are low compared to other forms of Class A
waste, which may contain source, byproduct, and special nuclear
material up to the limits allowed by the State of Utah radioactive
materials license. Therefore, the proposed action is not likely to
significantly change worker and public doses resulting from waste
operations.
Preferred Alternative
The staff concluded in the June 2010 safety evaluation report that
the proposed action provides sufficient protection of public health and
safety, and the environment, and is not inimical to common defense and
security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, staff's
preferred alternative is to amend the 2006 Order.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
Officials from the State of Utah, Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Radiation Control were consulted about this EA and
had no comments. Because the proposed action is not expected to have
any impact on
[[Page 36704]]
threatened or endangered species or historic resources, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and State of Utah Historic Preservation Officer were
not consulted.
Public Comments
During a 30-day public comment period that ended November 6, 2009,
4 comment letters offered 12 comments that covered various topics
concerning the exemption request. These commenters included:
Arnold L. Dalton, Resident of Utah, (ADAMS Acc. Number
ML093270217).
Judy M. Mallory-McCorvey, Resident of Utah, (ADAMS Acc.
Number ML093270218).
Christopher Thomas, Representing HEAL Utah, (ADAMS Acc.
Number ML093140560).
Michael L. West, Representing Bechtel-Jacobs, (ADAMS Acc.
Number ML093100207).
NRC staff reviewed each of the comments received. Some of the
comments were very similar to other comments; the staff has provided
one response to each of these comments. The staff did not address
comments that were outside the scope of the EA.
Public Opposition
Two commenters expressed general opposition to radioactive waste
disposal in the State of Utah.
Response: The NRC recognizes that some members of the public do not
support radioactive waste disposal; however, these comments are beyond
the scope of the EA.
One commenter expressed specific concern about the possibility of
health risks and unintended exposure. This commenter suggested that the
waste would get ``hotter and hotter,'' and that climatic events might
``scatter'' these wastes creating an unsafe environment for the public.
Response: The NRC staff considered the effects of variability in
climate and weather and the effects of radioactive decay and ingrowth
when assessing environmental impact and concluded under the constraints
of disposal listed in the revised Order, public health and safety are
preserved.
One commenter suggested that the NRC should deny EnergySolutions'
request on the grounds that the requested exemption is not ``in the
public interest'' as required under 10 CFR 70.17(a).
Response: NRC's mission is to protect public health and safety, and
to provide for the common defense and security. NRC has established
rules and procedures for licensees and license applicants to, among
other things, receive, possess, use, and dispose of radioactive
materials and waste in a manner that protects public health and safety
and security. It is in the public interest that NRC adhere to these
rules and procedures. In addition, this specific action would provide
for permanent disposal of the K-25 piping, rather than its storage
onsite. This action would help facilitate decommissioning of the K-25
facility and eliminate worker exposures from having to monitor waste in
storage. Both of these outcomes are in the public interest.
Further Public Input
One commenter requested that the NRC provide the public the
opportunity to comment on the exact language used in the draft Order.
Response: The public is encouraged to provide input during the
public comment period of the EA and draft FONSI to ensure the staff has
considered all alternatives and environmental impacts while drafting
the Order. It is not the practice of the NRC to invite public comment
on the exact text used in an Order.
Inadequate Permission
One commenter noted that EnergySolutions required additional
permitting from the U.S. Department of Transportation to transport the
waste.
Response: The comment is correct; NRC's licensing of this facility
does not excuse compliance with other applicable laws. EnergySolutions
or any other entity transporting the waste will have to obtain any
necessary permits or authorizations at the time of transport.
Reconcentration
One commenter provided comments suggesting potential
reconcentration of SNM under conditions not considered by either the EA
or EnergySolutions' Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation.
Response: The NRC staff considered various aspects of material
mobility over time and considered various conditions under which
reconcentration might take place. See pages 6 and 7 of the SER (ADAMS
Acc. Number ML090750109). The NRC acknowledges that reconcentration is
possible and has accounted for this by requiring areal density limits
within the disposal embankments.
Technical Evaluation
One comment requested that EnergySolutions' Nuclear Criticality
Safety Evaluation be independently evaluated, and that the evaluation
be made available to the public.
Response: The EA and Order are an independent evaluation of the
Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation.
Scope of Proposed Action
One comment suggested that the NRC's NEPA analysis did not consider
a sufficient number of alternatives to the proposed action. The
commenter suggested that the NRC consider the decontamination of the
material prior to shipment as another alternative.
Response: Since the waste generator and current owner are the DOE,
NRC's alternatives are then only to allow or not allow the receipt and
disposal of these wastes by EnergySolutions. Alternatives considered
must be reasonably commensurate with the scope of the requested action;
imposing decontamination requirements on waste generators (DOE) is
outside the scope of the requested action.
10 CFR Part 70 License
One comment suggested that the NRC require EnergySolutions to apply
for a 10 CFR part 70 license instead of amending the Order.
Response: NRC cannot require EnergySolutions to apply for a
license. Section 70.17(a) allows the Commission to grant an exemption
from the requirements in part 70 in response to an application from any
interested person. In this case, EnergySolutions submitted an
application for an exemption, which the NRC staff reviewed. The NRC
staff has concluded that the Commission should grant the exemption
because it is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property
or the common defense and security and is in the public interest.
III. Conclusion
The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed
in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based upon the
foregoing EA, the NRC finds that amending the 2006 Order will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment. As required
by 10 CFR 70.17, the NRC also concludes that the proposed action to
grant a modification to EnergySolutions' exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR part 70 is authorized by law and will not
endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is
otherwise in the public interest. On this basis of this EA, NRC
concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts and that
the issuance of a modified Order does not warrant the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
[[Page 36705]]
that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.
IV. Further Information
Documents related to this action, including the letter requesting
the amendment and supporting documentation will be 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 Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS
accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are:
1. September 29, 2006, authorization request (ML063040029);
2. July 16, 2007, letter response to request for additional
information (ML073520212); and
3. September 13, 2007, letter response to request for additional
information (ML073440260).
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
by e-mail to [email protected].
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public
computers located at the NRC's PDR, O-1 F21, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction
contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of June 2010.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Larry W. Camper,
Director, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection,
Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-15599 Filed 6-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P