Notices. Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment

7,425 words·~34 min read·/register/2005/04/01/05-6429

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. *The title of the information collection:* NRC Form 445, Request For Approval of Official Foreign Travel. 2. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0193. 3. *How often the collection is required:* On occasion. 4. *Who is required or asked to report:* Non-Federal consultants, contractors and NRC invited travelers ( *i.e.* , non-NRC employees). 5. *The number of annual respondents:* 200. 6. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 200 hours (1 hour per response). 7. *Abstract:* Form 445, “Request for Approval of Foreign Travel,” is supplied by consultants, contractors, and NRC invited travelers who must travel to foreign countries in the course of conducting business for the NRC.

In accordance with 48 CFR part 20, “NRC Acquisition Regulation,” contractors traveling to foreign countries are required to complete this form. The information requested includes the name of the Office Director/Regional Administrator or Chairman, as appropriate, the traveler's identifying information, purpose of travel, listing of the trip coordinators, other NRC travelers and contractors attending the same meeting, and a proposed itinerary. Submit, by May 31, 2005, comments that address the following questions: 1.

Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852.

OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC World Wide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html* . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton (T-5 F3), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV* .

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of March 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E5-1447 Filed 3-31-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.

SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement submitted: 1. *The title of the information collection:* NRC Form 450, “General Assignment”. 2. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0114. 3. *How often the collection is required:* Once during the closeout process. 4. *Who is required or asked to report:* Contractors, Grantees, and Cooperators. 5. *The number of annual respondents:* 100. 6. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 200 hours (2 hours per response). 7. *Abstract:* During the contract closeout process, the NRC requires the contractor to execute a NRC Form 450, General Assignment.

Completion of the form grants the government all rights, titles, and interest to refunds arising out of the contractor performance. Submit, by May 31, 2005, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852.

OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site ( *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html* . The document will be available on the NRC homepage site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-5 F52, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV* .

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of March 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E5-1448 Filed 3-31-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-346] FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee) to withdraw its October 12, 2001, application for a proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No.

NPF-3 for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Station, Unit 1, located in Ottawa County, Ohio. The proposed amendment would have made necessary revisions to the DBNPS technical specifications to reflect an increase in the authorized rated thermal power from 2772 MWt to 2817 MWt (approximately 1.63 percent), based on the use of Caldon Inc. Leading Edge Flow Meter

(LEFM)CheckPlus TM System instrumentation to improve the accuracy of the feedwater mass flow input to the plant power calorimetric measurement. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the **Federal Register** December 26, 2001 (66 FR 66467). However, by letter dated December 20, 2004, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated October 12, 2001, and the licensee's letter dated December 20, 2004, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (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 *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of March 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jon B. Hopkins, Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-1451 Filed 3-31-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425] Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Exemption 1.0 Background Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC, or the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81 that authorize operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Vogtle, Units 1 and 2). The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of two pressurized water reactors located in Burke County, Georgia. 2.0 Request/Action Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, Appendix G requires that pressure-temperature (P-T) limits be established for reactor pressure vessels

(RPVs)during normal operating and hydrostatic or leak rate testing conditions. Specifically, 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G states that “[t]he minimum temperature requirements * * * pertain to the controlling material, which is either the material in the closure flange or the material in the beltline region with the highest reference temperature. * * * the minimum temperature requirements and the controlling material depend on the operating condition ( *i.e.,* hydrostatic pressure and leak tests, or normal operation including anticipated normal operational occurrences), the vessel pressure, whether fuel is in the vessel, and whether the core is critical. The metal temperature of the controlling material, in the region of the controlling material which has the least favorable combination of stress and temperature, must exceed the appropriate minimum temperature requirement for the condition and pressure of the vessel specified in Table 1 [of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G].” Footnote 2 to Table 1 in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G specifies that RPV minimum temperature requirements related to RPV closure flange considerations shall be based on “[t]he highest reference temperature of the material in the closure flange region that is highly stressed by bolt preload.” In order to address provisions of amendments to modify the Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications to revise the pressure-temperature limits report methodology for each unit, SNC requested in its submittal dated February 26, 2004, that the staff exempt Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 from the application of specific requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, as they pertain to the establishment of minimum temperature requirements, for all modes of operation addressed by 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, based on the material properties of the material of the RPV closure flange region that is highly stressed by the bolt preload. The licensee's technical basis for this exemption request is contained in Enclosure 4 of its February 26, 2004, submittal: WCAP-16142-P, Revision 1, “Reactor Vessel Closure Head/Vessel Flange Requirements Evaluation for Vogtle Units 1 and 2,” and a response to an NRC staff request for additional information contained in an SNC letter dated October 22, 2004. The requirements from which SNC requested that Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 be exempted shall be referred to, for the purpose of this exemption, as those requirements related to the application of footnote

(2)to Table 1 of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G. WCAP-16142-P, Revision 1 included a fracture mechanics analysis of postulated flaws in the Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 RPV closure flange regions under boltup, 100 °F per hour (/hr) heatup, 100 °F/hr cooldown, and steady-state conditions, with the heatup and cooldown transients being modeled in accordance with what would be permissible using P-T limit curves based on the most limiting Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 beltline materials. Westinghouse performed finite element analyses to calculate the stresses present at the flange region and determined two limiting locations:

(1)The top head dome-to-torus weld at the end of the 100 °F/hr heatup transient, and

(2)the torus-to-flange weld at the boltup condition. With these stresses, Westinghouse calculated the applied stress intensity factor (Kapplied) for semi-elliptical, outside diameter initiated, surface breaking flaws with an aspect ratio (length vs. depth) of 6:1, and with depths ranging from 0 to 80 percent of the thickness of the component wall. The Kapplied values were calculated by using the Raju-Newman stress intensity factor influence coefficients for external surface cracks in cylindrical vessels and is in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) Section XI, Appendix G, Subparagraph G-2220 requirements for the analysis of flange locations. Westinghouse then compared these K applied values to ASME Code lower bound plane strain fracture toughness

(KIc)values determined from the nil-ductility transition reference temperature (RTNDT) values for the Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 RPV closure flange materials. Westinghouse also provided an assessment of the potential for changes in the material RTNDT values for the Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 RPV closure flange materials due to thermal aging resulting from exposure to the RPV operating environment. The use of ASME Code KIc as the material property for the fracture mechanics analysis represents the most significant change between the analysis provided in WCAP-16142-P, Revision 1 and the analysis that was performed as the basis for establishing the minimum temperature requirements in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G. The minimum temperature requirements related to footnote

(2)to Table 1 of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G were incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations in the early 1980s and were based on analyses that used ASME Code lower bound crack arrest fracture toughness

(KIA)as the parameter for characterizing a material's ability to resist crack initiation and propagation. The use of ASME Code KIA is always conservative with respect to the use of ASME Code KIC for fracture mechanics evaluations, and its use in the evaluations that established the requirements in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G was justified based on the limited knowledge of RPV material behavior that was available in the early 1980s. However, the use of ASME Code KIC, not ASME Code KIA, is consistent with the actual physical processes that would govern flaw initiation under conditions of normal RPV operation, including RPV heatup, cooldown, and hydrostatic and leak testing. Based on our current understanding of the behavior of RPV materials, the NRC staff has routinely approved licensees' utilization of ASME Code KIC as the basis for evaluating RPV beltline materials to demonstrate compliance with the intent of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G through licensees' use of ASME Code Cases N-640 and N-641, which have been incorporated into Appendix G to Section XI of the 2001 Edition through the 2003 Addenda of the ASME Code endorsed in 10 CFR 50.55a. Information in WCAP-16142-P, Revision 1 and the licensee's October 22, 2004, response to NRC staff questions indicated that the resulting margin (K IC /K applied ) from the fracture mechanics analysis is 3.19 for the boltup condition and 4.06 for the heatup condition, assuming that the crack depth is one tenth of the wall thickness (1/10t). The margins show that the boltup condition with lower K applied (about one half the K applied of the heatup condition) is more limiting because the low temperature associated with the boltup condition gives a much lower K IC value. Using these calculated margins and the K applied plot shown in WCAP Figures 4-1 and 4-2, the NRC staff found that the ASME Code Appendix G margin of 2 can be maintained for a flaw much deeper than 1/10t at these limiting locations. In summary, the analysis provided in WCAP-16142-P, Revision 1 has demonstrated that, for the most limiting transient addressed by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, the combination of factors (high stresses in the RPV flange region along with low temperature at the metal of the flange region) cannot exist simultaneously, and the structural integrity of the Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 RPV closure flange materials will not be challenged by facility operation in accordance with P-T limit curves based consideration of Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 beltline materials. Therefore, the more conservative minimum temperature requirements related to footnote

(2)to Table 1 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G are not necessary to meet the underlying intent of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, to protect the Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 RPVs from brittle failure during normal operation under both core critical and core non-critical conditions and RPV hydrostatic and leak test conditions. 3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when

(1)the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and

(2)when special circumstances are present. These circumstances include the special circumstances where application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, footnote

(2)to Table 1 is to protect the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary during hydrostatic pressure and leak tests, and during normal operations, including heatup, cooldown, and operational occurrences. This is accomplished through these regulations that, in part, specify the minimum temperature requirements in the closure flange region. The NRC staff accepts the licensee's determination that an exemption would be required to permit SNC to not meet those requirements related to the application of footnote

(2)to Table 1 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. The NRC staff examined the licensee's rationale to support the exemption request. Based on a consideration of the information provided in WCAP-16142-P, Revision 1 and SNC's October 22, 2004 letter, an acceptable technical basis has been established to exempt Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 from requirements related to footnote

(2)to Table 1 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. The technical basis provided by SNC has established that an adequate margin of safety against brittle failure would continue to be maintained for the Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 RPVs without the application of those requirements related to the application of footnote

(2)to Table 1 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, for normal operation under both core critical and core non-critical conditions and RPV hydrostatic and leak test conditions. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G will be achieved without the application of those requirements related to the application of footnote

(2)to Table 1 of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, and the proposed exemption should be granted to SNC such that those requirements related to the application of footnote

(2)to Table 1 of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G need not be applied to Vogtle, Units 1 and 2. 4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants SNC an exemption from the requirements 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, Table 1, footnote (2), for Vogtle, Units 1 and 2. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (70 FR 13215). This exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of March 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ledyard B. Marsh, Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-1450 Filed 3-31-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-01063] Notice of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact of License Amendment for Augustana College at Sioux Falls, SD AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for license amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Blair Spitzberg, PhD., Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011. Telephone:

(817)860-8100; e-mail *dbs@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering the issuance of an amendment to NRC Materials License No. 40-06921-03 to remove a former burial site from the license. This licensing action will allow Augustana College to release the property for unrestricted use. If approved, Augustana College will continue to possess radioactive materials in accordance with the conditions of its license but will not be required to maintain radiological control over the burial site. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EA)in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. II. Environmental Assessment Background The radioactive burial site is located on the campus of Augustana College (the licensee) in the central part of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The burial site is located in a grove of crabapple trees on the east side of the Gilbert Science Center near the corner of 33rd Street and Summit Avenue. Based on the licensee's records, the burial site consists of a line of six pits (holes) containing radioactive material. The holes were dug using manual equipment (post-hole digger & shovel) to a depth of 5 feet (1.5 meters) and are arranged in 6-foot (1.8-meter) intervals. The licensee has been authorized by the NRC and its predecessor, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), to possess radioactive material since 1958. The docket file records indicate that Augustana College first began possessing radioactive material during 1963. The licensee's records document that about 12 millicuries (0.44 gigabecquerels) of carbon-14, a long-lived beta particle emitter, were disposed at the burial site between 1968 and 1969. Review Scope By letters dated February 17, April 25 and August 25, 2003, the licensee requested that the former radioactive materials burial site located on campus property be released for unrestricted use. Prior to January 28, 1981, the NRC permitted licensees to dispose of small quantities of licensed materials by burial in soil without specific NRC authorization. This was authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 20.304. This regulation has since been rescinded by the NRC. The NRC is considering the issuance of an amendment to Materials License No. 40-06921-03 to release the burial site for unrestricted use. In accordance with 10 CFR 30.36 and NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 1, a decommissioning plan was not required from the licensee. The purpose of this EA is to assess the environmental consequences of this licensing action using the guidance provided in NUREG-1748. Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the licensee's request to amend its license to release the former burial site located at Augustana College in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for unrestricted use. The licensee would not be required to remediate the burial site if the NRC approves the license amendment request. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action The proposed action is necessary to release the burial site from the license for unrestricted use. The need for the proposed action is for the licensee to be in compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 30.36, “Expiration and Termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites and Separate Buildings or Outdoor Areas.” By releasing the site for unrestricted use, the applicant will not be burdened with additional regulations that would no longer be applicable to them. Alternatives The alternatives to the proposed action are

(1)the no-action alternative, or

(2)to deny the amendment request and require the licensee to take additional actions such as the remediation of the burial site. Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action By letter dated March 25, 1968, the licensee requested information from the AEC on “* * * how and where to dispose of solid and liquid form carbon-14 wastes * * * accumulated.” The AEC responded in a letter dated April 1, 1968, stating that the disposal options available to the licensee at the time included disposal by burial in soil. Licensees were authorized to dispose of radioactive material by burial in accordance with 10 CFR 20.304 between 1959 and 1981. The April 1, 1968, letter reminded the licensee of the regulatory requirements—that each burial may not exceed 50,000 microcuries (50 millicuries, or 1.85 gigabecquerels) of carbon-14, each burial must be made at a depth of at least 4 feet (1.2 meters), and each burial must be separated from other burial sites by at least 6 feet (1.8 meters). Based on the licensee's records, no more than 12 millicuries (0.44 gigabecquerels) of carbon-14 were buried. The licensee's estimate was based on available disposal records from the 1968 to 1969 time frame. Although the records do not clearly identify the amount of material buried, the licensee made the assumption from the records available that each hole contained the maximum amount of carbon-14 that could have been received under the license's authorization limit. Since six holes were constructed, the licensee assumed that the maximum possession limit of 2 millicuries (0.074 gigabecquerels) were buried in each hole. This total may be an overestimate of the amount buried but is below the regulatory limit of 50 millicuries (1.85 gigabecquerels) per year that was allowed during 1968 to 1969. According to the licensee's records, only dry wastes were buried. Liquid wastes were disposed via the sewer as allowed by AEC regulations at that time. In addition, the experiments involved carbon-14 in a chemical form that would have resulted in a loss of carbon to the atmosphere during the experiments. Therefore, the actual amount of carbon-14 buried could be less than 12 millicuries (0.44 gigabecquerels). The NRC conducted a review of archived records to ascertain whether the licensee's estimate was accurate. Nothing was identified in the NRC's records that refuted the licensee's claim that only 12 millicuries (0.44 gigabecquerels), or less, of radioactive material were buried during 1968 to 1969. The licensee's request to release the former burial site for unrestricted use was based on dose modeling calculations using the NRC-approved RESRAD Computer Code, Version 6.21. The licensee used the code's default values for its calculations, including a default value of 100 picocuries (3.7 becquerels) per gram of carbon-14. [The NRC and the licensee's contractor estimated that the actual concentration was around 1 picocurie (0.037 becquerels) per gram based on the amount of material buried and the volume of the burial pit.] Using this conservative approach, the individual dose summed over all pathways was calculated at time zero

(1969)to be 77.8 millirems (0.778 millisieverts) per year. At Year 10 (1979), the dose had fallen to less than 1 millirem (0.01 millisievert) per year, and by Year 30

(1999)the dose had fallen to 0.00 millirems (0.0 millisieverts) per year. These calculations were independently verified by the NRC. The NRC notes that the calculated values beyond Year 10

(1979)are below the 25-millirem (0.25 millisieverts) limit for unrestricted release of the site as stipulated in 10 CFR 20.1402. Furthermore, the radiological impacts of releasing the burial site for unrestricted use are bounded by the impacts evaluated in NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities.” The NRC staff considered the potential impacts of the leaching of radioactive and non-radioactive material into the groundwater. The licensee estimated that the groundwater table is at a depth of 20 feet (6 meters), and the depth of the disposed material was about 4-6 feet (1.2-1.8 meters) deep. The shallow surface groundwater in the vicinity of the site is not used as a drinking water supply. Local members of the public obtain water from the city. Further, the impacts that potentially contaminated groundwater would have on members of the public were considered as part of the RESRAD modeling scenario. The NRC believes that the burial site, if left undisturbed, will not have a radiological impact on the site groundwater. Environmental Impacts of Alternative Actions 1. Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative The no-action alternative would result in impacts similar to or the same as the proposed action. However, this alternative would be inconsistent with the Commission's regulations, therefore, it is not a reasonable alternative. 2. Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 Alternative 2 to the proposed action is to deny the amendment request and require the licensee to take some additional action such as the remediation of the burial site. If the licensee were required to remediate the burial site, the potential harm to the workers or members of the public from exposure to radioactive material would be bounded by the RESRAD calculations. In other words, the remediation of the site would most likely have a minimal radiological impact on site workers and members of the public. Remediation of the site may have short-term health and safety consequences caused by the excavation, packaging, and shipping of the residual radioactive material. These non-radiological impacts would include the normal risks of exhuming the wastes with earth-moving equipment and transportation of the material to an out-of-state disposal facility. The risks include death or injury from a construction or transportation accident. The remediation of the former burial site would cause some environmental harm. The waste material would have to be excavated, packaged, and transported to an out-of-state disposal facility. The excavation process would be accomplished by heavy equipment and trucks that would disturb the general area. The prevailing winds will most likely disperse some of the excavated material offsite. The resulting surface void would have to be refilled with clean soil and contoured. Vegetation in the vicinity of the reclaimed site would be temporarily disturbed. Since the licensee successfully demonstrated that the current dose is 0.00 millirems (0.0 millisieverts) using the RESRAD program, the NRC has determined that the remediation of the burial site is not a practical option. Conclusion Based on its review, the NRC staff has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. The staff has determined that the proposed action, approval of the license amendment request to release the former burial site from the license for unrestricted use, is the appropriate alternative for selection. Agencies and Persons Contacted The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a major construction activity and will not affect listed or proposed endangered species. Additionally, it is not an undertaking that will affect historic properties. Therefore, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the State Historic Preservation Office were not contacted. The Department of Environment & Natural Resources, State of South Dakota, was consulted by the NRC. The State responded by letter dated September 23, 2004, and suggested that the NRC consider use of institutional controls to prevent the unintentional disturbance of the burial site. The NRC responded by letter dated October 27, 2004, stating that it was appropriate to release the site without restrictions, including institutional controls. The NRC contacted the Administrator, Waste Management Program, South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources, for the State's response. The State accepted the NRC's position as documented in the October 27, 2004, letter, but plans to pursue the issue of institutional controls directly with the College. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff concludes that the proposed action complies with the radiological criteria for unrestricted use as stipulated in 10 CFR 20.1402. The licensee demonstrated that any remaining residual radioactivity will not result in radiological exposures in excess of the 25 millirem (0.25 millisievert) total effective dose equivalent limit specified in § 20.1402. Dose modeling indicates that current and future members of the public will not receive any radiological dose from the burial site. The NRC staff prepared this EA in support of the proposed action to amend the license. On the basis of this EA, the NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts and the license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a FONSI is appropriate. IV. Further Information A copy of this document will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records

(PARS)component of the NRC's document system. 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 following references are available for inspection at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* (the Public Electronic Reading Room). ADAMS accession numbers are located in parentheses following the reference. 1. Wanous, Michael, Augustana College letter to NRC, February 17, 2003 (ML030850812). 2. Wanous, Michael, Augustana College letter to NRC, April 25, 2003 (ML031220675). 3. NRC, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,” NUREG-1748, August 2003 (ML032540811). 4. Wanous, Michael, Augustana College letter to NRC, August 25, 2003 (ML032400519). 5. NRC, “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance,” NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 1, September 2003 (ML032530410). 6. NRC, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,” NUREG-1496, July 1997 (ML042310492). 7. Satorius, Mark, “Request for Comments Regarding Environmental Assessment of Former Burial Site at Augustana College,” NRC letter to State of South Dakota, September 10, 2004 (ML042540432). 8. Lancaster, Rick, “Request for Comments Regarding Environmental Assessment of Former Burial Site at Augustana College,” State of South Dakota letter to NRC, September 23, 2004 (ML042730227). 9. Satorius, Mark, “Request for Institutional Controls Over Former Burial Site at Augustana College,” NRC letter to State of South Dakota, October 27, 2004 (ML043010521). 10. Evans, Robert, “Telephone Call With State of South Dakota Regarding Former Burial Site at Augustana College,” NRC Memorandum To Docket File, December 8, 2004 (ML0434400520). If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)reference staff at

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . 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 Arlington, Texas this 22nd day of March 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patricia K. Holahan, Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV. [FR Doc. E5-1449 Filed 3-31-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-11] Sacramento Municipal Utility District Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding an Amendment AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Environmental Assessment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Hall, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone:

(301)415-1336; fax number:

(301)415-8555; e-mail: *jrh@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) is considering issuance of an amendment to Special Nuclear Materials License No. 2510 that would allow for the storage of Greater Than Class C

(GTCC)waste at the Rancho Seco Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The Sacramento Municipal Utility District

(SMUD)is currently storing spent nuclear fuel at the Rancho Seco ISFSI on the site of the decommissioned Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station in Sacramento County, California. Environmental Assessment

(EA)Identification of Proposed Action By application, dated July 29, 2004, SMUD submitted a request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 72.56, “Application for amendment of license,” to amend the license to allow for the storage of GTCC waste at the Rancho Seco ISFSI. SMUD proposes to store the GTCC waste in a GTCC canister and load the canister into a Horizontal Storage Module in the NUHOMS-24P dry cask storage system used at the Rancho Seco ISFSI. SMUD proposes to co-locate the GTCC waste canister with the spent fuel canisters at the ISFSI, but no GTCC waste will be co-mingled with the spent fuel. The proposed action before the NRC is whether to approve the amendment. Need for the Proposed Action SMUD is in the process of decommissioning the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station in Sacramento County, California. SMUD needs to temporarily store GTCC waste resulting from plant operations and from decommissioning, such as activated metals in the form of baffles and formers, cut-up sections of incore-instrument tips, and associated surface contamination, in the ISFSI until there is a permanent repository that will accept GTCC waste. Approving the amendment would allow the licensee to store GTCC at the Rancho Seco ISFSI. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The staff has reviewed the amendment request submitted by the licensee and has determined that allowing the storage of GTCC waste at the Rancho Seco ISFSI would have no significant impacts to the environment. In its Safety Evaluation Report related to the ISFSI license, the NRC staff found that the proposed GTCC canister is functionally identical to those spent fuel canisters currently being stored at the ISFSI. Once the GTCC waste is loaded into the canister, the operational steps to drain, seal and transfer the GTCC waste to the ISFSI are essentially identical to those for a fuel canister except that the GTCC waste canister loading and processing operations will be conducted in the Reactor Building as opposed to the Spent Fuel Building. There are no credible scenarios by which liquid or gaseous effluents could be released from the GTCC waste canister. Furthermore, the NUHOMS-24P dry cask storage system used at the Rancho Seco ISFSI is a passive system which, by design, produces no gaseous or liquid effluent. The staff has determined that the proposed action would not endanger life or property. Further, the staff concludes that there is reasonable assurance that the proposed amendment will have no impact on off-site doses because the licensee is currently storing GTCC at the Rancho Seco Site under its 10 CFR Part 50 license. The proposed action would not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes would be made to the types of effluents that may be released offsite, and there would be no increase in public exposure, and only minimal increase in occupational exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Additionally, the proposed action would have no significant impact on the safe storage of spent fuel at the Rancho Seco ISFSI. Furthermore, as documented in the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact for the final rule, “Interim Storage of Greater than Class C Waste” (66 FR 51823; October 11, 2001), the NRC staff found for the following reasons that storing NRC-licensed reactor-related GTCC waste using 10 CFR Part 72 has no significant environmental impacts:

(1)There is a smaller source term available for release from normal operations, or as a result of an accident, involving GTCC waste as compared to spent fuel or HLW;

(2)There is a smaller total volume and curie content of the GTCC waste as compared to the spent fuel or HLW;

(3)The previous findings related to the environmental impacts in NUREG-0575, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel,” dated August 1979, and NUREG-1092, “Environmental Assessment for 10 CFR Part 72 Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste” concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts for these activities; and

(4)GTCC waste is already being safely stored by 10 CFR Part 50 licensees. Re-licensing of this material under a 10 CFR Part 72 specific license requires an approved safety analysis report. The approval process requires that each application or amendment be individually reviewed and approved before storage would be allowed under a specific 10 CFR Part 72 license. *Alternative to the Proposed Action* As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the amendment request ( *i.e.* , the “no-action” alternative). If the request was denied, SMUD would need to continue to store the GTCC waste under its 10 CFR Part 50 license, either in its existing location or in another appropriately shielded configuration. This would limit the extent to which SMUD could complete its decommissioning activities for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. Approval or denial of the amendment request would result in no change in the environmental impacts. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff prepared this environmental assessment

(EA)and contacted the California Department of Health Services, Radiologic Health Branch. Staff provided the State with a draft copy of this EA for review. Mr. Steve Hsu responded on behalf of the State of California and stated that he had no comments on the EA or the Finding of No Significant Impact. The NRC staff has determined that consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required for this specific amendment, which will not affect listed species or critical habitat. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity having the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Conclusion The staff has reviewed the amendment request submitted by SMUD and has determined that allowing the storage of GTCC waste at the Rancho Seco ISFSI would have no significant impact on the environment. Finding of No Significant Impact The environmental impacts of allowing the storage of GTCC waste at the Rancho Seco ISFSI 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 proposed action of approving the amendment to the license will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendment is not warranted. The request for amendment was docketed under 10 CFR part 72, Docket 72-11. For further details with respect to this action, see the request for the license amendment dated July 29, 2004. Supporting documentation is available for inspection at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . A copy of the EA and FONSI can be found at this site using the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. 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 *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of March, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James R. Hall, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-1452 Filed 3-31-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Compliance Assistance Resources and Points of Contact Available to Small Businesses Authority: The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act (44 U.S.C. 3520) AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)is publishing a “list of the compliance assistance resources available to small businesses” and a list of the points of contacts in agencies “to act as a liaison between the agency and small business concerns” with respect to the collection of information and the control of paperwork. This information is posted on the OMB Web site: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infocoll.html* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith B. Belton, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, e-mail: *kbelton@omb.eop.gov* , Telephone:

(202)395-4815. Inquiries may be submitted by facsimile to

(202)395-7285. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-198) requires OMB to “publish in the **Federal Register** and make available on the Internet (in consultation with the Small Business Administration) “a list of the compliance assistance resources available to small businesses” (44 U.S.C. 3504(c) (6)). In addition, under another provision of this Act, “each agency shall, with respect to the collection of information and the control of paperwork, establish 1 point of contact in the agency to act as a liaison between the agency and small business concerns'' (44 U.S.C. 3506(I)(1)). Working in cooperation with the Small Business and Agriculture Enforcement Ombudsman (SBA Ombudsman) in the Small Business Administration, OMB has, with the active assistance and support of the SBA Ombudsman, assembled a list of the compliance assistance resources available to small businesses. This list is available today on OMB's Web site at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infocoll.html.* The SBA Ombudsman has created a link to this information on the SBA Ombudsman's Web Site at *http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman* . Donald R. Arbuckle, Deputy Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. [FR Doc. 05-6429 Filed 3-31-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

CFR

U.S. Code

6 references not yet in our index