ML23299A062: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 15: Line 15:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Environmental Assessment for the Nuclear Fuel Services License Amendment Request to Amend a Special Nuclear Material License to Include a Uranium Purification and Conversion Service in Erwin, Tennessee SNM-124 Docket No. 70-00143 Final Report Completed: October 2023 Environmental Center of Expertise Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
{{#Wiki_filter:Environmental Assessment for the Nuclear Fuel Services License Amendment Request to Amend a Spec ial Nuclear Material License to Include a Uranium Purification and Conversion Servic e in Erwin, Tennessee


This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................................ 1 1.3 NEPA Process and NRC Environmental Review ........................................................ 1 1.4 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations ............................ 2 1.4.1 Federal, State, and Local Authorities .............................................................. 2 1.5 Cooperating Agencies and Consultations ................................................................... 4 1.5.1 State Review ................................................................................................... 4 1.5.2 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation .......................... 5 1.5.3 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation ............................................ 5 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................... 6 2.1 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Site Location and Layout ................................................................................. 6 2.1.2 Waste Generation and Management ............................................................... 8 2.1.3 Monitoring Program ....................................................................................... 10 2.1.4 Decommissioning .......................................................................................... 11 2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action .......................................................................... 11 3.0 Affected Environment, Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation ................................. 12 3.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Impacts .......................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Visual and Scenic Resources.................................................................................... 13 3.2.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 13 3.2.2 Impacts .......................................................................................................... 13 3.3 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality ................................................................ 14 3.3.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 14 3.3.2 Impacts .......................................................................................................... 14 3.4 Noise ......................................................................................................................... 14 3.4.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 14 3.4.2 Impacts .......................................................................................................... 15 3.5 Geologic Resource (Geology and Soils) ................................................................... 15 3.5.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 15 3.5.2 Impacts .......................................................................................................... 16 3.6 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater) ............................................... 16 3.6.1 Affected Environment - Surface Water ......................................................... 16 3.6.2 Affected Environment - Groundwater ........................................................... 17 3.6.3 Impacts on Surface Water ............................................................................. 18 3.6.4 Impacts on Groundwater ............................................................................... 18 3.7 Ecological Resources ................................................................................................ 19 3.7.1 Affected Environment - Terrestrial ................................................................. 19 3.7.2 Affected Environment- Aquatic ..................................................................... 19 iii
SNM-124 Docket No. 70-00143


3.7.3 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................... 19 3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 24 3.8.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 24 3.8.2 Impacts .......................................................................................................... 24 3.9 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................ 25 3.9.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 25 3.9.2 Impacts .......................................................................................................... 25 3.10 Public and Occupation Health ................................................................................... 25 3.10.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 25 3.10.2 Impacts .......................................................................................................... 26 3.11 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 26 3.11.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 26 3.11.2 Impacts .......................................................................................................... 26 3.12 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................... 27 3.12.1 Demographics and Socioeconomic Environment .......................................... 27 3.13 Waste Management .................................................................................................. 28 3.13.1 Affected Environment - Radioactive and Nonradioactive Waste ................... 28 3.13.2 Impacts .......................................................................................................... 30 3.14 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................... 30 4.0 Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................................ 31 4.1 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 31 4.2 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................ 31
Final Report
 
Completed: October 2023
 
Environmental Center of Expertise Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
 
This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents
 
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Proposed Action.......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action................................................................ 1 1.3 NEPA Process and NRC Environmental Review........................................................ 1 1.4 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizat ions............................ 2 1.4.1 Federal, State, and Local Authorities.............................................................. 2 1.5 Cooperating Agencies and Consultations................................................................... 4 1.5.1 State Review................................................................................................... 4 1.5.2 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultati on.......................... 5 1.5.3 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation............................................ 5
 
2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................................................... 6 2.1 Proposed Action.......................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Site Location and Layout................................................................................. 6 2.1.2 Waste Generation and Management............................................................... 8 2.1.3 Monitoring Program....................................................................................... 10 2.1.4 Decommissioning.......................................................................................... 11 2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action.......................................................................... 11
 
3.0 Affected Environment, Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation................................. 12 3.1 Land Use................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Visual and Scenic Resources.................................................................................... 13 3.2.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 13 3.2.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 13 3.3 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality................................................................ 14 3.3.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 14 3.3.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 14 3.4 Noise......................................................................................................................... 14 3.4.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 14 3.4.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 15 3.5 Geologic Resource (Geology and Soils)................................................................... 15 3.5.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 15 3.5.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 16 3.6 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)............................................... 16 3.6.1 Affected Environment - Surface Water......................................................... 16 3.6.2 Affected Environment - Groundwater........................................................... 17 3.6.3 Impacts on Surface Water............................................................................. 18 3.6.4 Impacts on Groundwater............................................................................... 18 3.7 Ecological Resources................................................................................................ 19 3.7.1 Affected Environment - Terrestrial................................................................. 19 3.7.2 Affected Environment-Aquatic..................................................................... 19
 
iii 3.7.3 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species........................................... 19 3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources................................................................................ 24 3.8.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 24 3.8.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 24 3.9 Socioeconomics........................................................................................................ 25 3.9.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 25 3.9.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 25 3.10 Public and Occupation Health................................................................................... 25 3.10.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 25 3.10.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 26 3.11 Transportation........................................................................................................... 26 3.11.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 26 3.11.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 26 3.12 Environmental Justice............................................................................................... 27 3.12.1 Demographics and Socioeconomic Environment.......................................... 27 3.13 Waste Management.................................................................................................. 28 3.13.1 Affected Environment - Radioactive and Nonradioactive Wa ste................... 28 3.13.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 30 3.14 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................... 30
 
4.0 Conclusion and Recommendation................................................................................ 31 4.1 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 31 4.2 List of Preparers........................................................................................................ 31


==5.0 REFERENCES==
==5.0 REFERENCES==
.................................................................................................................. 32 iv
.................................................................................................................. 32
 
iv ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMNS
 
ALARA as low as reasonably achievable ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Cond itioning Engineers cm centimeter DOE U.S. Department of Energy EA environmentalassessment EJ environmentaljustice EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPOTW Erwin Publicly Owned Treatment Works ER environmentalr eport ESA Endangered Species Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact ft feet ft2 square feet FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service HEPA high-efficiency particulate air HEU high-enriched uranium HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning in inch IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation km kilometer LAR license amendment request m meter m2 square meters mi mile MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRHP National Register of Historic Places POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration ROI Region of Interest SER safety evaluation report SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SNM special nuclear material TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation UF6 uranium hexafluoride WWTF wastewater treatment facility
 
v
 
==1.0 INTRODUCTION==
On November 18, 2021, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) submitt ed an application (NFS 2021a) and an accompanying environmental report (ER) (NFS 2021b, NFS 2023) to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting to amend its spe cial nuclear material (SNM) license, SNM-124. NFS requests to amend its current operations to include a Uranium Purification and Conversion Services Project (U-Metal Project) at its site in Erwin, TN. NFS is authorized under SNM-124 to operate a fuel fabrication plant lo cated in Erwin, Tennessee. The NRC accepted the application for a detailed technical review (s afety and environmental) on March 25, 2022 (NRC 2022a). The NRC issued requests for additio nal information on April 28, 2022 (NRC 2022b) and NFS provided its responses to that request on June 30, 2022 (NFS 2022).
 
NFS Part 70 license was originally issued by the Atomic Energy Commission to W.R. Grace and Company, Davison Chemical Division, on September 18, 1957. It authorized initial facility operations with enriched uranium. Later, the license was transf erred to NFS on December 31, 1963. The license was renewed on the following dates: November 5, 1965; January 27, 1978; March 16, 1979; June 9, 1992; and July 2, 1999. On August 9, 20 12, the NRC renewed NFS Special Nuclear Material (SNM) license (SNM-124) for a period of 25 years, which would allow operations through 2037 (NRC 2012).
 
1.1 Proposed Action
 
The proposed action is to amend NFS SNM-124 license to include the U-Metal Project, which would authorize NFS to operate Uranium Purification and Convers ion Services (U-Metal Project) at the NFS site pursuant to a contract with the U.S. D epartment of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) (NFS 2021a).
 
1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
 
Legacy uranium processing equipment at the NNSAs Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee is tentatively planned for shutdown in the near future. Based upon available information, NNSA plans to partially replace this legacy uranium processing syste m capability with new electrorefining technology to purify high-enriched uranium (HEU ) metal. However, this new process will not be available until after 2023 and will not be capable of converting oxides to metal until completion of a separate future project. Therefore, the purpose and need for this project is to maintain the ability to convert oxides to metal, provide a redundancy for the purification of uranium metals, and hedge against the technolog y risk associated with the new electrorefining facility at NFS.


ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMNS ALARA  as low as reasonably achievable ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers cm    centimeter DOE    U.S. Department of Energy EA    environmental assessment EJ    environmental justice EPA    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPOTW  Erwin Publicly Owned Treatment Works ER    environmental report ESA    Endangered Species Act FONSI  Finding of No Significant Impact ft    feet ft2    square feet FWS    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service HEPA  high-efficiency particulate air HEU    high-enriched uranium HVAC  heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning in    inch IPaC  Information for Planning and Consultation km    kilometer LAR    license amendment request m      meter m2    square meters mi    mile MSA    Metropolitan Statistical Area NAAQS  National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA   National Environmental Policy Act NFS    Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
1.3 NEPA Process and NRC Environmental Review
NHPA  National Historic Preservation Act NMSS  Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards NNSA  National Nuclear Security Administration NPDES  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC   U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRHP  National Register of Historic Places POTW  Publicly Owned Treatment Works PSD    Prevention of Significant Deterioration ROI    Region of Interest SER    safety evaluation report SHPO  State Historic Preservation Office SNM    special nuclear material TDEC  Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation UF6    uranium hexafluoride WWTF  wastewater treatment facility v


==1.0    INTRODUCTION==
The NRC staff has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) f ollowing NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.), and pursuant to NRC staff guidance in NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs (NRC 2003). The purpose of this document is to assess the potential environmental impacts of proposed license amendment (i.e., the addition of the U-Metal P roject) and of reasonable alternatives.


On November 18, 2021, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) submitted an application (NFS 2021a) and an accompanying environmental report (ER) (NFS 2021b, NFS 2023) to the U.S.
1 The NRC staff has addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the license amendment to add the U-Metal Project to activities under licens e SNM-124 and has documented the potential environm ental impacts to the human and natural environment in this EA.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting to amend its special nuclear material (SNM) license, SNM-124. NFS requests to amend its current operations to include a Uranium Purification and Conversion Services Project (U-Metal Project) at its site in Erwin, TN. NFS is authorized under SNM-124 to operate a fuel fabrication plant located in Erwin, Tennessee. The NRC accepted the application for a detailed technical review (safety and environmental) on March 25, 2022 (NRC 2022a). The NRC issued requests for additional information on April 28, 2022 (NRC 2022b) and NFS provided its responses to that request on June 30, 2022 (NFS 2022).
NFS Part 70 license was originally issued by the Atomic Energy Commission to W.R. Grace and Company, Davison Chemical Division, on September 18, 1957. It authorized initial facility operations with enriched uranium. Later, the license was transferred to NFS on December 31, 1963. The license was renewed on the following dates: November 5, 1965; January 27, 1978; March 16, 1979; June 9, 1992; and July 2, 1999. On August 9, 2012, the NRC renewed NFS Special Nuclear Material (SNM) license (SNM-124) for a period of 25 years, which would allow operations through 2037 (NRC 2012).
1.1    Proposed Action The proposed action is to amend NFS SNM-124 license to include the U-Metal Project, which would authorize NFS to operate Uranium Purification and Conversion Services (U-Metal Project) at the NFS site pursuant to a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) (NFS 2021a).
1.2    Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Legacy uranium processing equipment at the NNSAs Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee is tentatively planned for shutdown in the near future. Based upon available information, NNSA plans to partially replace this legacy uranium processing system capability with new electrorefining technology to purify high-enriched uranium (HEU) metal. However, this new process will not be available until after 2023 and will not be capable of converting oxides to metal until completion of a separate future project. Therefore, the purpose and need for this project is to maintain the ability to convert oxides to metal, provide a redundancy for the purification of uranium metals, and hedge against the technology risk associated with the new electrorefining facility at NFS.
1.3    NEPA Process and NRC Environmental Review The NRC staff has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) following NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.), and pursuant to NRC staff guidance in NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs (NRC 2003). The purpose of this document is to assess the potential environmental impacts of proposed license amendment (i.e., the addition of the U-Metal Project) and of reasonable alternatives.
1


The NRC staff has addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the license amendment to add the U-Metal Project to activities under license SNM-124 and has documented the potential environmental impacts to the human and natural environment in this EA.
The NRC staff reviewed and consider ed the following documents in the development of this EA:
The NRC staff reviewed and considered the following documents in the development of this EA:
* the NFS license amendment application, dated November 18, 2021 (NFS 2021a), and the accompanying ER (NFS 2021b);
* the NFS license amendment application, dated November 18, 2021 (NFS 2021a), and the accompanying ER (NFS 2021b);
* NFS responses to NRCs Request for Additional Information dated June 30, 2022 (NFS 2022); and
* NFS responses to NRCs Request for Additional Information date d June 30, 2022 (NFS 2022); and
* effluent monitoring reports for 2017 through 2022 for the NFS site that NFS submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 70.59.
* effluent monitoring reports for 2017 through 2022 for the NFS site that NFS submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 70.59.
1.4     Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations 1.4.1       Federal, State, and Local Authorities NEPA established a national environmental policy; goals to protect, maintain, and enhance the environment; and a process for to assist Federal agencies in their planning and decision making. This EA was prepared in accordance with the NRCs NEPA-implementing regulations at 10 CFR Part 51.
 
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the NRC regulates NFS activities at the Erwin, TN, facility in accordance with NRC regulations and the license conditions in SNM-124, issued under 10 CFR Part 70. The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) will address whether the application meets the applicable requirements of 10 CFR Parts 20 and 70. The NRC staff are preparing the EA and SER to evaluate the potential impacts on public health and safety and the environment associated with the proposed license amendment request that would add a uranium metal operation to the current facility. The NRC staff decision on the proposed action will be based on the results of both the EA and SER.
1.4 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations
Several other Federal and State agencies require permits for activities associated with the site and are discussed below.
 
* The Department of Energy (DOE) has broad authority to regulate activities involving radioactive materials that are undertaken by DOE or on its behalf, including the transportation of radioactive materials. DOE exercises this authority to regulate certain DOE shipments, such as shipments of materials of national security interest undertaken by government employees or shipments involving special circumstances and would be the authority for transporting those materials at this facility (DOE 2010).
1.4.1 Federal, State, and Local Authorities
* The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through a permitting program.
 
* Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) authorizes certain activities at the NFS site through the relevant State permitting processes under authorities delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). TDEC has issued permits to NFS for surface water and stormwater discharges.
NEPA established a national environmental policy; goals to prot ect, maintain, and enhance the environment; and a process for to assist Federal agencies in th eir planning and decision making. This EA was prepared in accordance with the NRCs NEPA-implementing regulations at 10 CFR Part 51.
 
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the NRC regula tes NFS activities at the Erwin, TN, facility in accordance with NRC regulations and the license conditions in SNM-124, issued under 10 CFR Part 70. The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) will address whether the application meets the applicable requirements of 10 CFR Parts 2 0 and 70. The NRC staff are preparing the EA and SER to evaluate the potential impacts on p ublic health and safety and the environment associated with the proposed license amendment requ est that would add a uranium metal operation to the current facility. The NRC staff decision on the proposed action will be based on the results of both the EA and SER.
 
Several other Federal and State agencies require permits for ac tivities associated with the site and are discussed below.
* The Department of Energy (DOE) has broad authority to regulate activities involving radioactive materials that are undertaken by DOE or on its beha lf, including the transportation of radioactive materials. DOE exercises this aut hority to regulate certain DOE shipments, such as shipments of materials of national security interest undertaken by government employees or shipments involving special circumstanc es and would be the authority for transporting those materials at this facility (DO E 2010).
* The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dr edge or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through a permitting program.
* Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) au thorizes certain activities at the NFS site through the relevant State permittin g processes under authorities delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). TD EC has issued permits to NFS for surface water and stormwater discharges.
 
2
2
- The TDEC Division of Radiological Health regulates the use of certain radioactive materials within the State. In 1965, the former Atomic Energy C ommission established an agreement with the State of Tennessee to discontinue Commiss ion authority over certain radioactive materials and allow the radioactive materia ls to be regulated by the State.
- The TDEC Division of Radiological Health regulates byproduct m aterial, source material, and SNM in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass (a s defined in the Atomic Energy Act). The Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board adopts r egulations and initiates court actions to enforce regulations on the discharge of air po llutants from boilers and other pollutant-generating equipment. The Tennessee Air Polluti on Control Board is administered by the TDEC Divisi on of Air Pollution Control.
* There are two sanitary sewers at the NFS site. The sanitary wa ste is treated by Erwin Utilities Publicly Owned Treatm ent Works (POTW). Erwin Utilitie s regulates effluents to the sewers through an industrial pretreatment permit program (NRC 2 011).
Table 1-1 summarizes the various Federal, State, and local agen cy licenses and permits issued to NFS for activities at its Erwin facility (NFS 2022).
Table 1-1. Federal, State, and Local Agency Licenses and Permit s for Activities at the NFS Site


      -    The TDEC Division of Radiological Health regulates the use of certain radioactive materials within the State. In 1965, the former Atomic Energy Commission established an agreement with the State of Tennessee to discontinue Commission authority over certain radioactive materials and allow the radioactive materials to be regulated by the State.
Type of License/Permit Issuing Agency Special Nuclear Material License NRC Quality Assurance Program for Shipping Packages for Radioactive Material NRC Quality Assurance Program for Rad. Material Packages DOE Certificates of Compliance for Rad. Material Packages: ES-3100 NRC Certificate of Compliance for Rad. Material Packages: NRC LR-230 Certificate of Compliance for Rad. Material Packages: NRC Versa-Pac Certificate of Compliance for Rad. Material Packages: DOT 2000MED Hazardous Materials Certificate of Registration DOT Federal Explosives License/Permit DOJ Radio System Licenses FCC Radioactive Material (Source Material) License State of TN Radioactive Material (Sealed Sources) License State of TN Radioactive Material (R&D) License State of TN Registration of X-ray Producing Equipment State of TN Rad. Waste License-for-Delivery State of TN Hazardous Waste Management Permit State of TN NPDES Permit for WWTF Discharges State of TN NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges State of TN Tennessee Multi-Sector General NPDES Storm Water Permit (TNSP) State of TN Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: State of TN Bldg. 234 Permit closed - closure letter issued by State 06/09/2016
      -    The TDEC Division of Radiological Health regulates byproduct material, source material, and SNM in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass (as defined in the Atomic Energy Act). The Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board adopts regulations and initiates court actions to enforce regulations on the discharge of air pollutants from boilers and other pollutant-generating equipment. The Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board is administered by the TDEC Division of Air Pollution Control.
* There are two sanitary sewers at the NFS site. The sanitary waste is treated by Erwin Utilities Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). Erwin Utilities regulates effluents to the sewers through an industrial pretreatment permit program (NRC 2011).
Table 1-1 summarizes the various Federal, State, and local agency licenses and permits issued to NFS for activities at its Erwin facility (NFS 2022).
Table 1-1. Federal, State, and Local Agency Licenses and Permits for Activities at the NFS Site Type of License/Permit                                   Issuing Agency Special Nuclear Material License                                                         NRC Quality Assurance Program for Shipping Packages for Radioactive Material                 NRC Quality Assurance Program for Rad. Material Packages                                     DOE Certificates of Compliance for Rad. Material Packages: ES-3100                           NRC Certificate of Compliance for Rad. Material Packages:                                     NRC LR-230 Certificate of Compliance for Rad. Material Packages:                                     NRC Versa-Pac Certificate of Compliance for Rad. Material Packages:                                     DOT 2000MED Hazardous Materials Certificate of Registration                                           DOT Federal Explosives License/Permit                                                         DOJ Radio System Licenses                                                                     FCC Radioactive Material (Source Material) License                                         State of TN Radioactive Material (Sealed Sources) License                                         State of TN Radioactive Material (R&D) License                                                     State of TN Registration of X-ray Producing Equipment                                             State of TN Rad. Waste License-for-Delivery                                                       State of TN Hazardous Waste Management Permit                                                     State of TN NPDES Permit for WWTF Discharges                                                       State of TN NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges                                               State of TN Tennessee Multi-Sector General NPDES Storm Water Permit (TNSP)                         State of TN Air Pollution Control Operating Permit:                                               State of TN Bldg. 234 Permit closed - closure letter issued by State 06/09/2016 3


Type of License/Permit                                       Issuing Agency Air Pollution Control Operating Permit:                                                     State of TN Bldg. 300 & Bldg. 333 operations Environmental source 86-0002-08 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit:                                                     State of TN Bldg. 330 / WWTF Environmental source 86-0002-12 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit:                                                     State of TN Bldg. 130 Steam Boilers Environmental source 86- 0002-24 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit:                                                     State of TN Generator (1,000 kW) Environmental source 86-0002-54 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: Emergency Generators; GEN0234,                     State of TN GEN0138, and GEN0480 Environmental source 86-0002-55 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit:                                                     State of TN Two Emergency fire water pumps Environmental source 86-0002-57 POTW (Sanitary Sewer) Discharge Permit                                                     City of Erwin Nuclear Fuel Services Pretreatment Permit                                                 City of Erwin Application for Authorization to Operate a Class V Underground Injection                   State of TN Well for Storm Water Discharge to the Subsurface or Modification of a Karst Feature Attendant (Boiler) Variance Renewal                                                         State of TN Re-Accreditation Application for a Firm to Conduct Asbestos Activities &                   State of TN Firm Affirmation Statement and Asbestos Certification Continuance and Re-Accreditation Application to Conduct Asbestos Activities Generator Site Access Permit                                                               State of UT WCS Generator Certification                                                                   WCS Rad. Waste Registration (Shipper)                                                           State of TX DOE = U.S. Department of Energy; DOJ = U.S. Department of Justice; DOT = U.S. Department of Transportation; FCC =
3 Type of License/Permit Issuing Agency Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: State of TN Bldg. 300 & Bldg. 333 operations Environmental source 86-0002-08 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: State of TN Bldg. 330 / WWTF Environmental source 86-0002-12 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: State of TN Bldg. 130 Steam Boilers Environmental source 86- 0002-24 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: State of TN Generator (1,000 kW) Environmental source 86-0002-54 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: Emergency Generators; GEN0234, State of TN GEN0138, and GEN0480 Environmental source 86-0002-55 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: State of TN Two Emergency fire water pumps Environmental source 86-0002-57 POTW (Sanitary Sewer) Discharge Permit City of Erwin Nuclear Fuel Services Pretreatment Permit City of Erwin Application for Authorization to Operate a Class V Underground Injection State of TN Well for Storm Water Discharge to the Subsurface or Modification of a Karst Feature Attendant (Boiler) Variance Renewal State of TN Re-Accreditation Application for a Firm to Conduct Asbestos Activities & State of TN Firm Affirmation Statement and Asbestos Certification Continuance and Re-Accreditation Application to Conduct Asbestos Activities Generator Site Access Permit State of UT WCS Generator Certification WCS Rad. Waste Registration (Shipper) State of TX DOE = U.S. Department of Energy; DOJ = U.S. Department of Justice; DOT = U.S. Department of Transportation; FCC =
Federal Communications Commission; NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; POTW = Publicly Owned Treatment Works; R&D = research and development; TN = Tennessee; WCS = Waste Control Specialists; WWTF = Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Federal Communications Commission; NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; POTW = Publicly Owned Treatment Works; R&D = research and development; TN = Tennessee; WCS = Waste Control Specialists; WWTF = Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Source: NFS 2022 The NRC assumes that existing regulations are applied, as appropriate, by other Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies. When evaluating potential environmental impacts, the NRC also assumes that the licensee would comply with regulatory requirements and the license and permit conditions issued by these agencies. These assumptions are based, in part on the staffs review in Section 3.0 of this EA, which considers NFSs past compliance with the permits issued by other agencies in the staffs assessment of impacts.
Source: NFS 2022
1.5    Cooperating Agencies and Consultations 1.5.1      State Review The NRC staff provided a copy of the draft EA to the State of Tennessee, Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Radiological Division for its review and comment. TDEC provided comments on the draft EA on May 4, 2023. Their comments included that the States existing environmental monitoring program is sufficient to include the U-Metal Process, and that no modifications to NFS existing permits would be required. TDEC stated it had no concerns regarding waste that would be generated by the U-Metal process, noting that 1% increase in 4


waste generated could be handled under the States current waste inspection program and that no new waste streams would be generated (TDEC, 2023).
The NRC assumes that existing regulations are applied, as appro priate, by other Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies. When evaluating potential enviro nmental impacts, the NRC also assumes that the licensee would comply with regulatory requirem ents and the license and permit conditions issued by these agencies. These assumptions a re based, in part on the staffs review in Section 3.0 of this EA, which considers NFSs past co mpliance with the permits issued by other agencies in the staffs assessment of impacts.
1.5.2      National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was enacted to create a national historic preservation program, including the National Register of Historic Places and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties, defines an undertaking The proposed action, to approve or deny the license amendment, is considered a Federal undertaking as defined by NHPAs implementing regulations. The NRC staffs analysis related to historic and cultural resources can be found in section 3.8.
The NRC initiated consultation with four Federally recognized Indian Tribes in a {{letter dated|date=September 13, 2022|text=letter dated September 13, 2022}} (NRC 2022c; see Section 3.8). The staff also initiated consultation with the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in a {{letter dated|date=September 13, 2022|text=letter dated September 13, 2022}} (NRC 2022d). The NRC did not received comments from the Tribes or SHPO regarding the proposed undertaking, which concludes the NRCs responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA. See section 3.8 for additional details regarding NRCs consultation under Section 106.
1.5.3      Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and through its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402, Interagency CooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Subpart B, Consultation Procedures), a Federal agency must determine whether (1) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats are known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and, if so, whether (2) the proposed Federal action may affect listed species or critical habitats before it can authorize or implement a proposed activity. If the proposed action may affect listed species or critical habitats, the Federal agency is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service, or both.
Federal agencies may fulfill their obligations to consult with the FWS under ESA Section 7 in conjunction with the interagency cooperation procedures required by other statutes, including NEPA (50 CFR 402.06(a)). In such cases, the Federal agency should include the results of the ESA Section 7 consultation in the NEPA document (50 CFR 402.06(b)). The NRC considers this EA and associated correspondence with the FWS to fulfill its obligations under ESA Section 7.
The NRC initiated informal Section 7 consultation with FWS by {{letter dated|date=August 18, 2023|text=letter dated August 18, 2023}} (NRC 2023), providing its effects determinations for six threatened or endangered species. The FWS concurred with the NRC staffs findings on September 28, 2023 (FWS 2023a).
Additional details regarding impacts to proposed or listed species are included in Section 3.7.3.
5


2.0    PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1      Proposed Action The proposed action is to amend NFS SNM License, SNM-124, to authorize construction and operation of the Uranium Purification and Conversion Services (U-Metal Project) at the NFS facility pursuant to a contract with the DOE's NNSA. Under the proposed action, NFS would construct a new, approximately 278.7 square meters (m2) [3,000 square feet (ft2)] Utility Support Building (Building 389) and revise activities in the HEU Metal Processing Area Building (Building 301) to accommodate the new U-Metal Project (NFS 2022). The new building would be located within the protected area of the site west of the main processing building. These facilities would contain the U-metal conversion process activities and utilities subsystems.
1.5 Cooperating Agencies and Consultations
2.1.1      Site Location and Layout The NFS site is situated on approximately 33.2 hectare (ha) [82 acres (ac)] of land in the Town of Erwin, in Unicoi County in northeast Tennessee (see Figure 2-1). The property is located at latitude 36°0747N and longitude 82°2557W, approximately 499 to 512 meter (m) [1,640 to 1,680 feet (ft)] above sea level. The facility is bounded by Carolina Avenue on the southeastern side, the Chessie Seaboard Multiplier (CSX) Railroad line on the northwest side, and Martin Creek on the northeastern side of the facility location.
Four bodies of surface water are adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of, the plant. The site contains a natural spring (Banner Spring), which originates on the NFS property. Banner Spring forms Banner Spring Branch, which is routed through an underground pipe across the site and empties into Martin Creek at the site boundary. Martin Creek empties into North Indian Creek approximately 1,067 m (3,500 ft) north of the NFS facility, and North Indian Creek empties into the Nolichucky River approximately one mile from the site boundary.
The NFS facility is located in a southwest-to-northeast oriented valley, bounded on both sides by the Blue Ridge Mountains of the Appalachian Mountain chain. The surrounding mountains have a maximum elevation of approximately 756 m (2,480 ft) above sea level. The topography of the NFS property is relatively level; site elevations range from approximately 500 to 512 m (1,640 to 1,680 ft) above sea level.
6


Figure 2-1. Site Location and Surrounding Area (Source: NRC 2011) 2.1.1.1      Facility Operation The current operations performed at the facility are performed under SNM license SNM-124.
1.5.1 State Review
These activities include (1) product processing activities including uranium hexafluoride (UF6) conversion, fuel manufacturing, uranium recovery and enrichment blending; (2) laboratory operations including wet chemical and physical testing; (3) general services ancillary to the primary operation; (4) research and development work performed on source and SNM compounds and mixtures; (5) radioactive waste management of waste streams including decontamination packaging and storage, shipment of radioactive wastes, volume reduction and, solidification; and (6) ongoing decommissioning activities (NFS 2021b).
The proposed action of constructing and operating the U-Metal Project would add an additional production process and a new utility support building (Building 389) within the site boundary.
Construction of Building 389 would occur within a previously disturbed area that is currently paved and surrounded by several other existing buildings. The new building would be approximately 278.7 m2 (3,000 ft2) and house utility operations to support the operations in the existing Building 301 (NFS 2022). The overall building height would be similar to the existing facility buildings; standing approximately 30 ft [9 m] tall at its highest point.
7


The building's interior rooms would have masonry walls, steel doors, and a concrete roof deck, except for the restroom facilities and office area where gypsum board with steel stud construction would be used. Building 389 would contain support equipment for main process operations such as a scrubber, solution storage tanks (e.g., wastewater, bulk chemical supply),
The NRC staff provided a copy of the draft EA to the State of T ennessee, Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Radiological Division for i ts review and comment. TDEC provided comments on the draft EA on May 4, 2023. Their comment s included that the States existing environmental monitoring program is sufficient to incl ude the U-Metal Process, and that no modifications to NFS existing permits would be required. TD EC stated it had no concerns regarding waste that would be generated by the U-Metal process, noting that 1% increase in
electrical room, supply room, and office areas. Solution storage is contained within a diked containment area. Building 389 would be adjacent to the west side of the current processing area in the southwest corner of the plant site where the former Versatile Automated Gamma Assay System was used for radioactive waste analysis (NFS 2022).
 
The U-Metal Project process would take place on the main floor of the processing area located in Building 301 (already onsite) and would comprise several different operating areas. The process would involve performing uranium purification and conversion to uranium metal.
4 waste generated could be handled under the States current wast e inspection program and that no new waste streams would be generated (TDEC, 2023).
Electrical power for U-Metal Project operations (primary and auxiliary systems) would be provided directly from an existing nearby substation (NFS 2021b).
 
2.1.2       Waste Generation and Management The processes associated with the activities at the NFS facility would continue to generate gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes. The proposed action is expected to add new material (contributing to about a 1 percent increase in the total waste at the facility) but would not create new waste streams. This section describes the nature of the wastes generated and NFS waste management practices.
1.5.2 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultati on
2.1.2.1     Radioactive Waste and Nonradioactive Waste The following radioactive waste management activities occur at the NFS site:
 
* treatment of basic and acidic waste streams at the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted wastewater treatment facility (WWTF);
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was enacted to cr eate a national historic preservation program, including the National Register of Histor ic Places and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Section 106 of the NHPA requi res Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properti es. The NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Propert ies, defines an undertaking
 
The proposed action, to approve or deny the license amendment, is considered a Federal undertaking as defined by NHPAs implementing regulations. The NRC staffs analysis related to historic and cultural resources can be found in section 3.8.
 
The NRC initiated consultation with four Federally recognized I ndian Tribes in a {{letter dated|date=September 13, 2022|text=letter dated September 13, 2022}} (NRC 2022c; see Section 3.8). The staff also initiated consultation with the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in a {{letter dated|date=September 13, 2022|text=letter dated September 13, 2022}} (NRC 2022d). The NRC did not received comments from the Tribes or SHPO regarding the proposed undertaking, which concl udes the NRCs responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA. See section 3.8 for additional details regarding NRCs co nsultation under Section 106.
 
1.5.3 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation
 
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and through its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402, Interagency CooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Subpart B, Consultation Procedures), a Federal agency must de termine whether (1) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats ar e known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and, if so, whether (2) the proposed Federal ac tion may affect listed species or critical habitats before it can authorize or implement a propos ed activity. If the proposed action may affect listed species or critical habitats, the Federal age ncy is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service, or both.
 
Federal agencies may fulfill their obligations to consult with the FWS under ESA Section7 in conjunction with the interagency cooperation procedures require d by other statutes, including NEPA (50 CFR 402.06(a)). In such cases, the Federal agency shou ld include the results of the ESA Section 7 consultation in the NEPA document (50CFR402.06( b)). The NRC considers this EA and associated correspondence with the FWS to fulfill its ob ligations under ESA Section 7.
 
The NRC initiated informal Section 7 consultation with FWS by l etter dated August 18, 2023 (NRC 2023), providing its effects determinations for six threat ened or endangered species. The FWS concurred with the NRC staffs findings on September 28, 20 23 (FWS 2023a).
 
Additional details regarding impacts to proposed or listed spec ies are included in Section 3.7.3.
 
5 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
 
2.1 Proposed Action
 
The proposed action is to amend NFS SNM License, SNM-124, to a uthorize construction and operation of the Uranium Purification and Conversion Services ( U-Metal Project) at the NFS facility pursuant to a contract with the DOE's NNSA. Under the proposed action, NFS would construct a new, approximately 278.7 square meters (m 2) [3,000 square feet (ft2)] Utility Support Building (Building 389) and revise activities in the HEU Metal Processing Area Building (Building 301) to accommodate the new U-Metal Project (NFS 2022). The new building would be located within the protected area of the site west of the main processi ng building. These facilities would contain the U-metal conversion process activities and utilities subsystems.
 
2.1.1 Site Location and Layout
 
The NFS site is situated on approximately 33.2 hectare (ha) [82 acres (ac)] of land in the Town of Erwin, in Unicoi County in northeast Tennessee (see Figure 2 -1). The property is located at latitude 36°0747N and longitude 82°2557W, approximately 499 to 512 meter (m) [1,640 to 1,680 feet (ft)] above sea level. The facility is bounded by Ca rolina Avenue on the southeastern side, the Chessie Seaboard Multiplier (CSX) Railroad line on th e northwest side, and Martin Creek on the northeastern side of the facility location.
 
Four bodies of surface water are adjacent to, or in the immedia te vicinity of, the plant. The site contains a natural spring (Banner Spring), which originates on the NFS property. Banner Spring forms Banner Spring Branch, which is routed through an undergro und pipe across the site and empties into Martin Creek at the site boundary. Martin Creek em pties into North Indian Creek approximately 1,067 m (3,500 ft) north of the NFS facility, and North Indian Creek empties into the Nolichucky River approximately one mile from the site bound ary.
 
The NFS facility is located in a southwest-to-northeast oriente d valley, bounded on both sides by the Blue Ridge Mountains of the Appalachian Mountain chain. The surrounding mountains have a maximum elevation of approximately 756 m (2,480 ft) abov e sea level. The topography of the NFS property is relatively level; site elevations range from approximately 500 to 512 m (1,640 to 1,680 ft) above sea level.
 
6 Figure 2-1. Site Location and Surrounding Area (Source: NRC 201 1)
 
2.1.1.1 Facility Operation
 
The current operations performed at the facility are performed under SNM license SNM-124.
These activities include (1) product processing activities incl uding uranium hexafluoride (UF 6) conversion, fuel manufacturing, u ranium recovery and enrichment blending; (2) laboratory operations including wet chemical and physical testing; (3) gen eral services ancillary to the primary operation; (4) research and development work performed on source and SNM compounds and mixtures; (5) radioactive waste management of was te streams including decontamination packaging and storage, shipment of radioactive wastes, volume reduction and, solidification; and (6) ongoing decommissioning activities (NFS 2021b).
 
The proposed action of constructing and operating the U-Metal P roject would add an additional production process and a new utility support building (Building 389) within the site boundary.
Construction of Building 389 would occur within a previously di sturbed area that is currently paved and surrounded by several other existing buildings. The n ew building would be approximately 278.7 m2 (3,000 ft2) and house utility operations to support the operations in the existing Building 301 (NFS 2022). The overall building height w ould be similar to the existing facility buildings; standing approximately 30 ft [9 m] tall at its highest point.
 
7 The building's interior rooms would have masonry walls, steel d oors, and a concrete roof deck, except for the restroom facilities and office area where gypsum board with steel stud construction would be used. Building 389 would contain support equipment for main process operations such as a scrubber, solution storage tanks (e.g., wa stewater, bulk chemical supply),
electrical room, supply room, and office areas. Solution storag e is contained within a diked containment area. Building 389 would be adjacent to the west si de of the current processing area in the southwest corner of the plant site where the former Versatile Automated Gamma Assay System was used for radioactive waste analysis (NFS 2022).
 
The U-Metal Project process would take place on the main floor of the processing area located in Building 301 (already onsite) and would comprise several dif ferent operating areas. The process would involve performing uranium purification and conve rsion to uranium metal.
Electrical power for U-Metal Project operations (primary and au xiliary systems) would be provided directly from an existing nearby substation (NFS 2021b ).
 
2.1.2 Waste Generation and Management
 
The processes associated with the activities at the NFS facilit y would continue to generate gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes. The proposed action is expec ted to add new material (contributing to about a 1 percent increase in the total waste at the facility) but would not create new waste streams. This section describes the nature of the was tes generated and NFS waste management practices.
 
2.1.2.1 Radioactive Waste and Nonradioactive Waste
 
The following radioactive waste management activities occur at the NFS site:
* treatment of basic and acidic waste streams at the National Po llutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted wastewater treatment facility (WWTF);
* decontamination of liquid waste streams and process equipment;
* decontamination of liquid waste streams and process equipment;
* packaging and storage of liquid and solid wastes contaminated with or containing nonrecoverable uranium;
* packaging and storage of liquid and solid wastes contaminated with or containing nonrecoverable uranium;
* shipment of radioactive wastes to licensed facilities or to licensed burial sites for disposal;
* shipment of radioactive wastes to licensed facilities or to li censed burial sites for disposal;
* volume reduction by compaction, distillation, reuse, and/or evaporation of waste materials containing enriched uranium; and,
* volume reduction by compaction, distillation, reuse, and/or ev aporation of waste materials containing enriched uranium; and,
* solidification of radioactive waste.
* solidification of radioactive waste.
The current facility also generates hazardous and nonhazardous wastes that are nonradioactive.
The current facility also generates hazardous and nonhazardous wastes that are nonradioactive.
* Nonradioactive Hazardous Waste: NFS generates hazardous waste that is not radiologically contaminated. In accordance with applicable regulations, NFS temporarily stores such waste onsite and then ships it to an authorized offsite treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
* Nonradioactive Hazardous Waste: NFS generates hazardous waste that is not radiologically contaminated. In accordance with applicable regulations, NFS te mporarily stores such waste onsite and then ships it to an authorized offsite treatme nt, storage, or disposal facility.
* Nonradioactive/Nonhazardous Waste: NFS generates nonradioactive/nonhazardous waste (such as waste oil, paper, and cafeteria waste) in the normal course of operations. All waste materials are shipped off-site for treatment, recycling, and/or disposal at appropriate facilities.
* Nonradioactive/Nonhazardous Waste: NFS generates nonradioactiv e/nonhazardous waste (such as waste oil, paper, and cafeteria waste) in the normal c ourse of operations. All waste materials are shipped off-site for treatment, recycling, and/or disposal at appropriate facilities.
8
 
8 2.1.2.2 Mixed Solid Waste


2.1.2.2      Mixed Solid Waste NFS manages "mixed" waste (hazardous waste that is radioactively contaminated) in accordance with applicable Federal and State hazardous waste management regulations. NFS has a Hazardous Waste Management Facility permit (table 1-1), issued by the TDEC Division of Solid Waste Management, which allows storage of specific kinds of mixed waste in containers.
NFS manages "mixed" waste (hazardous waste that is radioactivel y contaminated) in accordance with applicable Federal and State hazardous waste ma nagement regulations. NFS has a Hazardous Waste Management Facility permit (table 1-1), i ssued by the TDEC Division of Solid Waste Management, which allow s storage of specific kinds of mixed waste in containers.
Most of the mixed waste stored on-site is mercury-contaminated waste generated by NFS laboratory operations (NFS 2021b).
Most of the mixed waste stored on-site is mercury-contaminated waste generated by NFS laboratory operations (NFS 2021b).
2.1.2.3     Liquid Effluent The liquid effluent for the current facility configuration includes the following:
 
* Wastewater - The NFS Erwin Facility produces liquid effluents from several different activities: fuel production, HEU recovery, UF6 conversion, enrichment blending, laboratory operations, laundry activities, and facility decommissioning activities. This wastewater is batch treated, sampled, and then discharged from the onsite WWTF if levels are below those listed in 10 CFR Part 20.1301 and in compliance with the facility's NPDES permit (table 1-1). Treatment typically involves adjustment of pH using sodium hydroxide/sulfuric acid and precipitation and removal of fluoride ions and uranium through addition of lime slurrycalcium hydroxide. Dissolved ammonia is removed, as needed, using air stripping, and the pH is re-adjusted to discharge levels. Discharges are made directly to the Nolichucky River. No modifications to the existing permits would be required for the proposed U-Metal Project.
2.1.2.3 Liquid Effluent
 
The liquid effluent for the current facility configuration incl udes the following:
* Wastewater - The NFS Erwin Facility produces liquid effluents from several different activities: fuel production, HEU recovery, UF 6 conversion, enrichment blending, laboratory operations, laundry activities, and facility decommissioning ac tivities. This wastewater is batch treated, sampled, and then discharged from the onsite WWT F if levels are below those listed in 10 CFR Part 20.1301 and in compliance with the facility's NPDES permit (table 1-1). Treatment typically involves adjustment of pH usin g sodium hydroxide/sulfuric acid and precipitation and removal of fluoride ions and uranium through addition of lime slurrycalcium hydroxide. Disso lved ammonia is removed, as needed, using air stripping, and the pH is re-adjusted to discharge levels. Discharges are m ade directly to the Nolichucky River. No modifications to the existing permits woul d be required for the proposed U-Metal Project.
* Sanitary Wastes - Sanitary waste from the facility consists of bathrooms and showers. NFS discharges under an Erwin Publicly Owned Treatment Works permit (table 1-1).
* Sanitary Wastes - Sanitary waste from the facility consists of bathrooms and showers. NFS discharges under an Erwin Publicly Owned Treatment Works permit (table 1-1).
* Stormwater Runoff - The primary pathway for runoff is from south to north across the NFS site and into Banner Spring Branch and Martin Creek. Banner Spring Branch flows into Martin Creek, which subsequently flows into North Indian Creek and then into the Nolichucky River. Drainage exits the NFS protected area through two sluice gate valves into Martin Creek. The gates are in place to allow the flow to be stopped in the event of a spill of hazardous material (NFS 2021b).
* Stormwater Runoff - The primary pathway for runoff is from sou th to north across the NFS site and into Banner Spring Branch and Martin Creek. Banner Spr ing Branch flows into Martin Creek, which subsequently flows into North Indian Creek and then into the Nolichucky River. Drainage exits the NFS protected area through two sluice gate valves into Martin Creek. The gates are in place to allow the flow to be st opped in the event of a spill of hazardous material (NFS 2021b).
2.1.2.4     Gaseous Effluent (Effluents to Air)
 
Various control devices are used to remove radioactive particulates and chemicals from gaseous effluents. A new air emission unit equipped with an air control device system would be installed to support the U-metal process.
2.1.2.4 Gaseous Effluent (Effluents to Air)
 
Various control devices are used to remove radioactive particul ates and chemicals from gaseous effluents. A new air emission unit equipped with an air control device sys tem would be installed to support the U-metal process.
 
The primary systems are as follows:
The primary systems are as follows:
* Main Process Cleaning System - The facility's main process ventilation system combines air effluents from the primary HEU processing areas. This combined effluent is cleaned by venturi and demisting scrubbers and high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration.
* Main Process Cleaning System - The facility's main process ven tilation system combines air effluents from the primary HEU processing areas. This combined effluent is cleaned by venturi and demisting scrubbers and high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration.
* 30 percent American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) prefilters - These prefilters are used on heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) recirculation room air handlers in a large portion of the facility at the NFS site.
* 30 percent American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) prefilters - These prefilters are used on heating, ven tilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) recirculation room air handlers in a large portion of th e facility at the NFS site.
* Packed-bed or Sieve Tray Scrubbers - These scrubbers are used in several buildings.
* Packed-bed or Sieve Tray Scrubbers - These scrubbers are used in several buildings.
Sodium hydroxide, water, and sulfuric acid are used as scrubbing solutions.
Sodium hydroxide, water, and sulfuric acid are used as scrubbin g solutions.
 
9
9
* HEPA filters - These filters are used throughout the facility at the NFS site for high-efficiency (99+ percent) removal of airborne particulates. In some instances, multiple HEPA filters are used in series to achieve higher removal efficiencies (NFS 2021b).
* HEPA filters - These filters are used throughout the facility at the NFS site for high-efficiency (99+ percent) removal of airborne particulates. In some instanc es, multiple HEPA filters are used in series to achieve higher removal efficiencies (NFS 2021 b).
NFS determined the combined total operations (including the U-Metal Project) would result in less than 4.5 metric tons (5 tons) per year of each chemical air contaminant and each regulated air pollutant that is not a hazardous air pollutant, and less than 453.6 kilograms (1,000 pounds) per year of each hazardous air pollutant (NFS 2022). Gaseous emissions are listed in Table 2-1.
 
NFS has requested a permit exemption for insignificant emissions from TDEC under the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations for the U-Metal process.
NFS determined the combined total operations (including the U-M etal Project) would result in less than 4.5 metric tons (5 tons) per year of each chemical ai r contaminant and each regulated air pollutant that is not a hazardous air pollutant, and less t han 453.6 kilograms (1,000 pounds) per year of each hazardous air pollutant (NFS 2022). Gaseous em issions are listed in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Gaseous Emissions for the Proposed U-Metal Process U-Metal Project Emission           (T/yr)
NFS has requested a permit exemption for insignificant emission s from TDEC under the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations for the U-Metal pro cess.
Particulate         0.004 Carbon monoxide     1.7 NOx                 1.23 Nitric Acid         0.17 Ammonia             2.29 Hydrogen fluoride   0.24 Source: NFS 2022 2.1.3       Monitoring Program NFS conducts two environmental radiological monitoring programs to address offsite impacts of its site operations. These programs include sampling and analysis of effluents at and prior to discharge as well as sampling and analysis of various environmental media at offsite locations (NFS 2021b).
 
The environmental monitoring programs would remain unchanged because no new radiological or chemical constituents would occur with the addition of the U-Metal Project. The NFS Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would be revised to include the new building (Building 389).
Table 2-1. Gaseous Emissions for the Proposed U-Metal Process
2.1.3.1       Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program NFS releases both gaseous and liquid effluents to the environment at its facility. NFS has effluent control systems to reduce the levels and concentrations of radiological and nonradiological constituents in those effluents. These control systems include scrubbers and air filtration filters, pre-discharge treatment of liquid effluents, and action levels set by NFS to meet the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) requirements and the annual public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 (NFS 2009).
 
NFS also regularly samples and analyzes its gaseous and liquid effluents. NFS continuously samples all process stacks and vents that have the potential to release airborne radioactivity at concentrations greater than or equal to 10 percent of the values in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 1. NFS analyzes the samples for gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity (NRC 2011).
U-Metal Project Emission (T/yr)
10
Particulate 0.004 Carbon monoxide 1.7 NOx 1.23 Nitric Acid 0.17 Ammonia 2.29 Hydrogen fluoride 0.24 Source: NFS 2022
 
2.1.3 Monitoring Program
 
NFS conducts two environmental radiological monitoring programs to address offsite impacts of its site operations. These programs include sampling and analys is of effluents at and prior to discharge as well as sampling and analysis of various environme ntal media at offsite locations (NFS 2021b).
 
The environmental monitoring programs would remain unchanged be cause no new radiological or chemical constituents would occur with the addition of the U -Metal Project. The NFS Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would be revised to include the new building (Building 389).
 
2.1.3.1 Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program
 
NFS releases both gaseous and liquid effluents to the environme nt at its facility. NFS has effluent control systems to reduce the levels and concentration s of radiological and nonradiological constituents in those effluents. These control systems include scrubbers and air filtration filters, pre-discharge treatment of liquid effluents, and action levels set by NFS to meet the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) requirements and th e annual public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 (NFS 2009).
 
NFS also regularly samples and analyzes its gaseous and liquid effluents. NFS continuously samples all process stacks and vents that have the potential to release airborne radioactivity at concentrations greater than or equal to 10 percent of the value s in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 1. NFS analyzes the samples for gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity (NRC 2011).
 
10 2.1.3.2 Environmental Radiological Surveillance Program
 
NFS also samples ambient air, surface water, soil, sediment, ve getation, and groundwater as part of its environmental surveillance program. The purpose of the program is to provide (1) additional validation for the environmental monitoring program; (2) early detection of trends in environmental data; and (3) additional data in the event of an offsite release of radioactive material (NFS 2009).
 
2.1.4 Decommissioning
 
NFS would be required under 10 CFR 70.38 to submit a detailed s ite decommissioning plan, and facility decommissioning would begin upon NRC approval of that plan. The NRCs review would address both the public health and safety and the environ mental aspects of the proposed decommissioning plan.
 
NFS has been actively engaged in decommissioning portions of th e NFS Erwin Facility since the mid-1980s. Several processing buildings and former waste di sposal and storage areas have been either fully or partially decommissioned. The current focu s is on legacy building decommissioning (NFS 2021b).
 
Decommissioning activities for the proposed action would occur sometime after completion of the proposed action. The U-Metal Project would continue as long as the service is contracted (to be determined). Upon completion of U-metal activities, the faci lity would follow a safe shutdown approach, be disconnected from existing site facilities, and th e equipment would be left in place until another use was determined or the site was decommissioned.
 
During decommissioning, NFS would need to follow the general pr ocess identified for a site decommissioning, as presented in V olume 1 (Revision 2) of NUREG-1757, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees (NRC 2006).
This process includes the following: (1) ceasing operations at the site; (2) determining and confirming the locations and concentrations of any radiological contamination; (3) developing the schedules, decommissioning procedures, and final survey met hods to be used to demonstrate compliance with NRC criteria; (4) conducting the de contamination and decommissioning activities to achieve the applicable decommissi oning standards; and (5) disposing of the decommissioning wastes (NRC 2006). After NRC a pproval of the plan, NFS would begin site decommissioning, and the NRC would conduct ons ite inspections to ensure that all activities are conducted in accordance with the plan a nd conduct final confirmatory surveys prior to approving completion of decommissioning to mee t the applicable standards (NFS 2009).
 
2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
 
Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not amend the li cense to include construction and operation of the new U-Metal project at the NFS site. The N NSA would not have an option for conversion services to replace the legacy uranium processin g equipment temporarily unless a new electrorefining technology to purify HEU metal becomes av ailable.
 
11 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
 
3.1 Land Use
 
3.1.1 Affected Environment
 
The NFS site uses about 78.1 percent of the 33 ha (82 ac ) site area for licensed activities, which include process buildings, warehouses, offices, parking l ots, and waste management areas (NFS 2021b). The NFS site also consists of open fields an d small wooded areas. The land surrounding the site consists of residential and public us e, as well as agriculture. The Riverview Industrial Park is located west of the NFS site adjac ent to the CSX Railroad.
Interstate 23 runs west of the industrial park and is adjacent to the Nolichucky River. To the north of the NFS site is Martin Creek and a wooded area that se parates the site from residential properties. The Erwin State Trout Hatchery is located approxima tely 182 m (600 ft) east of the facility.
 
Figure 3-1. Location of Nuclear Fuel Services Site Near Erwin, TN (Source: NRC 2011)
 
3.1.2 Impacts
 
The proposed U-Metal Project would be located within a new buil ding to be constructed within the existing NFS site. As stated above, the affected area would be the addition of Building 389, which would be approximately 278.7 m 2 (3,000 ft2). The proposed project would not include any


2.1.3.2      Environmental Radiological Surveillance Program NFS also samples ambient air, surface water, soil, sediment, vegetation, and groundwater as part of its environmental surveillance program. The purpose of the program is to provide (1) additional validation for the environmental monitoring program; (2) early detection of trends in environmental data; and (3) additional data in the event of an offsite release of radioactive material (NFS 2009).
12 previously undisturbed land. No new construction entrances woul d be created by the project; thus, vehicles would enter through existing entrances (NFS 2022 ).
2.1.4      Decommissioning NFS would be required under 10 CFR 70.38 to submit a detailed site decommissioning plan, and facility decommissioning would begin upon NRC approval of that plan. The NRCs review would address both the public health and safety and the environmental aspects of the proposed decommissioning plan.
NFS has been actively engaged in decommissioning portions of the NFS Erwin Facility since the mid-1980s. Several processing buildings and former waste disposal and storage areas have been either fully or partially decommissioned. The current focus is on legacy building decommissioning (NFS 2021b).
Decommissioning activities for the proposed action would occur sometime after completion of the proposed action. The U-Metal Project would continue as long as the service is contracted (to be determined). Upon completion of U-metal activities, the facility would follow a safe shutdown approach, be disconnected from existing site facilities, and the equipment would be left in place until another use was determined or the site was decommissioned.
During decommissioning, NFS would need to follow the general process identified for a site decommissioning, as presented in Volume 1 (Revision 2) of NUREG-1757, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees (NRC 2006).
This process includes the following: (1) ceasing operations at the site; (2) determining and confirming the locations and concentrations of any radiological contamination; (3) developing the schedules, decommissioning procedures, and final survey methods to be used to demonstrate compliance with NRC criteria; (4) conducting the decontamination and decommissioning activities to achieve the applicable decommissioning standards; and (5) disposing of the decommissioning wastes (NRC 2006). After NRC approval of the plan, NFS would begin site decommissioning, and the NRC would conduct onsite inspections to ensure that all activities are conducted in accordance with the plan and conduct final confirmatory surveys prior to approving completion of decommissioning to meet the applicable standards (NFS 2009).
2.2    Alternatives to the Proposed Action Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not amend the license to include construction and operation of the new U-Metal project at the NFS site. The NNSA would not have an option for conversion services to replace the legacy uranium processing equipment temporarily unless a new electrorefining technology to purify HEU metal becomes available.
11


3.0    AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION 3.1      Land Use 3.1.1      Affected Environment The NFS site uses about 78.1 percent of the 33 ha (82 ac ) site area for licensed activities, which include process buildings, warehouses, offices, parking lots, and waste management areas (NFS 2021b). The NFS site also consists of open fields and small wooded areas. The land surrounding the site consists of residential and public use, as well as agriculture. The Riverview Industrial Park is located west of the NFS site adjacent to the CSX Railroad.
The impacts due to construction and operation of the U-Metal Pr oject would not change land use within the facility or the surrounding areas. The U-Metal P roject building would be constructed and operated within the facilitys protected area o n land that was previously disturbed. Offsite land use would not be affected by the constr uction and operation of the U-Metal Project. Therefore, activities associated with constructi on and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect land use.
Interstate 23 runs west of the industrial park and is adjacent to the Nolichucky River. To the north of the NFS site is Martin Creek and a wooded area that separates the site from residential properties. The Erwin State Trout Hatchery is located approximately 182 m (600 ft) east of the facility.
Figure 3-1. Location of Nuclear Fuel Services Site Near Erwin, TN (Source: NRC 2011) 3.1.2      Impacts The proposed U-Metal Project would be located within a new building to be constructed within the existing NFS site. As stated above, the affected area would be the addition of Building 389, which would be approximately 278.7 m2 (3,000 ft2). The proposed project would not include any 12


previously undisturbed land. No new construction entrances would be created by the project; thus, vehicles would enter through existing entrances (NFS 2022).
3.2 Visual and Scenic Resources
The impacts due to construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not change land use within the facility or the surrounding areas. The U-Metal Project building would be constructed and operated within the facilitys protected area on land that was previously disturbed. Offsite land use would not be affected by the construction and operation of the U-Metal Project. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect land use.
3.2   Visual and Scenic Resources 3.2.1    Affected Environment The NFS site is situated in a valley locally known as the Valley Beautiful, in Unicoi County between the Bald Mountains to the southwest and the Unaka Range to the east, both of which are part of the Appalachian Mountains (NRC 2011). Martin Creek runs along the northern site boundary, and Banner Spring Branch is located in the central portion of the site, although it has been rerouted and enclosed within an underground pipe on the NFS site. Martin Creek is vegetated with grass, shrubs, and trees. The area surrounding the NFS facility consists of a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural activities.
The major landscape features located in the immediate vicinity of the NFS site are the Nolichucky River and the forested hillsides that surround the valley in which the NFS site is located. The NFS site is approximately 0.3 kilometer (km) [0.2 mile (mi)] from the river. The fuel fabrication plant elevation is about 9 m (30 ft) above the nearest point on the Nolichucky River (NRC 2011) and, therefore, the NFS facility may be partially seen from the river.
3.2.2    Impacts The aesthetic and scenic quality of the NFS site is currently low and does not provide a high-quality aesthetic landscape, because it is industrial in nature. No scenic areas are located within the immediate area of the NFS site, although scenic sections of the Nolichucky River and the Appalachian Trail are located within 3.3 km (2 mi) (NRC 2011). Since 2011, no new scenic designated areas have been identified (NFS 2022).
The U-Metal Project would reconfigure a current industrial building and add a new Utility Support Building (Building 389), which would be fully contained within the protected area. The newly added building would be within the current footprint of the NFS site and would stand 30 ft (9 m) high (NFS 2022). The buildings would be of similar height as the current buildings and, therefore, would not significantly alter the current viewscape.
A new emissions stack would replace an existing emissions stack and be similar in appearance but would be 3 m (10 ft) higher than the existing stack. A crane [18 m (60 ft) crawler] would be used to replace HVAC units on the roof of Building 301 and to assist in the construction of Building 389. The crane would be used for a short period of time (approximately 60 working days) and would then be removed to allow for continued construction of Building 389. The visual and scenic resources would not be affected by any actions or physical attributes of the new building for the U-Metal Project, during either construction or operation. Minimal impacts to visual and scenic resources are expected from the U-Metal, the viewshed of the site would remain similar to the current conditions given that its a previously developed site and the 13


building would be of similar size as the existing buildings. The crane may be visible for short periods of time, but it would be temporary and located within an industrial area. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect the visual or scenic resource.
3.2.1 Affected Environment
3.3      Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality 3.3.1      Affected Environment The climate in Unicoi County, Tennessee, consists of warm summers and mild winters, with the annual temperature averaging is 13°C (55.4°F). Temperatures average 1.6°C (35°F) in January and 23°C (74.0°F) in January. The average annual precipitation in the Erwin area is 119 centimeters (cm) [47.0 inches (in)] and the average annual snowfall is 24 cm (9.3 in) (NOAA 2022). For more information regarding the general meteorology and climatology at the site refer to NRC, 2011.
Unicoi County is designated as being in attainment for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as specified in 40 CFR 81. Surrounding counties (Washington and Carter) are also in attainment for NAAQS, with the exception of Sullivan County, which is in nonattainment status for one pollutant. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is a designated Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class 1 area and is located approximately 75 km (47 mi) southwest of the NFS site. No PSD permits have been required for any pollutant sources at the facility (NFS 2021b).
3.3.2      Impacts As part of the current operations, NFS monitors the air quality both onsite and offsite at many locations around the NFS site. Data provided in the license application show the results of that monitoring for various contaminant levels, in particular that the effluent concentrations at the facility are generally lower than the regulatory limit. Many of the NFS emissions are further reduced using effluent control equipment. NFS must also comply with the provisions in its air permits as issued by the State of Tennessee (see Table 1-1).
The air quality impacts due to the additional construction and operational activities (including minimal traffic, see section 3.11) on the site would result in minor additions to the current air effluents, as discussed in section 2.1.3, and are not expected to exceed safety and regulatory requirements. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect air quality at or near the site.
3.4      Noise 3.4.1      Affected Environment Noise is defined as any loud, discordant, or disagreeable sound or sounds. Certain activities inherently produce sound levels or sound characteristics that have the potential to create noise.
The sound generated by existing facilities may become noise due to land uses surrounding the facility. When lands adjoining an existing or proposed facility contain residential, commercial, institutional, or recreational uses near the facility, noise is likely to be a matter of concern to residents or users of adjacent lands. Sounds that could occur during facility operations, include:
14


(1) fixed equipment or process operations, (2) mobile equipment or process operations, and (3) transport movements of products, raw material, or waste.
The NFS site is situated in a valley locally known as the Vall ey Beautiful, in Unicoi County between the Bald Mountains to the southwest and the Unaka Range to the east, both of which are part of the Appalachian Mountains (NRC 2011). Martin Creek runs along the northern site boundary, and Banner Spring Branch is located in the central po rtion of the site, although it has been rerouted and enclosed within an underground pipe on the NF S site. Martin Creek is vegetated with grass, shrubs, and trees. The area surrounding t he NFS facility consists of a mix of residential, commercial, indus trial, and agricultural activities.
Overall noise in the area is generated from multiple sources, including trains, trucks, and cars.
The NFS site is located in an industrial area that is shared with companies that contribute to the overall noise in the affected area. The noise environment near the NFS site is typical of a rural location. Major noise emission sources within the NFS facility include various alarm systems, fixed plant equipment (e.g., pumps, blowers), and heavy equipment (e.g., tractor trailers, front-end loaders, backhoes). The primary source of noise at the NFS facility boundary is from traffic, and other sources that are occasionally audible above background noise.
Although the Code of Ordinances for the Town of Erwin recognizes offenses against the peace and quiet, Erwin does not have a specific environmental noise standard that is applicable to the NFS site (NFS 2021b). Further, the Code of Ordinances does not reference a decibel level that defines excessive. NFS stated that plant-wide alarms needed for employee notification would provide the greatest potential for offsite noise exposure to nearby residents, with the take-cover alarm being the loudest. Sound level surveys at various locations on the outside perimeter of the NFS site during alarm testing did not indicate any levels above Occupational Safety and Health Administration limits (NRC 2011). NFS further stated it has not received complaints from the Town of Erwin regarding excessive noise (NFS 2022).
3.4.2      Impacts The expected environmental noise generation would be attributed to use of earth-moving equipment and crane usage (e.g., crane, backhoe, grader, front loader, trencher, boom truck, lull, concrete trucks, fork trucks, compactor). These types of activities are currently performed at the NFS site on an as-needed basis. The expected use of construction equipment would be intermittent and expected to last less than 6 months.
Construction activities would occur within the protected area that is surrounded by a sand wall, which would provide significant noise mitigation for offsite locations. Additionally, construction activities would typically occur during daylight hours and on weekdays to comply with the Town of Erwin construction time restriction to accommodate nearby residences. Upon completion of construction, noise levels are anticipated to return to typical site ambient levels (65 decibels within the protected area) (NFS 2022).
The activities associated with construction of the U-Metal Project would be intermittent and temporary. The noise associated with operation of the U-metal process would be similar to those of current operations and would not add additional decibels due to the location of the existing facility within a highly industrialized area. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect the noise levels in the vicinity of the NFS site.
3.5    Geologic Resource (Geology and Soils) 3.5.1      Affected Environment The NFS site lies in the Valley and Ridge physiographic province of northeastern Tennessee.
The topography consists of a series of alternating valleys and ridges that have a northeast-southwest trend, with the NFS site located in a valley. The Shady, Knox, Honaker, and Rome Formations are present in the valley. The NFS site is directly underlain by the Rome Formation 15


which is a non-karstic formation. Karst topography is present in the southeasterly Shady Formation, which occurs upgradient of the NFS site. For more information on the geology of the site please refer to NRC 2011.
The major landscape features located in the immediate vicinity of the NFS site are the Nolichucky River and the forested hillsides that surround the v alley in which the NFS site is located. The NFS site is approximately 0.3 kilometer (km) [0.2 mile (mi)] from the river. The fuel fabrication plant elevation is about 9 m (30 ft) above the near est point on the Nolichucky River (NRC 2011) and, therefore, the NFS facility may be partially se en from the river.
The principal mineral resources of Unicoi County are sand and gravel used by the construction industry, metallurgical-grade manganese, and iron ore. Extraction of sand and gravel from the bed and flood plain of the Nolichucky River and North Indian Creek began in the 1940s and was generally continuous until the mid-1970s when large-scale operations ceased. Manganese deposits are contained mostly in the clay-rich residual soils of the Shady Dolomite. Manganese is also found in residual soils of the Honaker Dolomite and lower portions of the Rome Formation (NFS 2021b).
3.5.2      Impacts The area where the approximately 278.7 m2 (3,000 ft2) new utility support building (Building 389) would be constructed is a currently a paved surface. The building would require a foundation; excavation would be to an approximate maximum depth of 2.4 m (8 ft) below grade.
Utility lines (e.g., city water, city sewer, and fire main) would be at a depth of 0.3 m (3 ft), and the new stack would require a foundation with a maximum depth of 1.2 m(4 ft). Any excavated soil would be retained and stored. Excavated areas would be backfilled until foundation work is completed. After completion of construction activities, all surfaces in and around Building 389 and Building 301 would be returned to a paved state. No subsurface systems, other than utility connections, (e.g., supply or retention tanks) would be installed (NFS 2022).
Other than some minimal site regrading, the activities associated with construction of the U-Metal Project facility would not occur below grade. No proposed processes would affect the subsurface during operational activities. Based on the limited amount of area that would be disturbed during construction and given that no additional area that would be disturbed during operations, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect the geologic resource in the vicinity of the site.
3.6      Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater) 3.6.1      Affected Environment - Surface Water Banner Spring Branch, North Indian Creek, Martin Creek, and the Nolichucky River are within the immediate proximity of the NFS site. Banner Spring Branch is located on the NFS site, North Indian Creek and Martin creek occur to the north of the NFS site and the Nolichucky River lies to the west of the site. Banner Spring Branch was enclosed in an underground pipe to prevent any potential contamination during decommissioning activities. Banner Spring Branch is flows eastward and empties into Martin Creek at the NFS site boundary. Martin Creek empties into North Indian Creek, and North Indian Creek empties into the Nolichucky River approximately 1,218 m (4,000 ft) downstream of the NFS site.
Banner Spring Branch, Martin Creek, and the Nolichucky River uses include fish and aquatic life, livestock watering and wildlife, irrigation, and recreation. The Nolichucky River is also classified for industrial use and as a domestic water supply (TDEC 2019). Recreational use of the Nolichucky River includes fishing (bass, walleye, and catfish), boating (canoeing/rafting),
swimming, and picnicking. Both the Erwin Publicly Owned Treatment Works (EPOTW) and NFS plant discharge into the same reach of the Nolichucky River.
16


The Town of Jonesborough, located about 13 km (8 mi) downstream of the NFS outfall point, uses the Nolichucky River as a municipal water supply (NRC 2011). The closest known crop irrigation use of river water occurs more than 16 km (10 mi) downstream of the NFS discharge.
3.2.2 Impacts
NFS is permitted under its NPDES permit to discharge waste streams at the WWTF (i.e.,
 
process related discharges) into the Nolichucky River and stormwater discharge into the Banner Spring and Martin Creek. Sanitary wastewater is discharged at EPOTW in accordance with Industrial Pretreatment permit issued by Erwin Utilities. Table 3-1 below shows the average output volumes for each outfall (NFS 2021b).
The aesthetic and scenic quality of the NFS site is currently l ow and does not provide a high-quality aesthetic landscape, because it is industrial in nature. No scenic areas are located within the immediate area of the NFS site, although scenic sections of the Nolichucky River and the Appalachian Trail are located within 3.3 km (2 mi) (NRC 2011). Since 2011, no new scenic designated areas have been identified (NFS 2022).
Table 3-1. NFS Permitted Outfalls Outfall                     Average Output (L/yr)           Discharge Location Wastewater Treatment Facility     7,043,437                       Nolichucky River (TN0002038)
 
Stormwater                       n/a                             Banner Spring Branch & Martin Creek (TNR050873)
The U-Metal Project would reconfigure a current industrial buil ding and add a new Utility Support Building (Building 389), which would be fully contained within the protected area. The newly added building would be within the current footprint of t he NFS site and would stand 30 ft (9 m) high (NFS 2022). The buildings would be of similar height as the current buildings and, therefore, would not significantly alter the current viewscape.
Sanitary Sewer                   41,837,157                       Erwin EPOTW (013)
 
A new emissions stack would replace an existing emissions stack and be similar in appearance but would be 3 m (10 ft) higher than the existing stack. A cran e [18 m (60 ft) crawler] would be used to replace HVAC units on the roof of Building 301 and to a ssist in the construction of Building 389. The crane would be used for a short period of tim e (approximately 60 working days) and would then be removed to allow for continued construc tion of Building 389. The visual and scenic resources would not be affected by any actions or ph ysical attributes of the new building for the U-Metal Project, during either construction or operation. Minimal impacts to visual and scenic resources are expected from the U-Metal, the viewshed of the site would remain similar to the current conditions given that its a prev iously developed site and the
 
13 building would be of similar size as the existing buildings. Th e crane may be visible for short periods of time, but it would be temporary and located within a n industrial area. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect the visual or scenic resource.
 
3.3 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality
 
3.3.1 Affected Environment
 
The climate in Unicoi County, Tennessee, consists of warm summe rs and mild winters, with the annual temperature averaging is 13°C (55.4°F). Temperatures ave rage 1.6°C (35°F) in January and 23°C (74.0°F) in January. The average annual precipitation in the Erwin area is 119 centimeters (cm) [47.0 inches (in)] and the average annual snow fall is 24 cm (9.3 in) (NOAA 2022). For more information regarding the general meteorology a nd climatology at the site refer to NRC, 2011.
 
Unicoi County is designated as being in attainment for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as specified in 40 CFR 81. Surrounding counties (Washi ngton and Carter) are also in attainment for NAAQS, with the exception of Sullivan County, which is in nonattainment status for one pollutant. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is a designated Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class 1 area and is located app roximately 75 km (47 mi) southwest of the NFS site. No PSD permits have been required fo r any pollutant sources at the facility (NFS 2021b).
 
3.3.2 Impacts
 
As part of the current operations, NFS monitors the air quality both onsite and offsite at many locations around the NFS site. Data provided in the license app lication show the results of that monitoring for various contaminant levels, in particular that t he effluent concentrations at the facility are generally lower than the regulatory limit. Many of the NFS emissions are further reduced using effluent control equipment. NFS must also comply with the provisions in its air permits as issued by the State of Tennessee (see Table 1-1).
 
The air quality impacts due to the additional construction and operational activities (including minimal traffic, see section 3.11) on the site would result in minor additions to the current air effluents, as discussed in section 2.1.3, and are not expected to exceed safety and regulatory requirements. Therefore, activities associated with constructio n and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect air quality at or near t he site.
 
3.4 Noise
 
3.4.1 Affected Environment
 
Noise is defined as any loud, discordant, or disagreeable sound or sounds. Certain activities inherently produce sound levels or sound characteristics that h ave the potential to create noise.
The sound generated by existing facilities may become noise due to land uses surrounding the facility. When lands adjoining an existing or proposed facility contain residential, commercial, institutional, or recreational uses near the facility, noise is likely to be a matter of concern to residents or users of adjacent lands. Sounds that could occur d uring facility operations, include:
 
14 (1) fixed equipment or process operations, (2) mobile equipment or process operations, and (3) transport movements of products, raw material, or waste.
 
Overall noise in the area is generated from multiple sources, i ncluding trains, trucks, and cars.
The NFS site is located in an industrial area that is shared wi th companies that contribute to the overall noise in the affected area. The noise environment near the NFS site is typical of a rural location. Major noise emission sources within the NFS facility include various alarm systems, fixed plant equipment (e.g., pumps, blowers), and heavy equipme nt (e.g., tractor trailers, front-end loaders, backhoes). The primary source of noise at the NFS facility boundary is from traffic, and other sources that are occasionally audible above backgroun d noise.
 
Although the Code of Ordinances for the Town of Erwin recognize s offenses against the peace and quiet, Erwin does not have a specific environmental noise standard that is applicable to the NFS site (NFS 2021b). Further, the Code of Ordinances does not reference a decibel level that defines excessive. NFS stated that plant-wide alarms needed for employee notification would provide the greatest potential for offsite noise exposure to ne arby residents, with the take-cover alarm being the loudest. Sound level surveys at various locatio ns on the outside perimeter of the NFS site during alarm testing did not indicate any levels a bove Occupational Safety and Health Administration limits (NRC 2011). NFS further stated it has not received complaints from the Town of Erwin regarding excessive noise (NFS 2022).
 
3.4.2 Impacts
 
The expected environmental noise generation would be attributed to use of earth-moving equipment and crane usage (e.g., crane, backhoe, grader, front loader, trencher, boom truck, lull, concrete trucks, fork trucks, compactor). These types of activities are currently performed at the NFS site on an as-needed basis. The expected use of constru ction equipment would be intermittent and expected to last less than 6 months.
 
Construction activities would occur within the protected area t hat is surrounded by a sand wall, which would provide significant noise mitigation for offsite lo cations. Additionally, construction activities would typically occur during daylight hours and on w eekdays to comply with the Town of Erwin construction time restriction to accommodate nearby re sidences. Upon completion of construction, noise levels are anticipated to return to typical site ambient levels (65 decibels within the protected area) (NFS 2022).
 
The activities associated with construction of the U-Metal Proj ect would be intermittent and temporary. The noise associated with operation of the U-metal p rocess would be similar to those of current operations and would not add additional decibe ls due to the location of the existing facility within a highly industrialized area. Therefor e, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not sig nificantly affect the noise levels in the vicinity of the NFS site.
 
3.5 Geologic Resource (Geology and Soils)
 
3.5.1 Affected Environment
 
The NFS site lies in the Valley and Ridge physiographic provinc e of northeastern Tennessee.
The topography consists of a series of alternating valleys and ridges that have a northeast-southwest trend, with the NFS site located in a valley. The Sha dy, Knox, Honaker, and Rome Formations are present in the valley. The NFS site is directly underlain by the Rome Formation
 
15 which is a non-karstic formation. Karst topography is present i n the southeasterly Shady Formation, which occurs upgradient of the NFS site. For more in formation on the geology of the site please refer to NRC 2011.
 
The principal mineral resources of Unicoi County are sand and g ravel used by the construction industry, metallurgical-grade manganese, and iron ore. Extracti on of sand and gravel from the bed and flood plain of the Nolichucky River and North Indian Cr eek began in the 1940s and was generally continuous until the mid-1970s when large-scale operations ceas ed. Manganese deposits are contained mostly in the clay-rich residual soils o f the Shady Dolomite. Manganese is also found in residual soils of the Honaker Dolomite and low er portions of the Rome Formation (NFS 2021b).
 
3.5.2 Impacts
 
The area where the approximately 278.7 m2 (3,000 ft 2) new utility support building (Building 389) would be constructed is a currently a paved surface. The b uilding would require a foundation; excavation would be to an approximate maximum depth of 2.4 m (8 ft) below grade.
Utility lines (e.g., city water, city sewer, and fire main) wou ld be at a depth of 0.3 m (3 ft), and the new stack would require a foundation with a maximum depth o f 1.2 m(4 ft). Any excavated soil would be retained and stored. Excavated areas would be bac kfilled until foundation work is completed. After completion of construction activities, all sur faces in and around Building 389 and Building 301 would be returned to a paved state. No subsurf ace systems, other than utility connections, (e.g., supply or retention tanks) would be install ed (NFS 2022).
 
Other than some minimal site regrading, the activities associat ed with construction of the U-Metal Project facility would not occur below grade. No proposed processes would affect the subsurface during operational activities. Based on the limited amount of area that would be disturbed during construction and given that no additional area that would be disturbed during operations, activities associated with construction and operati on of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect the geologic resource in the vicinity of the site.
 
3.6 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)
 
3.6.1 Affected Environment - Surface Water
 
Banner Spring Branch, North Indian Creek, Martin Creek, and the Nolichucky River are within the immediate proximity of the NFS site. Banner Spring Branch i s located on the NFS site, North Indian Creek and Martin creek occur to the north of the NFS sit e and the Nolichucky River lies to the west of the site. Banner Spring Branch was enclosed in a n underground pipe to prevent any potential contamination during decommissioning activities. Banner Spring Branch is flows eastward and empties into Martin Creek at the NFS site boundary. Martin Creek empties into North Indian Creek, and North Indian Creek empties into the Nol ichucky River approximately 1,218 m (4,000 ft) downstream of the NFS site.
 
Banner Spring Branch, Martin Cree k, and the Nolichucky River us es include fish and aquatic life, livestock watering and wildlife, irrigation, and recreati on. The Nolichucky River is also classified for industrial use and as a domestic water supply (T DEC 2019). Recreational use of the Nolichucky River includes fishing (bass, walleye, and catfi sh), boating (canoeing/rafting),
swimming, and picnicking. Both the Erwin Publicly Owned Treatme nt Works (EPOTW) and NFS plant discharge into the same reach of the Nolichucky River.
 
16 The Town of Jonesborough, located about 13 km (8 mi) downstream of the NFS outfall point, uses the Nolichucky River as a municipal water supply (NRC 2011 ). The closest known crop irrigation use of river water occurs more than 16 km (10 mi) do wnstream of the NFS discharge.
 
NFS is permitted under its NPDES permit to discharge waste stre ams at the WWTF (i.e.,
process related discharges) into the Nolichucky River and storm water discharge into the Banner Spring and Martin Creek. Sanitary wastewater is discharged at E POTW in accordance with Industrial Pretreatment permit issued by Erwin Utilities. Table 3-1 below shows the average output volumes for each outfall (NFS 2021b).
 
Table 3-1. NFS Permitted Outfalls
 
Outfall Average Output (L/yr) Discharge Location Wastewater Treatment Facility 7,043,437 Nolichucky River (TN0002038)
Stormwater n/a Banner Spring Branch & Martin Creek (TNR050873)
Sanitary Sewer 41,837,157 Erwin EPOTW (013)
POTW = Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
POTW = Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
Source: NFS 2021b.
Source: NFS 2021b.
NFS has restored wetlands on and nearby the site, as required by its Aquatic Resource Alteration permit. NFS reports no wetlands currently present at the site (NFS 2022).
3.6.2      Affected Environment - Groundwater As the result of the regional influence of dolomitic host rock on the groundwater quality, the principal dissolved constituents of the groundwater are calcium, magnesium carbonate, and bicarbonate, regardless of the production zone geology.
Data on the ambient nonradiological water quality is summarized in table 7 (Ambient Non-Radiological Groundwater Quality) of the LAR (NFS 2021a). Ambient nonradiological characteristics for groundwater are assessed routinely by measurements of an upgradient well identified as NFS well 52.
Groundwater elevation measurements and modeling generally indicate that groundwater flows in a northwest direction toward the Nolichucky River, which is a major discharge zone for the groundwater flowing beneath the NFS site. There are no known household, public, or industrial users of groundwater downgradient of the site (NFS 2021b).
Most drinking water sources are provided by the local municipality; however, wells and springs are an important source of water supply for individuals and several communities in the area (Erwin and Chestoa quadrangles). A water-well survey has been performed for the facility consisting of a TDEC-TN Water Well Desktop Application (3.0-PUBLIC) records search for the surrounding area.
The well search consisted of determining water wells located within a 1-mile radius and 3-mile radius of the NFS facility. One public water system wellhead protection area and two residential wells were listed within 1 mile from the NFS Erwin Facility. The public groundwater well, approximately 1.2 km (0.75 mi) northeast (upgradient) of the NFS Erwin Facility, is owned by Erwin Utilities and is listed as the railroad well. Modeling done in 1996 indicated that groundwater withdrawn from the railroad well does not originate beneath or downgradient from 17


the NFS site. The two residential wells are located approximately 1.4 km (0.9mi) (Resident 1) and 1.6 km (1mi) (Resident 2) south of the NFS site. No other wells were identified from the database within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the NFS site. The 1.6 km (1mi) area of interest around the NFS site falls within the Jonesborough Water Department Source Water Protection Area.
NFS has restored wetlands on and nearby the site, as required b y its Aquatic Resource Alteration permit. NFS reports no wetlands currently present at the site (NFS 2022).
3.6.3     Impacts on Surface Water Under the proposed action, no significant changes in NFSs authorized operations are planned with respect to discharge of facility effluents into surface waters. Liquid effluents at the NFS site are treated at the WWTF before they are discharged in compliance with NRC regulatory limits and State-authorized NPDES permit levels into the Nolichucky River. Stormwater discharge at the NFS site is regulated under a NPDES stormwater permit.
 
Continued operation of NFS under the proposed action would require NFS to continue to meet NRC regulatory limits for discharge of liquid effluents and require NFS to continue to renew, as needed, its NPDES discharge and stormwater management permits from the State of Tennessee. NFS is in the process of renewing its NPDES permit for discharge of facility effluents through Outfall 001 (See figure 2-1).
3.6.2 Affected Environment - Groundwater
When comparing background radiological concentrations to downstream concentrations, the data demonstrates that radiological effluents are within regulatory limits found in 10 CFR 20.
 
Figure 5 of ER (NFS 2021b) shows the 2009-2020 total uranium concentrations in Martin Creek Upstream, Martin Creek Downstream, Nolichucky River Upstream, and Nolichucky River Downstream. In addition, effluents have historically been within the permit limits as noted in the NFS license renewal EA (NRC 2011) and continue to be as demonstrated in NFS biannual effluent monitoring reports.
As the result of the regional influence of dolomitic host rock on the groundwater quality, the principal dissolved constituents of the groundwater are calcium, magnesium carbonate, and bicarbonate, regardless of the production zone geology.
The NRC staff expects the effect of site discharges of stormwater and treated effluents on the quality of surface waters would have minimal impacts because such discharges would occur in accordance with NRC regulatory limits and NPDES permit limits. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect surface water in the vicinity of the site.
 
3.6.4     Impacts on Groundwater Impacts on groundwater from the construction and operation of the U-Metal Project are not expected. Historically, groundwater has been measured at depths greater than approximately 3 m (10 ft) below the ground surface. Construction of the facility would require a foundation; excavation is expected to reach 2.4 m (8 ft) below the surface. Additionally, utility lines that would connect to the current plant systems (e.g., city water, city sewer, fire main) and the new stack requiring a foundation would reach 0.9 m (3 ft) and 1.2 m (4 ft). Groundwater would continue to be monitored and documented.
Data on the ambient nonradiological water quality is summarized in table 7 (Ambient Non-Radiological Groundwater Quality) of the LAR (NFS 2021a). Ambie nt nonradiological characteristics for groundwater are assessed routinely by measu rements of an upgradient well identified as NFS well 52.
Past operations at the NFS site resulted in the presence of radionuclides and organic constituents in the groundwater beneath the facility. The primary sources of contamination were (1) three unlined surface impoundments (formerly Ponds 1, 2, and 3), (2) the "Pond 4" disposal area, and (3) radiological burial grounds, all of which were located in the northern portion of the NFS site. Remedial actions have been taken in the past and are ongoing to address the primary groundwater contaminants of concern (NFS 2021b).
 
18
Groundwater elevation measurements and modeling generally indic ate that groundwater flows in a northwest direction toward the Nolichucky River, which is a major discharge zone for the groundwater flowing beneath the NFS site. There are no known ho usehold, public, or industrial users of groundwater downgradient of the site (NFS 2021b).
 
Most drinking water sources are provided by the local municipal ity; however, wells and springs are an important source of water supply for individuals and sev eral communities in the area (Erwin and Chestoa quadrangles). A water-well survey has been p erformed for the facility consisting of a TDEC-TN Water Well Desktop Application (3.0-PUB LIC) records search for the surrounding area.
 
The well search consisted of determining water wells located wi thin a 1-mile radius and 3-mile radius of the NFS facility. One public water system wellhead pr otection area and two residential wells were listed within 1 mile from the NFS Erwin Facility. Th e public groundwater well, approximately 1.2 km (0.75 mi) northeast (upgradient) of the NF S Erwin Facility, is owned by Erwin Utilities and is listed as the railroad well. Modeling do ne in 1996 indicated that groundwater withdrawn from the railroad well does not originate beneath or downgradient from
 
17 the NFS site. The two residential wells are located approximate ly 1.4 km (0.9mi) (Resident 1) and 1.6 km (1mi) (Resident 2) south of the NFS site. No other w ells were identified from the database within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the NFS site. The 1.6 km (1mi) area of interest around the NFS site falls within the Jonesborough Water Department Source Wate r Protection Area.
 
3.6.3 Impacts on Surface Water
 
Under the proposed action, no significant changes in NFSs auth orized operations are planned with respect to discharge of facility effluents into surface wa ters. Liquid effluents at the NFS site are treated at the WWTF before they are discharged in complianc e with NRC regulatory limits and State-authorized NPDES permit levels into the Nolichucky Ri ver. Stormwater discharge at the NFS site is regulated under a NPDES stormwater permit.
 
Continued operation of NFS under the proposed action would requ ire NFS to continue to meet NRC regulatory limits for discharge of liquid effluents and req uire NFS to continue to renew, as needed, its NPDES discharge and stormwater management permits f rom the State of Tennessee. NFS is in the process of renewing its NPDES permit f or discharge of facility effluents through Outfall 001 (See figure 2-1).
 
When comparing background radiological concentrations to downst ream concentrations, the data demonstrates that radiological effluents are within regula tory limits found in 10 CFR 20.
Figure 5 of ER (NFS 2021b) shows the 2009-2020 total uranium co ncentrations in Martin Creek Upstream, Martin Creek Downstream, Nolichucky River Upstream, and Nolichucky River Downstream. In addition, effluents have historically been withi n the permit limits as noted in the NFS license renewal EA (NRC 2011) and continue to be as demonst rated in NFS biannual effluent monitoring reports.
 
The NRC staff expects the effect of site discharges of stormwater and treated effluents on the quality of surface waters would have minimal impacts because su ch discharges would occur in accordance with NRC regulatory limits and NPDES permit limits. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Proje ct would not significantly affect surface water in the vicinity of the site.
 
3.6.4 Impacts on Groundwater
 
Impacts on groundwater from the construction and operation of t he U-Metal Project are not expected. Historically, groundwater has been measured at depths greater than approximately 3 m (10 ft) below the ground surface. Construction of the facilit y would require a foundation; excavation is expected to reach 2.4 m (8 ft) below the surface. Additionally, utility lines that would connect to the current plant systems (e.g., city water, c ity sewer, fire main) and the new stack requiring a foundation would reach 0.9 m (3 ft) and 1.2 m (4 ft). Groundwater would continue to be monitored and documented.
 
Past operations at the NFS site resulted in the presence of rad ionuclides and organic constituents in the groundwater beneath the facility. The prima ry sources of contamination were (1) three unlined surface impoundments (formerly Ponds 1, 2, an d 3), (2) the "Pond 4" disposal area, and (3) radiological burial grounds, all of which were lo cated in the northern portion of the NFS site. Remedial actions have been taken in the past and are ongoing to address the primary groundwater contaminants of concern (NFS 2021b).
 
18 The operation of the U-Metal project would be contained within facility buildings (Building 301 and 389), any water generated or associated with the proposed action woul d not be connected to the areas that may infiltrate and add to the groundwater con tamination. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Proje ct would not significantly affect the groundwater resource in the vicinity of the site.
 
3.7 Ecological Resources
 
3.7.1 Affected Environment - Terrestrial
 
Appalachian oak forests, northern hardwood forests, Southeaster n spruce-fir forests, shrublands, grasslands, heath balds, hemlock forests, cove hard woods, and oak-pine communities are found in this region. The previous EA (NRC 2011 ) describes the species and habitats found in the Indian Creek valley located in and around the NFS site. The NFS site consists of open fields, woods, brush, and shrubs.
 
Indian Creek Valley has a number of vertebrate species, includi ng many mammalian species, numerous species of birds, and many reptiles and amphibians. Ea stern cottontails, mourning doves, and northern bobwhites are present in most areas within the Indian Creek Valley (NFS 2021b). The woods, swamps, and brushy areas onsite or in the vi cinity are likely to support some smaller wildlife species. Common species in the region inc lude European starling, northern cardinal, mourning dove, Carolina chickadee, opossum, eastern cottontail rabbit, and house mouse. Important game species of the region include white tail deer, eastern gray squirrel, ruffed grouse, and wild turkey, which occur in the fo rests of the surrounding mountains but are not common onsite. Carnivores, such as the gray fox, an d raptors, such as the red-tailed hawk, are ecologically important groups in the vicinity of the facility (NFS 2022).
 
3.7.2 Affected Environment-Aquatic
 
Aquatic habitat exists at the No lichucky River and nearby streams. A State-operated fish hatchery is located approximately 183 m (600 ft) upstream of th e facility. Some aquatic species found in the Nolichucky River include darters, catfish, bass, s tonerollers, and white crappie. The aquatic habitat in River consists of a substrate of rocks, sand, boulders, and some aquatic moss (NFS 2021b).


The operation of the U-Metal project would be contained within facility buildings (Building 301 and 389), any water generated or associated with the proposed action would not be connected to the areas that may infiltrate and add to the groundwater contamination. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect the groundwater resource in the vicinity of the site.
3.7    Ecological Resources 3.7.1      Affected Environment - Terrestrial Appalachian oak forests, northern hardwood forests, Southeastern spruce-fir forests, shrublands, grasslands, heath balds, hemlock forests, cove hardwoods, and oak-pine communities are found in this region. The previous EA (NRC 2011) describes the species and habitats found in the Indian Creek valley located in and around the NFS site. The NFS site consists of open fields, woods, brush, and shrubs.
Indian Creek Valley has a number of vertebrate species, including many mammalian species, numerous species of birds, and many reptiles and amphibians. Eastern cottontails, mourning doves, and northern bobwhites are present in most areas within the Indian Creek Valley (NFS 2021b). The woods, swamps, and brushy areas onsite or in the vicinity are likely to support some smaller wildlife species. Common species in the region include European starling, northern cardinal, mourning dove, Carolina chickadee, opossum, eastern cottontail rabbit, and house mouse. Important game species of the region include whitetail deer, eastern gray squirrel, ruffed grouse, and wild turkey, which occur in the forests of the surrounding mountains but are not common onsite. Carnivores, such as the gray fox, and raptors, such as the red-tailed hawk, are ecologically important groups in the vicinity of the facility (NFS 2022).
3.7.2      Affected Environment- Aquatic Aquatic habitat exists at the Nolichucky River and nearby streams. A State-operated fish hatchery is located approximately 183 m (600 ft) upstream of the facility. Some aquatic species found in the Nolichucky River include darters, catfish, bass, stonerollers, and white crappie. The aquatic habitat in River consists of a substrate of rocks, sand, boulders, and some aquatic moss (NFS 2021b).
Process water discharges are only to the Nolichucky River under NPDES-permitted discharges.
Process water discharges are only to the Nolichucky River under NPDES-permitted discharges.
Because the NFS site discharges are consistently in compliance with NFSs NPDES permit, and because the input represents less than 1 percent of the flow volume of the river, the impact on aquatic ecology is minimal. The proposed LAR would not increase the potential for negative ecological impacts from process water discharge. Stormwater discharges enter Banner Spring Branch and Martin Creek. These discharges have no process water content and no potential for significant radiological or chemical effect on the ecology of the creek or spring. Stormwater associated with the proposed action would be managed in the same way as they currently are under NFS existing Stormwater permit.
Because the NFS site discharges are consistently in compliance with NFSs NPDES permit, and because the input represents less than 1 percent of the flow vo lume of the river, the impact on aquatic ecology is minimal. The proposed LAR would not increase the potential for negative ecological impacts from process water discharge. Stormwater dis charges enter Banner Spring Branch and Martin Creek. These discharges have no process water content and no potential for significant radiological or chemical effect on the ecology of t he creek or spring. Stormwater associated with the proposed action would be managed in the sam e way as they currently are under NFS existing Stormwater permit.
3.7.3     Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Federally- Listed Species The NRC staff used the FWSs Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool to determine Federally proposed or listed species 19
 
3.7.3 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species
 
Federally-Listed Species
 
The NRC staff used the FWSs Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool to determine Federall y proposed or listed species
 
19 that may be present in the NFS action area. The action area inc ludes the NFS facility, as described in NFS (2021).
 
IPaC (FWS 2023b) identified six threatened, endangered, or prop osed species (see Table 3-2).
In addition, the monarch butterfly ( Danaus plexippus), which is a candidate species, was also identified as potentially occurring within the action area. Can didate species are not afforded protections under the Endangered Species Act.
 
The six threatened, endangered, and proposed species included f our bat species, one freshwater mussel, and one plant. Since no ground disturbing or construction activities would occur within suitable habitat for the plant, the NRC staff dete rmined that the proposed action would have no effect on this species.
 
NFS (2021) is not aware of any documented occurrences of the fo ur bat species within 1 mile of the facility. However, the bats may transit the area when forag ing or migrating, and therefore, are considered in the analysis below.
 
Due to wastewater discharges that would occur as a result of th e proposed action, staff considered the potential impacts to Appalachian Elktoe ( Alasmidonta raveneliana) in the below analysis.


that may be present in the NFS action area. The action area includes the NFS facility, as described in NFS (2021).
Table 3-2. Federally Listed Species Identified through Informat ion for Planning and Conservation tool Species Status Effects Determination
IPaC (FWS 2023b) identified six threatened, endangered, or proposed species (see Table 3-2).
 
In addition, the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), which is a candidate species, was also identified as potentially occurring within the action area. Candidate species are not afforded protections under the Endangered Species Act.
Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) Endangered may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect
The six threatened, endangered, and proposed species included four bat species, one freshwater mussel, and one plant. Since no ground disturbing or construction activities would occur within suitable habitat for the plant, the NRC staff determined that the proposed action would have no effect on this species.
 
NFS (2021) is not aware of any documented occurrences of the four bat species within 1 mile of the facility. However, the bats may transit the area when foraging or migrating, and therefore, are considered in the analysis below.
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis Endangered may affect, not likely to septentrionalis) adversely affect
Due to wastewater discharges that would occur as a result of the proposed action, staff considered the potential impacts to Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) in the below analysis.
 
Table 3-2. Federally Listed Species Identified through Information for Planning and Conservation tool Species                                     Status                 Effects Determination Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist)               Endangered             may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis             Endangered             may affect, not likely to septentrionalis)                                                   adversely affect Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens)                 Endangered             may affect, not likely to adversely affect Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus)       Proposed               may affect, not likely to Endangered             adversely affect Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta             Endangered             may affect, not likely to raveneliana)                                                       adversely affect Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana)       Threatened             no effect Indiana bats (Myotis sodalist) are medium-sized bats found throughout much of the eastern, southeastern, and north central United States. They migrate seasonally between caves, where they hibernate during winter months, and their summer range where they roost in dead, dying, or live trees with cracks, crevices, or exfoliating bark. When female Indiana bats emerge from hibernation, they migrate to maternity colonies in their summer range. The timing of annual spring emergence of Indiana bats from their hibernacula may vary depending on latitude and 20
Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) Endangered may affect, not likely to adversely affect
 
Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus) Proposed may affect, not likely to Endangered adversely affect
 
Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta Endangered may affect, not likely to raveneliana) adversely affect Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) Threatened no effect
 
Indiana bats (Myotis sodalist) are medium-sized bats found throughout much of the eastern, southeastern, and north central United States. They migrate sea sonally between caves, where they hibernate during winter months, and their summer range whe re they roost in dead, dying, or live trees with cracks, crevices, or exfoliating bark. When female Indiana bats emerge from hibernation, they migrate to maternity colonies in their summer range. The timing of annual spring emergence of Indiana bats from their hibernacula may var y depending on latitude and
 
20 weather; however, literature indicates peak spring emergence of female Indiana bats occurs in mid-April and emergence of males occurs later.
 
Suitable summer habitat for Indiana bats consists of a wide var iety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent ed ges of agricultural fields, old fields, and pastures. Indiana bats exhibit strong site fidelity to summer roosting and foraging areas. Females form nursery colonies in a variety of habitat ty pes, including uplands and riparian habitats. A wide variety of tree species are used as n ursery colonies, indicating that it is tree form, not species that is important for roosts.
 
Members of maternity colonies forage in a variety of woodland s ettings, including upland and floodplain forest. Foraging activity is concentrated above and around foliage surfaces, such as over the canopy in upland and riparian woods, around crowns of individual or widely spaced trees, and along forest edges. They forage less frequently over old fields, and occasionally over bushes in open pastures. Forest edges, small openings, and wood lands with patchy trees provide a better supply of insects for foraging than dense wood ed areas.


weather; however, literature indicates peak spring emergence of female Indiana bats occurs in mid-April and emergence of males occurs later.
Suitable summer habitat for Indiana bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields, and pastures. Indiana bats exhibit strong site fidelity to summer roosting and foraging areas. Females form nursery colonies in a variety of habitat types, including uplands and riparian habitats. A wide variety of tree species are used as nursery colonies, indicating that it is tree form, not species that is important for roosts.
Members of maternity colonies forage in a variety of woodland settings, including upland and floodplain forest. Foraging activity is concentrated above and around foliage surfaces, such as over the canopy in upland and riparian woods, around crowns of individual or widely spaced trees, and along forest edges. They forage less frequently over old fields, and occasionally over bushes in open pastures. Forest edges, small openings, and woodlands with patchy trees provide a better supply of insects for foraging than dense wooded areas.
No suitable habitat for bats occurs within the proposed area of construction and operations.
No suitable habitat for bats occurs within the proposed area of construction and operations.
Potential habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These areas would be considered low-quality habitat given the small and fragmented patches of trees and the proximity to major disturbances from railways, highways, and industrialized areas. For example, a railway, a highway, and industrial buildings are located in between the proposed facility site and the closest forested, riparian zone.
Potential habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These areas would be considered low-quality habitat given the small a nd fragmented patches of trees and the proximity to major disturbances from railways, highways, and industrialized areas. For example, a railway, a highway, and industrial buildings are loc ated in between the proposed facility site and the closest forested, riparian zone.
The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis) is a medium sized bat found throughout much of the eastern and north central United States, and all Canadian provinces from the Atlantic Ocean west to the southern Yukon Territory and eastern British Columbia.
 
They migrate seasonally between caves, where they hibernate during winter months, and their summer range where they primarily roost underneath bark or in cavities or crevices of both live and dead trees.
The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis) is a medium sized bat found throughout much of the eastern and north central United States, and all Canadian provinces from the Atlantic Ocean west to the southern Yukon Territory an d eastern British Columbia.
Suitable summer habitat for NLEB consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields, and pastures. Wetlands and water features are important foraging and drinking water sources. NLEB use multiple species of trees for roosts throughout their range. Forest successional patterns, structural complexity of habitat, and stand and tree structure appear to be more crucial than tree species in creating and maintaining suitable long-term roosting opportunities. Canopy coverage surrounding northern long-eared bat roosts generally ranges from about 50 percent to more than 80 percent.
They migrate seasonally between caves, where they hibernate during winter months, and their summer range where they primarily roost underneath bark or in c avities or crevices of both live and dead trees.
 
Suitable summer habitat for NLEB consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjace nt and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent ed ges of agricultural fields, old fields, and pastures. Wetlands and water features are important foraging and drinking water sources. NLEB use multiple species of trees for roosts througho ut their range. Forest successional patterns, structural complexity of habitat, and st and and tree structure appear to be more crucial than tree species in creating and maintaining s uitable long-term roosting opportunities. Canopy coverage surrounding northern long-eared bat roosts generally ranges from about 50 percent to more than 80 percent.
 
No suitable habitat for bats occurs within the proposed area of construction and operations.
No suitable habitat for bats occurs within the proposed area of construction and operations.
Potential habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These areas would be considered low-quality habitat given the small and fragmented patches of trees and the proximity to major disturbances from railways, highways, and industrialized areas. For example, a railway, a highway, and industrial buildings are located in between the proposed facility site and the closest forested, riparian zone.
Potential habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These areas would be considered low-quality habitat given the small a nd fragmented patches of trees and the proximity to major disturbances from railways, highways, and industrialized areas. For example, a railway, a highway, and industrial buildings are loc ated in between the proposed facility site and the closest forested, riparian zone.
The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) is a medium-sized insectivorous bat found across a limited geographic range in limestone karst areas of the southeastern United States. Hibernating 21
 
The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) is a medium-sized insectivorous bat found across a limited geographic range in limestone karst areas of the southeastern U nited States. Hibernating
 
21 populations are concentrated in caves across northern Alabama a nd Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. Their summer range extends from southw estern Virginia, western North Carolina, and northwestern Georgia, across southern Illin ois and Indiana to as far west as eastern Oklahoma and very southeastern Kansas. Gray bats are one of the few species of bats in North America that inhabit caves year-round, occupying cold hibernating caves or mines in the winter and warmer caves during summer.
 
Foraging by gray bats during summer is strongly correlated with open water of rivers, streams, lakes, or reservoirs. Gray bats are highly dependent on aquatic insects, especially mayflies, caddisflies, and stoneflies, though they will also opportunisti cally consume beetles and moths.
Most maternity colonies are located between 1 to 4 kilometers f rom foraging locations.


populations are concentrated in caves across northern Alabama and Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. Their summer range extends from southwestern Virginia, western North Carolina, and northwestern Georgia, across southern Illinois and Indiana to as far west as eastern Oklahoma and very southeastern Kansas. Gray bats are one of the few species of bats in North America that inhabit caves year-round, occupying cold hibernating caves or mines in the winter and warmer caves during summer.
Foraging by gray bats during summer is strongly correlated with open water of rivers, streams, lakes, or reservoirs. Gray bats are highly dependent on aquatic insects, especially mayflies, caddisflies, and stoneflies, though they will also opportunistically consume beetles and moths.
Most maternity colonies are located between 1 to 4 kilometers from foraging locations.
No suitable habitat for bats occurs within the proposed area of construction and operations.
No suitable habitat for bats occurs within the proposed area of construction and operations.
Potential habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These areas would be considered low-quality habitat given the small and fragmented patches of trees and the proximity to major disturbances from railways, highways, and industrialized areas. For example, a railway, a highway, and industrial buildings are located in between the proposed facility site and the closest forested, riparian zone.
Potential habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These areas would be considered low-quality habitat given the small a nd fragmented patches of trees and the proximity to major disturbances from railways, highways, and industrialized areas. For example, a railway, a highway, and industrial buildings are loc ated in between the proposed facility site and the closest forested, riparian zone.
The tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) is a small bat found across the eastern and central United States and portions of southern Canada, Mexico and Central America. They are the most common bat in Tennessee and are found throughout the State. Tricolored bats in Tennessee are part of the Northern Representation Unit (RPU) of tricolored bats. Northern tricolored bats hibernate in caves and mines during winter months (whereas tricolored bats in the Southern RPU often hibernate in road-associated culverts, tree cavities, and abandoned water wells). They typically emerge from hibernation between April and May.
 
Suitable summer habitat for tricolored bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats, where they roost, forage, and travel, and may include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, and old fields and pastures, as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. Tricolored bats primarily roost in forested habitat among leaf clusters of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees. Tricolored bats have also been documented roosting among pine needles, eastern red cedar, within artificial roosts (i.e., human-constructed structures), and, rarely, within caves. They are known to successfully roost and forage in forested areas near anthropogenic structures and buildings.
The tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus ) is a small bat found across the eastern and central United States and portions of southern Canada, Mexico and Centr al America. They are the most common bat in Tennessee and are found throughout the State. Tricolored bats in Tennessee are part of the Northern Representation Unit (RPU) of tricolored bats. Northern tricolored bats hibernate in caves and mines during winter mont hs (whereas tricolored bats in the Southern RPU often hibernate in road-associated culverts, t ree cavities, and abandoned water wells). They typically emerge from hibernation between Ap ril and May.
Tricolored bats primarily forage along forested edges of larger forest openings, along edges of riparian areas, and over water and avoid foraging in dense, unbroken forests, and narrow road cuts through forests. They are opportunistic feeders of small insects including caddisflies (Trichoptera), flying moths (Lepidoptera), small beetles (Coleoptera), small wasps and flying ants (Hymenoptera), true bugs (Homoptera), and flies (Diptera).
 
Suitable summer habitat for tricolored bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats, where they roost, forage, and travel, and may include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent ed ges of agricultural fields, and old fields and pastures, as well as linear features such as fen cerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. Tricolored bats primarily roost in forested h abitat among leaf clusters of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees. Tricolored bats have also been documented roosting among pine needles, eastern red cedar, within artifici al roosts (i.e., human-constructed structures), and, rarely, within caves. They are known to succe ssfully roost and forage in forested areas near anthropogenic structures and buildings.
 
Tricolored bats primarily forage along forested edges of larger forest openings, along edges of riparian areas, and over water and avoid foraging in dense, unb roken forests, and narrow road cuts through forests. They are opportunistic feeders of small i nsects including caddisflies (Trichoptera), flying moths (Lepidoptera), small beetles (Coleoptera), small wasps and flying ants (Hymenoptera), true bugs (Homoptera), and flies (Diptera).
 
No suitable habitat for bats occurs within the proposed area of construction and operations.
No suitable habitat for bats occurs within the proposed area of construction and operations.
Potential habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These areas would be considered low-quality habitat given the small and fragmented patches of trees and the proximity to major disturbances from railways, highways, and industrialized areas. For example, a railway runs between the proposed facility site and the closest patch of trees.
Potential habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These areas would be considered low-quality habitat given the small a nd fragmented patches of trees and the proximity to major disturbances from railways, highways, and industrialized areas. For example, a railway runs between the proposed facility site and the closest patch of trees.
Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) is a freshwater mussel, native to the United States, that has been found in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. It can reach up 22
 
Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana ) is a freshwater mussel, native to the United States, that has been found in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. It can reach up
 
22 to 10 cm (4 in) in length. Habitats for the Appalachian Elktoe are similar to other freshwater mussels and are found in shallow to medium-sized creeks or rive rs and prefer areas where more rock and gravel occur near the bottom. This species does n ot thrive in areas of heavy flows of clay or silt.
 
Impacts to Bat Species
 
The NRC staff analyzed the potential impacts due to behavioral changes resulting from construction activities, regular site maintenance, and infrastr ucture repairs during operations.
The proposed project would not result in habitat loss, degradat ion, disturbance, or fragmentation since construction would occur within a previously disturbed si te and within developed, industrialized portions of the Erwin site. As noted above, pote ntial habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These area s would be considered low-quality, summer habitat since the patches of tress are the smal l and fragmented and located adjacent or very close to railways, highways, and industrialize d areas. For example, a railway runs between the proposed facility site and the closest patch o f trees.
 
Bats can be adversely affected through behavioral changes resul ting from construction and site maintenance activities. For instance, bats could abandon previo usly used summer habitat due to increased noise, lighting, and other human activity during c onstruction in a nearby area.
Increased noise may also affect foraging success. Schaub et al. (2008) found that foraging success of the greater mouse-eared bat (Myotis myotis) diminish ed in areas with noise mimicking the traffic sounds that would be experienced within 1 5 m (49 ft) of a highway.
 
Impacts such as noise, lighting, and human activity associated with construction would be temporary and located within areas that do not include foraging habitat. Noise and disturbances within foraging habitat would likely be similar to background n oise since the site is currently industrialized and located near a highway and a railway. FWS (2 010) found that bats that are repeatedly exposed to predictable, loud noises may habituate to such stimuli over time.
Accordingly, the NRC staff assumes that any bats, if present in the action area, have already acclimated to regular site disturbances and that continued dist urbances during construction would not be able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or eva luated and therefore, would be discountable.
 
The additional noise, lighting, and construction workers on the site would occur over a relatively short period of time and is unlikely to create noticeable impac ts beyond those that bats currently experience given the industrialized site and the urban surround ing that includes a railway, highway, and various industrial buildings and operations. The N RC staff does not believe that the construction project would result in long-term behavioral c hanges in bats beyond those resulting from current day-today operations that would be able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated, and therefore, would be discountable.
 
Potential Impacts to Mussels
 
Potential impacts to mussels could occur due to degradation of habitat or water quality within the Nolichucky River. The NRC staff determined, however, that a ny changes to water quality would be discountable or negligible given that all discharges w ould be regulated and limited through the NPDES permit. NFS site discharges have consistently remained in compliance with NFSs NPDES permit and NFS implements best management practices (BMPs) to further minimize any potential impacts (NFS 2021). In addition, the dis charge levels are a very minor
 
23 input that represents less than 1 percent of the flow volume of the river. The NRC staff finds that adding the U-Metal project would not create additional exposure to radionuclides and other contaminants. Such exposures during the proposed project would represent a discountable impact because they would not be able to be meaningfully detect ed, measured, or evaluated.
Based on NFS BMPs, limitations set forth in the NPDES permit, and the small volume of water that would be discharged, the NRC staff determined that impacts from discharges would be insignificant to the Appalachian Elktoe. The NRC did not identi fy any indirect effects, or any interrelated actions associated with the proposed action.
 
Conclusion and Determination of Effects
 
The NRC staff concluded, and FWS concurred (FWS 2023) that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat, the Indiana bat, grey bat, the tri -colored bat, and the Appalachian Elktoe and have No effect on Virginia spiraea.
 
State-Listed Species
 
A Request for Environmental Review was submitted to the TDEC on July 15, 2021, to obtain information about any documented occurrences of State-or feder ally listed threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the facility. The TDEC's August 20, 2021, response indicates that seven State-listed plant and animal species have been documented within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the NFS site (NFS 2021b). Additional species are docu mented by TDEC as occurring within 6.4 km (4 mi) of the NFS site, but no impacts on any spe cies are anticipated at such a great distance from the facility. The State-listed threatened o r endangered species that potentially occur in the region are presented in NFSs ER (Fede ral and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animal Species). Impacts to these species would be similar to those described for aquatic and terrestrial species in Section 3.7.3.
 
3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources
 
3.8.1 Affected Environment
 
Three National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed sites can be found within 16 km (10 mi) of Erwin, Unicoi County (NPS 2020). The listed sites includ e the Clarksville Iron Furnace on Tennessee State Highway 107 in the Cherokee National Forest, th e Clinchfield Depot found at the junction of Nolichucky Avenue and Union Street, and the A.R. Brown house located at 241 South Main Avenue. For more information on the historic and cul tural resources around the site, see NRCs 2011 license renewal EA (NFS 2011).
 
Four American Indian Tribes have current or historic ties to th e location of the NFS facility: the Cherokee Nation, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
 
3.8.2 Impacts
 
The proposed activities for the license amendment would occur i n an existing building and construction of a new building would occur within the industria l facility footprint and on previously disturbed ground. No additional impacts on undisturbed areas are anticipated.
Therefore, the activities associated with the proposed amendmen t would likely not alter any of the current characteristics of the site.
 
24 The effects on historic and cultural resources considered inclu de those resulting directly from land disturbance during construction, visual intrusion on the s ettings or environmental context of historical structures, visual and audio intrusions on Native Am erican sacred sites, reduced access to Native American traditional use areas, unauthorized a rtifact collection, and vandalism.
No current or potential impacts on potentially significant prehistoric, historic, or cultural resources have been identified by NFS that would be attributed to the U-Metal Project (NFS 2021). Therefore, activities associated with construction and o peration of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect historic and cultural resources in the vicinity of the site. The NRC has completed its Section 106 process under NHPA, as described in section 1.5.2.
 
3.9 Socioeconomics
 
3.9.1 Affected Environment
 
The NFS site is located approximately 80 km (50 mi) north-north east of Asheville, North Carolina, and 32 km (20 mi) south of Johnson City, Tennessee. T he NFS site is located near the southwest boundary of the Town of Erwin, Tennessee, which h as a population of 5,918 people (USCB 2019). The current population of the Town of Erwin represents an approximately 2.8 percent decrease from the estimated 2010 population of 6,09 1 (USCB 2019). Table 11 in the ER (Johnson City MSA Employment Statistics) provides employ ment and economic information from the Johnson City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (NFS 2021b).
 
3.9.2 Impacts
 
The U-Metal Project would create an additional 30-50 jobs durin g the construction phase, and 50-90 jobs during operations. However, current projections indi cate there may be a reduction in the workforce due to the scope of other operations on the site. As such, the additional jobs created by the U-Metal Project have the potential to offset the jobs lost from other activities on site. The slight increase in jobs is not expected to affect the job market, housing, or surrounding school systems due to the small net change in total workers and because of the availability of houses and schools in the area. Therefore, activities associate d with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect the socio economic resources in the vicinity of the site.
 
3.10 Public and Occupation Health
 
3.10.1 Affected Environment
 
All residents in the vicinity of the NFS site are exposed to ba ckground radiation from a variety of natural and human-made sources. These sources are listed in the license application ER in Table 16 (Background Sources of Radiation Exposure) (NFS 2021b).
 
NFS's routine radiological surveillance program includes determ ining the local background level of radioactivity in media that could potentially be affected by facility operations by monitoring ambient air, soil, vegetation, sediment, and water at several l ocations around the facility. The locations are Asheville Highway, Martins Creek Upstream, Nolich ucky River Upstream and Groundwater Well 52.
 
25 3.10.2 Impacts


to 10 cm (4 in) in length. Habitats for the Appalachian Elktoe are similar to other freshwater mussels and are found in shallow to medium-sized creeks or rivers and prefer areas where more rock and gravel occur near the bottom. This species does not thrive in areas of heavy flows of clay or silt.
No additional radiological sources are expected from the U-Meta l Project during construction and operation. As described above, the radiological surveillanc e program monitors and sampling occurs for ambient air, dosimetry, and surface waters. To ensure minimal impacts, safety factors are incorporated into the design of radiological material-related process equipment and any exposures are limited by NRCs regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. Emissions generated by the facility are reduced due to the use of effluen t control equipment, which minimizes the amount of air contaminants that reach the environ ment. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Proje ct would not significantly affect public and occupational health as a result of the proposed acti on.
Impacts to Bat Species The NRC staff analyzed the potential impacts due to behavioral changes resulting from construction activities, regular site maintenance, and infrastructure repairs during operations.
The proposed project would not result in habitat loss, degradation, disturbance, or fragmentation since construction would occur within a previously disturbed site and within developed, industrialized portions of the Erwin site. As noted above, potential habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These areas would be considered low-quality, summer habitat since the patches of tress are the small and fragmented and located adjacent or very close to railways, highways, and industrialized areas. For example, a railway runs between the proposed facility site and the closest patch of trees.
Bats can be adversely affected through behavioral changes resulting from construction and site maintenance activities. For instance, bats could abandon previously used summer habitat due to increased noise, lighting, and other human activity during construction in a nearby area.
Increased noise may also affect foraging success. Schaub et al. (2008) found that foraging success of the greater mouse-eared bat (Myotis myotis) diminished in areas with noise mimicking the traffic sounds that would be experienced within 15 m (49 ft) of a highway.
Impacts such as noise, lighting, and human activity associated with construction would be temporary and located within areas that do not include foraging habitat. Noise and disturbances within foraging habitat would likely be similar to background noise since the site is currently industrialized and located near a highway and a railway. FWS (2010) found that bats that are repeatedly exposed to predictable, loud noises may habituate to such stimuli over time.
Accordingly, the NRC staff assumes that any bats, if present in the action area, have already acclimated to regular site disturbances and that continued disturbances during construction would not be able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated and therefore, would be discountable.
The additional noise, lighting, and construction workers on the site would occur over a relatively short period of time and is unlikely to create noticeable impacts beyond those that bats currently experience given the industrialized site and the urban surrounding that includes a railway, highway, and various industrial buildings and operations. The NRC staff does not believe that the construction project would result in long-term behavioral changes in bats beyond those resulting from current day-today operations that would be able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated, and therefore, would be discountable.
Potential Impacts to Mussels Potential impacts to mussels could occur due to degradation of habitat or water quality within the Nolichucky River. The NRC staff determined, however, that any changes to water quality would be discountable or negligible given that all discharges would be regulated and limited through the NPDES permit. NFS site discharges have consistently remained in compliance with NFSs NPDES permit and NFS implements best management practices (BMPs) to further minimize any potential impacts (NFS 2021). In addition, the discharge levels are a very minor 23


input that represents less than 1 percent of the flow volume of the river. The NRC staff finds that adding the U-Metal project would not create additional exposure to radionuclides and other contaminants. Such exposures during the proposed project would represent a discountable impact because they would not be able to be meaningfully detected, measured, or evaluated.
3.11 Transportation
Based on NFS BMPs, limitations set forth in the NPDES permit, and the small volume of water that would be discharged, the NRC staff determined that impacts from discharges would be insignificant to the Appalachian Elktoe. The NRC did not identify any indirect effects, or any interrelated actions associated with the proposed action.
Conclusion and Determination of Effects The NRC staff concluded, and FWS concurred (FWS 2023) that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat, the Indiana bat, grey bat, the tri-colored bat, and the Appalachian Elktoe and have No effect on Virginia spiraea.
State-Listed Species A Request for Environmental Review was submitted to the TDEC on July 15, 2021, to obtain information about any documented occurrences of State- or federally listed threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the facility. The TDEC's August 20, 2021, response indicates that seven State-listed plant and animal species have been documented within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the NFS site (NFS 2021b). Additional species are documented by TDEC as occurring within 6.4 km (4 mi) of the NFS site, but no impacts on any species are anticipated at such a great distance from the facility. The State-listed threatened or endangered species that potentially occur in the region are presented in NFSs ER (Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animal Species). Impacts to these species would be similar to those described for aquatic and terrestrial species in Section 3.7.3.
3.8    Historic and Cultural Resources 3.8.1      Affected Environment Three National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed sites can be found within 16 km (10 mi) of Erwin, Unicoi County (NPS 2020). The listed sites include the Clarksville Iron Furnace on Tennessee State Highway 107 in the Cherokee National Forest, the Clinchfield Depot found at the junction of Nolichucky Avenue and Union Street, and the A.R. Brown house located at 241 South Main Avenue. For more information on the historic and cultural resources around the site, see NRCs 2011 license renewal EA (NFS 2011).
Four American Indian Tribes have current or historic ties to the location of the NFS facility: the Cherokee Nation, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
3.8.2      Impacts The proposed activities for the license amendment would occur in an existing building and construction of a new building would occur within the industrial facility footprint and on previously disturbed ground. No additional impacts on undisturbed areas are anticipated.
Therefore, the activities associated with the proposed amendment would likely not alter any of the current characteristics of the site.
24


The effects on historic and cultural resources considered include those resulting directly from land disturbance during construction, visual intrusion on the settings or environmental context of historical structures, visual and audio intrusions on Native American sacred sites, reduced access to Native American traditional use areas, unauthorized artifact collection, and vandalism.
3.11.1 Affected Environment
No current or potential impacts on potentially significant prehistoric, historic, or cultural resources have been identified by NFS that would be attributed to the U-Metal Project (NFS 2021). Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect historic and cultural resources in the vicinity of the site. The NRC has completed its Section 106 process under NHPA, as described in section 1.5.2.
3.9    Socioeconomics 3.9.1      Affected Environment The NFS site is located approximately 80 km (50 mi) north-northeast of Asheville, North Carolina, and 32 km (20 mi) south of Johnson City, Tennessee. The NFS site is located near the southwest boundary of the Town of Erwin, Tennessee, which has a population of 5,918 people (USCB 2019). The current population of the Town of Erwin represents an approximately 2.8 percent decrease from the estimated 2010 population of 6,091 (USCB 2019). Table 11 in the ER (Johnson City MSA Employment Statistics) provides employment and economic information from the Johnson City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (NFS 2021b).
3.9.2      Impacts The U-Metal Project would create an additional 30-50 jobs during the construction phase, and 50-90 jobs during operations. However, current projections indicate there may be a reduction in the workforce due to the scope of other operations on the site. As such, the additional jobs created by the U-Metal Project have the potential to offset the jobs lost from other activities on site. The slight increase in jobs is not expected to affect the job market, housing, or surrounding school systems due to the small net change in total workers and because of the availability of houses and schools in the area. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect the socioeconomic resources in the vicinity of the site.
3.10 Public and Occupation Health 3.10.1     Affected Environment All residents in the vicinity of the NFS site are exposed to background radiation from a variety of natural and human-made sources. These sources are listed in the license application ER in Table 16 (Background Sources of Radiation Exposure) (NFS 2021b).
NFS's routine radiological surveillance program includes determining the local background level of radioactivity in media that could potentially be affected by facility operations by monitoring ambient air, soil, vegetation, sediment, and water at several locations around the facility. The locations are Asheville Highway, Martins Creek Upstream, Nolichucky River Upstream and Groundwater Well 52.
25


3.10.2    Impacts No additional radiological sources are expected from the U-Metal Project during construction and operation. As described above, the radiological surveillance program monitors and sampling occurs for ambient air, dosimetry, and surface waters. To ensure minimal impacts, safety factors are incorporated into the design of radiological material-related process equipment and any exposures are limited by NRCs regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. Emissions generated by the facility are reduced due to the use of effluent control equipment, which minimizes the amount of air contaminants that reach the environment. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect public and occupational health as a result of the proposed action.
The NFS facility in located in Erwin, Unicoi County, Tennessee. The facility is approximately 0.9 km (0.6 mi) from Interstate 26 via Jackson Love Highway and Car olina Avenue. ACSX Railroad line lies on the northwest boundary of the site. Banner Hill Ro ad runs along the southeast boundary.
3.11 Transportation 3.11.1    Affected Environment The NFS facility in located in Erwin, Unicoi County, Tennessee. The facility is approximately 0.9 km (0.6 mi) from Interstate 26 via Jackson Love Highway and Carolina Avenue. ACSX Railroad line lies on the northwest boundary of the site. Banner Hill Road runs along the southeast boundary.
 
Transportation routes would remain unchanged from current operations at the NFS site, with the proposed addition of the U-Metal Project. NFS estimates 30-50 additional vehicles would be needed to support construction activities and 50-90 vehicles distributed over three 8-hour shifts Monday-Friday (of which 17-30 would come at the beginning of the shift) for facility operations.
Transportation routes would remain unchanged from current opera tions at the NFS site, with the proposed addition of the U-Metal Project. NFS estimates 30-50 a dditional vehicles would be needed to support construction activities and 50-90 vehicles di stributed over three 8-hour shifts Monday-Friday (of which 17-30 would come at the beginning of th e shift) for facility operations.
NFS staggers shift start times in 30-minute segments to minimize traffic impacts and allow for security access (NFS 2022).
NFS staggers shift start times in 30-minute segments to minimiz e traffic impacts and allow for security access (NFS 2022).
3.11.2     Impacts The transportation of radioactive material to and from the NFS site is not anticipated to change due to the license amendment. Similarly, the quantities and types of materials would not significantly change, nor would the transportation route be projected to be affected by the amendment.
 
Construction materials would be transported via truck on the main roadways and via access points to the site (Interstate 26 and main site access roads). Oversized deliveries are not anticipated. Materials would be delivered to the site via existing access points or gates, therefore no new construction accesses would be created. Deliveries would be grouped as much as possible to reduce material transport requirements. Traffic is not expected to increase significantly compared to current levels of traffic due to the minimal project increase in vehicle traffic and mitigation measures, such as staggering shift start times for employees. During operation, the net increase in workers commuting to and from the site is not expected to significantly increase. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect transportation in the vicinity of the site.
3.11.2 Impacts
26
 
The transportation of radioactive material to and from the NFS site is not anticipated to change due to the license amendment. Similarly, the quantities and types of materials would not significantly change, nor would the transportation route be projected to be affected by the amendment.
 
Construction materials would be transported via truck on the ma in roadways and via access points to the site (Interstate 26 and main site access roads). Oversized deliveries are not anticipated. Materials would be delivered to the site via exist ing access points or gates, therefore no new construction accesses would be created. Delive ries would be grouped as much as possible to reduce material transport requirements. Tra ffic is not expected to increase significantly compared to curren t levels of traffic due to the minimal project increase in vehicle traffic and mitigation measures, such as staggering shift start times for employees. During operation, the net increase in workers commuting to and from th e site is not expected to significantly increase. Therefore, activities associated with c onstruction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect transportation in the vicinity of the site.
 
26 3.12 Environmental Justice
 
3.12.1 Demographics and Socioeconomic Environment
 
The NFS Erwin Facility is located 80 km (50 mi) north-northeast of Asheville, North Carolina, and 32 km (20 mi) south of Johnson City, Tennessee. The NFS fac ility is located near the southwest boundary of the Town of Erwin, Tennessee, which has a population of 5,918 people (USCB 2019). The current population of the Town of Erwin repres ents an approximately 2.8 percent decrease from the estimated 2010 population of 6,091 (U SCB 2019; NFS 2021b).
 
The Region of Interest (ROI) for the NFS Erwin Facility include s four Tennessee Counties:
Carter, Sullivan, Unicoi, and Washington. The ROI economic data for 2019 is presented in Table 3-from the license amendment application. For comparison, the median household income for the State of Tennessee is $53,320 and 13.9 percent o f the population is below the poverty level.
 
Table 3-3. 2019 ROI Economic Data
 
Median Household Income Location (2015-2019) Persons Below Poverty Level Unicoi County 41,890 15.8 Carter County 38,092 19.3 Washington County 48,334 15.8 Sullivan County 46,684 15.1 Source: NFS 2021b.
 
In 2004, the Commission issued its Policy Statement on the Tre atment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions in the Federal Register (69FR52040; August 24, 2004). Regarding EAs, the NRCs policy statement on environmental justice (EJ) declares the following:
 
If there will be no significant impact as a result of the propo sed action, it follows that an EJ review would not be necessary. However, the agency m ust be mindful of special circumstances that might warrant not making a Findin g of No Significant Impact (FONSI). In most EAs, the Commission expects that there will be little or no offsite impacts and, consequently, impacts woul d not occur to people outside the facility. However, if there is a clear poten tial for significant offsite impacts from the proposed action, then an appropriate E J review might be needed to provide a basis for concluding that there are no uniq ue impacts that would be significant. If the impacts are significant because of the uniqueness of the communities, then a FONSI may not be possible and mitigatio n or an EIS should be considered.


3.12 Environmental Justice 3.12.1      Demographics and Socioeconomic Environment The NFS Erwin Facility is located 80 km (50 mi) north-northeast of Asheville, North Carolina, and 32 km (20 mi) south of Johnson City, Tennessee. The NFS facility is located near the southwest boundary of the Town of Erwin, Tennessee, which has a population of 5,918 people (USCB 2019). The current population of the Town of Erwin represents an approximately 2.8 percent decrease from the estimated 2010 population of 6,091 (USCB 2019; NFS 2021b).
The Region of Interest (ROI) for the NFS Erwin Facility includes four Tennessee Counties:
Carter, Sullivan, Unicoi, and Washington. The ROI economic data for 2019 is presented in Table 3- from the license amendment application. For comparison, the median household income for the State of Tennessee is $53,320 and 13.9 percent of the population is below the poverty level.
Table 3-3. 2019 ROI Economic Data Median Household Income Location                        (2015-2019)              Persons Below Poverty Level Unicoi County                      41,890                          15.8 Carter County                      38,092                          19.3 Washington County                  48,334                          15.8 Sullivan County                    46,684                          15.1 Source: NFS 2021b.
In 2004, the Commission issued its Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions in the Federal Register (69 FR 52040; August 24, 2004). Regarding EAs, the NRCs policy statement on environmental justice (EJ) declares the following:
If there will be no significant impact as a result of the proposed action, it follows that an EJ review would not be necessary. However, the agency must be mindful of special circumstances that might warrant not making a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). In most EAs, the Commission expects that there will be little or no offsite impacts and, consequently, impacts would not occur to people outside the facility. However, if there is a clear potential for significant offsite impacts from the proposed action, then an appropriate EJ review might be needed to provide a basis for concluding that there are no unique impacts that would be significant. If the impacts are significant because of the uniqueness of the communities, then a FONSI may not be possible and mitigation or an EIS should be considered.
In the section Guidelines for Implementation of NEPA as to EJ Issues, the NRC explains that special circumstances arise only when the proposed action has a clear potential for offsite impacts on minority and low-income communities associated with the proposed action.
In the section Guidelines for Implementation of NEPA as to EJ Issues, the NRC explains that special circumstances arise only when the proposed action has a clear potential for offsite impacts on minority and low-income communities associated with the proposed action.
The staff reviewed the socioeconomic data, which did not indicate any significant percentages of minority or low-income populations within the area surrounding the NFS facility. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would not have disproportionately high 27


and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of the NFS site.
The staff reviewed the socioeconomic data, which did not indica te any significant percentages of minority or low-income populations within the area surroundi ng the NFS facility. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would not have disproportionately high
3.13 Waste Management 3.13.1     Affected Environment - Radioactive and Nonradioactive Waste As discussed in section 2.1 the following radioactive waste management activities occur on the NFS site:
 
27 and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of the NFS site.
 
3.13 Waste Management
 
3.13.1 Affected Environment - Radioactive and Nonradioactive Waste
 
As discussed in section 2.1 the following radioactive waste man agement activities occur on the NFS site:
* treating basic and acidic waste streams at the NPDES-permitted WWTF;
* treating basic and acidic waste streams at the NPDES-permitted WWTF;
* decontamination of liquid waste streams and of process equipment;
* decontamination of liquid waste streams and of process equipme nt;
* packaging and storage of both liquid and solid wastes contaminated with or containing nonrecoverable uranium;
* packaging and storage of both liquid and solid wastes contamin ated with or containing nonrecoverable uranium;
* shipment of radioactive wastes to licensed facilities or to licensed burial sites for disposal;
* shipment of radioactive wastes to licensed facilities or to li censed burial sites for disposal;
* volume reduction by compaction, distillation, reuse, and/or evaporation of waste materials containing enriched uranium; and
* volume reduction by compaction, distillation, reuse, and/or ev aporation of waste materials containing enriched uranium; and
* solidification of radioactive waste.
* solidification of radioactive waste.
The current facility also generates other hazardous and nonhazardous wastes that are nonradioactive.
 
* Nonradioactive Hazardous Waste: NFS generates hazardous waste that is not radiologically contaminated. In accordance with applicable regulations, NFS temporarily stores such waste onsite and then ships it to an authorized offsite treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
The current facility also generates other hazardous and nonhaza rdous wastes that are nonradioactive.
* Nonradioactive/Nonhazardous Waste: NFS generates nonradioactive/nonhazardous waste (such as waste oil, paper, and cafeteria waste) in the normal course of operations. All waste materials are shipped offsite for treatment, recycling, and/or disposal at appropriate facilities.
* Nonradioactive Hazardous Waste: NFS generates hazardous waste that is not radiologically contaminated. In accordance with applicable regulations, NFS te mporarily stores such waste onsite and then ships it to an authorized offsite treatme nt, storage, or disposal facility.
The proposed action would generate additional wastes in this category, but the amounts would be minimal and not require any additional changes to NFSs current program.
* Nonradioactive/Nonhazardous Waste: NFS generates nonradioactiv e/nonhazardous waste (such as waste oil, paper, and cafeteria waste) in the normal c ourse of operations. All waste materials are shipped offsite for treatment, recycling, and/or disposal at appropriate facilities.
3.13.1.1     Mixed Solid Waste NFS manages "mixed" waste (hazardous waste that is radioactively contaminated) in accordance with applicable Federal and State hazardous waste management regulations. NFS has a Hazardous Waste Management Facility permit, issued by the TDECs Division of Solid Waste Management, which allows storage of specific kinds of mixed waste in containers. Most of the mixed waste stored onsite is mercury-contaminated waste generated by NFS laboratory operations (NFS 2021b).
 
The proposed action would generate additional wastes in this category, but the amounts would be minimal and would not require any additional changes to NFSs current program.
The proposed action would generate additional wastes in this ca tegory, but the amounts would be minimal and not require any additional changes to NFSs curr ent program.
3.13.1.2     Liquid Effluent The liquid effluent for the current facility configuration includes the following:
 
3.13.1.1 Mixed Solid Waste
 
NFS manages "mixed" waste (hazardous waste that is radioactivel y contaminated) in accordance with applicable Federal and State hazardous waste ma nagement regulations. NFS has a Hazardous Waste Management Facility permit, issued by the TDECs Division of Solid Waste Management, which allows storage of specific kinds of mix ed waste in containers. Most of the mixed waste stored onsite is mercury-contaminated waste generated by NFS laboratory operations (NFS 2021b).
 
The proposed action would generate additional wastes in this ca tegory, but the amounts would be minimal and would not require any additional changes to NFS s current program.
 
3.13.1.2 Liquid Effluent
 
The liquid effluent for the current facility configuration incl udes the following:
 
28
28
* Wastewater - The NFS Erwin Facility produces liquid effluents from several different activities: fuel production, highly enriched uranium recovery, UF6 conversion, enrichment blending, laboratory operations, laundry activities, and facility decommissioning activities.
* Wastewater - The NFS Erwin Facility produces liquid effluents from several different activities: fuel production, highly enriched uranium recovery, UF6 conversion, enrichment blending, laboratory operations, laundry activities, and facili ty decommissioning activities.
This wastewater is batch treated, sampled, and then discharged from the onsite WWTF, if levels are below 10 CFR 20.1301 and in compliance with the facility's NPDES permit.
This wastewater is batch treated, sampled, and then discharged from the onsite WWTF, if levels are below 10 CFR 20.1301 and in compliance with the faci lity's NPDES permit.
Treatment typically involves adjustment of pH using sodium hydroxide/sulfuric acid, and precipitation and removal of fluoride ions and uranium through addition of lime slurry calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2). Dissolved ammonia is removed, as needed; using air stripping and the pH is re-adjusted to discharge levels. Discharges are made directly to the Nolichucky River.
Treatment typically involves adjus tment of pH using sodium hydroxide/sulfuric acid, and precipitation and removal of fluoride ions and uranium through addition of lime slurry calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2). Dissolved ammonia is removed, as needed; using air stripping and the pH is re-adjusted to discharge levels. Discharges are m ade directly to the Nolichucky River.
* Sanitary Wastes - Sanitary waste from the NFS facility comes from bathrooms and showers. The facility discharges under an EPOTW permit.
* Sanitary Wastes - Sanitary waste from the NFS facility comes f rom bathrooms and showers. The facility discharges under an EPOTW permit.
* Stormwater Runoff - The primary pathway for runoff is from south to north across the NFS site and into Banner Spring Branch and Martin Creek. Banner Spring Branch flows into Martin Creek, which subsequently flows into North Indian Creek and then into the Nolichucky River. Drainage exits the NFS site protected Area through two sluice gate valves into Martin Creek. The gates are in place to allow the flow to be stopped in the event of a spill of hazardous material.
* Stormwater Runoff - The primary pathway for runoff is from sou th to north across the NFS site and into Banner Spring Branch and Martin Creek. Banner Spr ing Branch flows into Martin Creek, which subsequently flows into North Indian Creek and then into the Nolichucky River. Drainage exits the NFS site protected Area th rough two sluice gate valves into Martin Creek. The gates are in place to allow the flow to be stopped in the event of a spill of hazardous material.
The proposed action, a license amendment adding the U-Metal Project to the current facility, would be expected to generate additional liquid effluents. The additional effluents created by the U-Metal Project would be similar in nature to existing effluents created by existing facility operations. The additional volume of liquid effluents would be minimal. NFS anticipates no changes would be required to its current program and applicable permits (NFS 2022).
 
3.13.1.3     Gaseous Effluent (Effluents to Air)
The proposed action, a license amendment adding the U-Metal Pro ject to the current facility, would be expected to generate additional liquid effluents. The additional effluents created by the U-Metal Project would be similar in nature to existing effluent s created by existing facility operations. The additional volume of liquid effluents would be minimal. NFS anticipates no changes would be required to its current program and applicable permits (NFS 2022).
The primary systems associated with gaseous effluents are as follows:
 
* Main Process Cleaning System - The NFS Erwin Facility's main process ventilation system combines air effluents from the primary HEU processing areas. This combined effluent is cleaned by venturi and demisting scrubbers and HEPA filtration.
3.13.1.3 Gaseous Effluent (Effluents to Air)
* 30 percent ASHRAE prefilters - These prefilters are used on HVAC recirculation room air handlers in a large portion of the facility.
 
The primary systems associated with gaseous effluents are as fo llows:
* Main Process Cleaning System - The NFS Erwin Facility's main p rocess ventilation system combines air effluents from the primary HEU processing areas. T his combined effluent is cleaned by venturi and demisting scrubbers and HEPA filtration.
* 30 percent ASHRAE prefilters - These prefilters are used on HV AC recirculation room air handlers in a large portion of the facility.
* Packed-bed or Sieve Tray Scrubbers - These scrubbers are used in several buildings.
* Packed-bed or Sieve Tray Scrubbers - These scrubbers are used in several buildings.
Sodium hydroxide, water, and sulfuric acid are used as scrubbing solutions.
Sodium hydroxide, water, and sulfuric acid are used as scrubbin g solutions.
* HEPA filters - These filters are used throughout the facility for high-efficiency (99+%)
* HEPA filters - These filters are used throughout the facility for high-efficiency (99+%)
removal of airborne particulates. In some instances, multiple HEPA filters are used in series to achieve higher removal efficiencies (NFS 2021b).
removal of airborne particulates. In some instances, multiple H EPA filters are used in series to achieve higher removal efficiencies (NFS 2021b).
Under the proposed action, a license amendment adding the U-Metal Project to the current facility, would be expected to generate additional gaseous effluents. As described in Section 2.1.3, the U-Metal Project would not create any new chemical or radiological effluents, and thus the gaseous effluents would be similar in nature to existing effluents created by the existing operations.
 
29
Under the proposed action, a license amendment adding the U-Met al Project to the current facility, would be expected to generate additional gaseous effl uents. As described in Section 2.1.3, the U-Metal Project would not create any new chemical or radiological effluents, and thus the gaseous effluents would be similar in nature to existing ef fluents created by the existing operations.
 
29 3.13.2 Impacts
 
As described in section 2.1.3 and above, the addition of the U-Metal Project to license SNM-124 would not significantly increase waste streams. NFS has various programs and applicable permits already in place to monitor and manage effluents genera ted at the facility. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect waste management at the NFS site.
 
3.14 Cumulative Impacts
 
The NRC staff considered the impacts of the proposed action, as described above, combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future act ions, as described in (NFS 2022), that could affect the same resources as the proposed act ion. Because no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions would be affected by the prop osed action, and no significant offsite environmental impacts are expected to result from the p roposed action, the geographic area considered in this discussion of cumulative impacts is the NFS site boundary.
 
As discussed in the preceding sections of chapter 3, the NRC st aff determined that impacts on all resource areas from the proposed action would not be signif icant. Due to operations already occurring at the site, the proposed project would have minimal impacts on environmental resources. The NRC staff conclude s that the proposed action would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts when added to the past, present, or reasonab ly foreseeable future actions on the NFS site. As previously described, the proposed activiti es would take place on previously disturbed land and not result in significantly greater effluent s or other impacts. The proposed activities would also not be expected to add to historical site contamination. Any new NRC-regulated activities at the site that may occur within the boun dary would be evaluated, as appropriate, as part of a separate licensing and environmental review.


3.13.2    Impacts As described in section 2.1.3 and above, the addition of the U-Metal Project to license SNM-124 would not significantly increase waste streams. NFS has various programs and applicable permits already in place to monitor and manage effluents generated at the facility. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect waste management at the NFS site.
3.14 Cumulative Impacts The NRC staff considered the impacts of the proposed action, as described above, combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, as described in (NFS 2022), that could affect the same resources as the proposed action. Because no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions would be affected by the proposed action, and no significant offsite environmental impacts are expected to result from the proposed action, the geographic area considered in this discussion of cumulative impacts is the NFS site boundary.
As discussed in the preceding sections of chapter 3, the NRC staff determined that impacts on all resource areas from the proposed action would not be significant. Due to operations already occurring at the site, the proposed project would have minimal impacts on environmental resources. The NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts when added to the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions on the NFS site. As previously described, the proposed activities would take place on previously disturbed land and not result in significantly greater effluents or other impacts. The proposed activities would also not be expected to add to historical site contamination. Any new NRC-regulated activities at the site that may occur within the boundary would be evaluated, as appropriate, as part of a separate licensing and environmental review.
30
30


==4.0   CONCLUSION==
==4.0 CONCLUSION==
AND RECOMMENDATION 4.1   Conclusion Based on its review of the proposed action, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC staff has determined that NFSs request to amend its license SNM-124 to add the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. No significant radiological or nonradiological impacts are expected from the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed action, and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, a FONSI is appropriate. The FONSI will be published in the Federal Register.
AND RECOMMENDATION
4.2   List of Preparers This EA was prepared by the Environmental Center of Expertise in the Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
The contributors include Jill Caverly, Senior Environmental Project Manager, and Ashley Waldron, Environmental Project Manager.
4.1 Conclusion
 
Based on its review of the proposed action, in accordance with the requirements of 10CFRPart51, the NRC staff has determined that NFSs request to amend its license SNM-124 to add the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect t he quality of the human environment. No significant radiol ogical or nonradiological imp acts are expected from the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that p ursuant to 10CFR51.31, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not require d for the proposed action, and pursuant to 10CFR51.32, a FONSI is appropriate. The FONSI wil l be published in the Federal Register.
 
4.2 List of Preparers
 
This EA was prepared by the Environmental Center of Expertise i n the Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support in the Office of Nuclear M aterial Safety and Safeguards.
The contributors include Jill Caverly, Senior Environmental Pro ject Manager, and Ashley Waldron, Environmental Project Manager.
 
31
31


==5.0   REFERENCES==
==5.0 REFERENCES==
10 CFR Part 20. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Standards for protection against radiation, Part20, Chapter I, Title 10, Energy.


10 CFR Part 20. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Standards for protection against radiation, Part 20, Chapter I, Title 10, Energy.
10 CFR Part 70. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, Part 70, Title 10, Energy.
10 CFR Part 70. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, Part 70, Title 10, Energy.
10 CFR Part 51. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions, Part 51, Chapter I, Title 10, Energy.
 
10 CFR Part 51. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related r egulatory functions, Part 51, Chapter I, Title10, Energy.
 
36 CFR Part 800. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800, Protection of historic properties, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property.
36 CFR Part 800. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800, Protection of historic properties, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property.
40 CFR Part 52. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Title 40, Protection of Environment.
40 CFR Part 52. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Title 40, Protection of Environment.
40 CFR Part 81. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 81, Designation of Area for Air Quality Planning Purposes, Title 40, Protection of Environment.
40 CFR Part 81. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 81, Designation of Area for Air Quality Planning Purposes, Title 40, Protection of Environment.
50 CFR Part 402, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 402, Interagency Cooperation Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended, Subpart B, Consultation Procedures 69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions. Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
 
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2010. Packaging and Transportation for Offsite Shipment of Materials of National Security Interest. DOE O 461.1B. December 16, 2010.
50CFRPart 402, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 402, Interagency Cooperation Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended, SubpartB, Consul tation Procedures
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996. DOE/EIS-0240, Disposition of Surplus High Enriched Uranium Final Environmental Impact Statement. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: 1996.
 
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023a. Letter from Christine Pineda to Daniel Elbert, NRC re: Concurrence with Determinations of Effect for Threatened and Endangered Species at the proposed U-Metal Project ADAMS Accession No. ML23272A109.
69FR52040. August 24, 2004. Policy Statement on the Treatmen t of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions. Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023b. IPAC List of threatened and endangered species.
 
June 2023. ADAMS Accession No. ML23202A166 FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Programmatic Biological Opinion on the Effects of Ongoing and Future Military and Land Management Activities at the Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center in Bartholomew, Brown, and Johnson Counties in Indiana on the Federally Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis).
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2010. Packaging and Transport ation for Offsite Shipment of Materials of National Security Interest. DOE O 461.1B. Decembe r 16, 2010.
 
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996. DOE/EIS-0240, Dispositi on of Surplus High Enriched Uranium Final Environmental Impac t Statement. Vol. 1. Washingt on, DC: 1996.
 
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023a. Letter from Christ ine Pineda to Daniel Elbert, NRC re: Concurrence with Determinations of Effect for Threatened an d Endangered Species at the proposed U-Metal Project ADAMS Accession No. ML23272A109.
 
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023b. IPAC List of threa tened and endangered species.
June 2023. ADAMS Accession No. ML23202A166
 
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Programmatic Biolog ical Opinion on the Effects of Ongoing and Future Military and Land Management Acti vities at the Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center in Bartholomew, Brown, and Johnson Counties in Indiana on the Federally Endangered Indiana Bat ( Myotis sodalis).
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/bos/
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/bos/
10_IN_FinalAtterburyBO.pdf NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.) 2022. Supplemental Environmental Report for the Amendment of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-124, Revision 1 January 2023 ADAMS Accession No. ML23041A236.
10_IN_FinalAtterburyBO.pdf
32


NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.) 2022. Response to NRC Request for Additional Information to Support Environmental Review of NFS Application to Amend SNM-124 to Construct and Operate a Uranium Metal Process. June 30, 2022. ADAMS Accession No. ML221193A034 NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.). 2021a. (Cover Letter for Amendment submittal) BWXT Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS), License Amendment Request for U-Metal at the NFS Site, November 18, 2021. ADAMS Accession No. ML21327A099 NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.). 2021b. Supplemental Environmental Report for the Amendment of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-124, Revision 0 November 2021 ADAMS Accession No. ML22066B005 NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.). 2009. Environmental Report. NRC SNM License No.124.
NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.) 2022. Supplemental Environme ntal Report for the Amendment of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-124, Revi sion 1 January 2023 ADAMS Accession No. ML23041A236.
 
32 NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.) 2022. Response to NRC Reques t for Additional Information to Support Environmental Review of NFS Application to Amend SNM-124 to Construct and Operate a Uranium Metal Process. June 30, 2022. ADAMS Accession No. ML221193A034
 
NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.). 2021a. (Cover Letter for Ame ndment submittal) BWXT Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS), License Amendment Request fo r U-Metal at the NFS Site, November 18, 2021. ADAMS Accession No. ML21327A099
 
NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.). 2021b. Supplemental Environ mental Report for the Amendment of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-124, Revi sion 0 November 2021 ADAMS Accession No. ML22066B005
 
NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.). 2009. Environmental Report. NRC SNM License No.124.
Docket No. 70-143.Erwin, Tennessee: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. 2009. ER 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML091900072.
Docket No. 70-143.Erwin, Tennessee: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. 2009. ER 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML091900072.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2022.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2022.
<https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/> (Accessed 18 October 2023)
<https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/ us-climate-normals/> (Accesse d 18 October 2023)
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023. Letter from Christine Pineda, NRC to Daniel Elbert, FWS re: Nuclear Fuel Services License Amendment Request to Operate Uranium Purification and Conversion Services in Unicoi County, Tennessee. August 18, 2023. ADAMS Accession No. ML23228A158.
 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022a. Letter from James R. Downs, NRC to Timothy Knowles, NFS re: Acceptance of Application for U-Metal License Enterprise Project.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023. Letter from Chr istine Pineda, NRC to Daniel Elbert, FWS re: Nuclear Fuel Services License Amendment Request to Operate Uranium Purification and Conversion Services in Unicoi County, Tennesse e. August 18, 2023. ADAMS Accession No. ML23228A158.
March 25, 2022. ADAMS Accession No. ML22080A238 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022b. Letter from Jill Caverly, NRC to Timothy Knowles, NFS re: Requests for Additional Information to Support Environmental Review. April 28, 2022. ADAMS Accession No. ML22111A281.
 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022c. Letter from John Moses to Tribes re:
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022a. Letter from Ja mes R. Downs, NRC to Timothy Knowles, NFS re: Acceptance of Application for U-Metal License Enterprise Project.
Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. March 13, 2022.
March 25, 2022. ADAMS Accession No. ML22080A238
 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022b. Letter from Ji ll Caverly, NRC to Timothy Knowles, NFS re: Requests for Additional Information to Support Environmental Review. April 28, 2022. ADAMS Accession No. ML22111A281.
 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022c. Letter from Jo hn Moses to Tribes re:
Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preserv ation Act. March 13, 2022.
ADAMS Accession No. ML22256A146.
ADAMS Accession No. ML22256A146.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022d. Letter from Jessie Quintero to Patrick McIntrye, re: Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. March 13, 2022. ADAMS Accession No. ML22098A154.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from John D. Kinneman, NRC to Mark P. Elliott, NFS re: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. - License Renewal. August 9, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML113040428.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Final Environmental Assessment for Nuclear Fuel Services License Renewal Application. October 26, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML112560265.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006. NUREG-1757 Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees. September 2006. ADAMS Accession No. ML063000243.
33


NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2003. NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs. August 2003, ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022d. Letter from Je ssie Quintero to Patrick McIntrye, re: Consultation under Section 106 of the National Hi storic Preservation Act. March 13, 2022. ADAMS Accession No. ML22098A154.
Schaub A, Ostwald J, Siemers BM. 2008. Foraging bats avoid noise. Journal of Experimental Biology 211:3174-3180.
 
TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation). 2023. May 4, 2023 Email from Jerry Bingaman to Ashley Waldron (NRC) - Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment: Nuclear Fuel Services Proposed Uranium Purification and Conversion Service (U-Metal project). ADAMS Accession No. ML23131A361.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from Joh n D. Kinneman, NRC to Mark P. Elliott, NFS re: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. - License Renewal. August 9, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML113040428.
 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Final Environme ntal Assessment for Nuclear Fuel Services License Renewal Application. October 26, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML112560265.
 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006. NUREG-1757 Cons olidated Decommissioning Guidance: Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees. September 2006. ADAMS Accession No. ML063000243.
 
33 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2003. NUREG-1748, En vironmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Ass ociated with NMSS Programs. August 2003, ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279.
 
Schaub A, Ostwald J, Siemers BM. 2008. Foraging bats avoid nois e. Journal of Experimental Biology 211:3174-3180.
 
TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation). 20 23. May 4, 2023 Email from Jerry Bingaman to Ashley Waldron (NRC) - Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment: Nuclear Fuel Services Proposed Uranium Purification and Conversion Service (U-Metal project). ADAMS Accession No. ML23131A361.
 
34}}
34}}

Revision as of 09:23, 13 November 2024

Final Environmental Assessment for NFS Proposed U-Metal Project
ML23299A062
Person / Time
Site: Erwin
Issue date: 10/26/2023
From: Ashley Waldron
NRC/NMSS/DREFS/ERMB
To:
References
Download: ML23299A062 (39)
v • d • e


Text

Environmental Assessment for the Nuclear Fuel Services License Amendment Request to Amend a Spec ial Nuclear Material License to Include a Uranium Purification and Conversion Servic e in Erwin, Tennessee

SNM-124 Docket No. 70-00143

Final Report

Completed: October 2023

Environmental Center of Expertise Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Proposed Action.......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action................................................................ 1 1.3 NEPA Process and NRC Environmental Review........................................................ 1 1.4 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizat ions............................ 2 1.4.1 Federal, State, and Local Authorities.............................................................. 2 1.5 Cooperating Agencies and Consultations................................................................... 4 1.5.1 State Review................................................................................................... 4 1.5.2 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultati on.......................... 5 1.5.3 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation............................................ 5

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................................................... 6 2.1 Proposed Action.......................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Site Location and Layout................................................................................. 6 2.1.2 Waste Generation and Management............................................................... 8 2.1.3 Monitoring Program....................................................................................... 10 2.1.4 Decommissioning.......................................................................................... 11 2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action.......................................................................... 11

3.0 Affected Environment, Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation................................. 12 3.1 Land Use................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Visual and Scenic Resources.................................................................................... 13 3.2.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 13 3.2.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 13 3.3 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality................................................................ 14 3.3.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 14 3.3.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 14 3.4 Noise......................................................................................................................... 14 3.4.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 14 3.4.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 15 3.5 Geologic Resource (Geology and Soils)................................................................... 15 3.5.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 15 3.5.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 16 3.6 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)............................................... 16 3.6.1 Affected Environment - Surface Water......................................................... 16 3.6.2 Affected Environment - Groundwater........................................................... 17 3.6.3 Impacts on Surface Water............................................................................. 18 3.6.4 Impacts on Groundwater............................................................................... 18 3.7 Ecological Resources................................................................................................ 19 3.7.1 Affected Environment - Terrestrial................................................................. 19 3.7.2 Affected Environment-Aquatic..................................................................... 19

iii 3.7.3 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species........................................... 19 3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources................................................................................ 24 3.8.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 24 3.8.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 24 3.9 Socioeconomics........................................................................................................ 25 3.9.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 25 3.9.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 25 3.10 Public and Occupation Health................................................................................... 25 3.10.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 25 3.10.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 26 3.11 Transportation........................................................................................................... 26 3.11.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................... 26 3.11.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 26 3.12 Environmental Justice............................................................................................... 27 3.12.1 Demographics and Socioeconomic Environment.......................................... 27 3.13 Waste Management.................................................................................................. 28 3.13.1 Affected Environment - Radioactive and Nonradioactive Wa ste................... 28 3.13.2 Impacts.......................................................................................................... 30 3.14 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................... 30

4.0 Conclusion and Recommendation................................................................................ 31 4.1 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 31 4.2 List of Preparers........................................................................................................ 31

5.0 REFERENCES

.................................................................................................................. 32

iv ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMNS

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Cond itioning Engineers cm centimeter DOE U.S. Department of Energy EA environmentalassessment EJ environmentaljustice EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPOTW Erwin Publicly Owned Treatment Works ER environmentalr eport ESA Endangered Species Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact ft feet ft2 square feet FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service HEPA high-efficiency particulate air HEU high-enriched uranium HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning in inch IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation km kilometer LAR license amendment request m meter m2 square meters mi mile MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRHP National Register of Historic Places POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration ROI Region of Interest SER safety evaluation report SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SNM special nuclear material TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation UF6 uranium hexafluoride WWTF wastewater treatment facility

v

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On November 18, 2021, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) submitt ed an application (NFS 2021a) and an accompanying environmental report (ER) (NFS 2021b, NFS 2023) to the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting to amend its spe cial nuclear material (SNM) license, SNM-124. NFS requests to amend its current operations to include a Uranium Purification and Conversion Services Project (U-Metal Project) at its site in Erwin, TN. NFS is authorized under SNM-124 to operate a fuel fabrication plant lo cated in Erwin, Tennessee. The NRC accepted the application for a detailed technical review (s afety and environmental) on March 25, 2022 (NRC 2022a). The NRC issued requests for additio nal information on April 28, 2022 (NRC 2022b) and NFS provided its responses to that request on June 30, 2022 (NFS 2022).

NFS Part 70 license was originally issued by the Atomic Energy Commission to W.R. Grace and Company, Davison Chemical Division, on September 18, 1957. It authorized initial facility operations with enriched uranium. Later, the license was transf erred to NFS on December 31, 1963. The license was renewed on the following dates: November 5, 1965; January 27, 1978; March 16, 1979; June 9, 1992; and July 2, 1999. On August 9, 20 12, the NRC renewed NFS Special Nuclear Material (SNM) license (SNM-124) for a period of 25 years, which would allow operations through 2037 (NRC 2012).

1.1 Proposed Action

The proposed action is to amend NFS SNM-124 license to include the U-Metal Project, which would authorize NFS to operate Uranium Purification and Convers ion Services (U-Metal Project) at the NFS site pursuant to a contract with the U.S. D epartment of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) (NFS 2021a).

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

Legacy uranium processing equipment at the NNSAs Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee is tentatively planned for shutdown in the near future. Based upon available information, NNSA plans to partially replace this legacy uranium processing syste m capability with new electrorefining technology to purify high-enriched uranium (HEU ) metal. However, this new process will not be available until after 2023 and will not be capable of converting oxides to metal until completion of a separate future project. Therefore, the purpose and need for this project is to maintain the ability to convert oxides to metal, provide a redundancy for the purification of uranium metals, and hedge against the technolog y risk associated with the new electrorefining facility at NFS.

1.3 NEPA Process and NRC Environmental Review

The NRC staff has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) f ollowing NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.), and pursuant to NRC staff guidance in NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs (NRC 2003). The purpose of this document is to assess the potential environmental impacts of proposed license amendment (i.e., the addition of the U-Metal P roject) and of reasonable alternatives.

1 The NRC staff has addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the license amendment to add the U-Metal Project to activities under licens e SNM-124 and has documented the potential environm ental impacts to the human and natural environment in this EA.

The NRC staff reviewed and consider ed the following documents in the development of this EA:

  • the NFS license amendment application, dated November 18, 2021 (NFS 2021a), and the accompanying ER (NFS 2021b);
  • NFS responses to NRCs Request for Additional Information date d June 30, 2022 (NFS 2022); and
  • effluent monitoring reports for 2017 through 2022 for the NFS site that NFS submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 70.59.

1.4 Applicable Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations

1.4.1 Federal, State, and Local Authorities

NEPA established a national environmental policy; goals to prot ect, maintain, and enhance the environment; and a process for to assist Federal agencies in th eir planning and decision making. This EA was prepared in accordance with the NRCs NEPA-implementing regulations at 10 CFR Part 51.

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the NRC regula tes NFS activities at the Erwin, TN, facility in accordance with NRC regulations and the license conditions in SNM-124, issued under 10 CFR Part 70. The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) will address whether the application meets the applicable requirements of 10 CFR Parts 2 0 and 70. The NRC staff are preparing the EA and SER to evaluate the potential impacts on p ublic health and safety and the environment associated with the proposed license amendment requ est that would add a uranium metal operation to the current facility. The NRC staff decision on the proposed action will be based on the results of both the EA and SER.

Several other Federal and State agencies require permits for ac tivities associated with the site and are discussed below.

  • The Department of Energy (DOE) has broad authority to regulate activities involving radioactive materials that are undertaken by DOE or on its beha lf, including the transportation of radioactive materials. DOE exercises this aut hority to regulate certain DOE shipments, such as shipments of materials of national security interest undertaken by government employees or shipments involving special circumstanc es and would be the authority for transporting those materials at this facility (DO E 2010).
  • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dr edge or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through a permitting program.

2

- The TDEC Division of Radiological Health regulates the use of certain radioactive materials within the State. In 1965, the former Atomic Energy C ommission established an agreement with the State of Tennessee to discontinue Commiss ion authority over certain radioactive materials and allow the radioactive materia ls to be regulated by the State.

- The TDEC Division of Radiological Health regulates byproduct m aterial, source material, and SNM in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass (a s defined in the Atomic Energy Act). The Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board adopts r egulations and initiates court actions to enforce regulations on the discharge of air po llutants from boilers and other pollutant-generating equipment. The Tennessee Air Polluti on Control Board is administered by the TDEC Divisi on of Air Pollution Control.

  • There are two sanitary sewers at the NFS site. The sanitary wa ste is treated by Erwin Utilities Publicly Owned Treatm ent Works (POTW). Erwin Utilitie s regulates effluents to the sewers through an industrial pretreatment permit program (NRC 2 011).

Table 1-1 summarizes the various Federal, State, and local agen cy licenses and permits issued to NFS for activities at its Erwin facility (NFS 2022).

Table 1-1. Federal, State, and Local Agency Licenses and Permit s for Activities at the NFS Site

Type of License/Permit Issuing Agency Special Nuclear Material License NRC Quality Assurance Program for Shipping Packages for Radioactive Material NRC Quality Assurance Program for Rad. Material Packages DOE Certificates of Compliance for Rad. Material Packages: ES-3100 NRC Certificate of Compliance for Rad. Material Packages: NRC LR-230 Certificate of Compliance for Rad. Material Packages: NRC Versa-Pac Certificate of Compliance for Rad. Material Packages: DOT 2000MED Hazardous Materials Certificate of Registration DOT Federal Explosives License/Permit DOJ Radio System Licenses FCC Radioactive Material (Source Material) License State of TN Radioactive Material (Sealed Sources) License State of TN Radioactive Material (R&D) License State of TN Registration of X-ray Producing Equipment State of TN Rad. Waste License-for-Delivery State of TN Hazardous Waste Management Permit State of TN NPDES Permit for WWTF Discharges State of TN NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges State of TN Tennessee Multi-Sector General NPDES Storm Water Permit (TNSP) State of TN Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: State of TN Bldg. 234 Permit closed - closure letter issued by State 06/09/2016

3 Type of License/Permit Issuing Agency Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: State of TN Bldg. 300 & Bldg. 333 operations Environmental source 86-0002-08 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: State of TN Bldg. 330 / WWTF Environmental source 86-0002-12 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: State of TN Bldg. 130 Steam Boilers Environmental source 86- 0002-24 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: State of TN Generator (1,000 kW) Environmental source 86-0002-54 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: Emergency Generators; GEN0234, State of TN GEN0138, and GEN0480 Environmental source 86-0002-55 Air Pollution Control Operating Permit: State of TN Two Emergency fire water pumps Environmental source 86-0002-57 POTW (Sanitary Sewer) Discharge Permit City of Erwin Nuclear Fuel Services Pretreatment Permit City of Erwin Application for Authorization to Operate a Class V Underground Injection State of TN Well for Storm Water Discharge to the Subsurface or Modification of a Karst Feature Attendant (Boiler) Variance Renewal State of TN Re-Accreditation Application for a Firm to Conduct Asbestos Activities & State of TN Firm Affirmation Statement and Asbestos Certification Continuance and Re-Accreditation Application to Conduct Asbestos Activities Generator Site Access Permit State of UT WCS Generator Certification WCS Rad. Waste Registration (Shipper) State of TX DOE = U.S. Department of Energy; DOJ = U.S. Department of Justice; DOT = U.S. Department of Transportation; FCC =

Federal Communications Commission; NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; POTW = Publicly Owned Treatment Works; R&D = research and development; TN = Tennessee; WCS = Waste Control Specialists; WWTF = Wastewater Treatment Facility.

Source: NFS 2022

The NRC assumes that existing regulations are applied, as appro priate, by other Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies. When evaluating potential enviro nmental impacts, the NRC also assumes that the licensee would comply with regulatory requirem ents and the license and permit conditions issued by these agencies. These assumptions a re based, in part on the staffs review in Section 3.0 of this EA, which considers NFSs past co mpliance with the permits issued by other agencies in the staffs assessment of impacts.

1.5 Cooperating Agencies and Consultations

1.5.1 State Review

The NRC staff provided a copy of the draft EA to the State of T ennessee, Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Radiological Division for i ts review and comment. TDEC provided comments on the draft EA on May 4, 2023. Their comment s included that the States existing environmental monitoring program is sufficient to incl ude the U-Metal Process, and that no modifications to NFS existing permits would be required. TD EC stated it had no concerns regarding waste that would be generated by the U-Metal process, noting that 1% increase in

4 waste generated could be handled under the States current wast e inspection program and that no new waste streams would be generated (TDEC, 2023).

1.5.2 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultati on

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was enacted to cr eate a national historic preservation program, including the National Register of Histor ic Places and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Section 106 of the NHPA requi res Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properti es. The NHPA implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Propert ies, defines an undertaking

The proposed action, to approve or deny the license amendment, is considered a Federal undertaking as defined by NHPAs implementing regulations. The NRC staffs analysis related to historic and cultural resources can be found in section 3.8.

The NRC initiated consultation with four Federally recognized I ndian Tribes in a letter dated September 13, 2022 (NRC 2022c; see Section 3.8). The staff also initiated consultation with the Tennessee State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in a letter dated September 13, 2022 (NRC 2022d). The NRC did not received comments from the Tribes or SHPO regarding the proposed undertaking, which concl udes the NRCs responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA. See section 3.8 for additional details regarding NRCs co nsultation under Section 106.

1.5.3 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and through its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402, Interagency CooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Subpart B, Consultation Procedures), a Federal agency must de termine whether (1) endangered and threatened species or their critical habitats ar e known to be in the vicinity of the proposed action and, if so, whether (2) the proposed Federal ac tion may affect listed species or critical habitats before it can authorize or implement a propos ed activity. If the proposed action may affect listed species or critical habitats, the Federal age ncy is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service, or both.

Federal agencies may fulfill their obligations to consult with the FWS under ESA Section7 in conjunction with the interagency cooperation procedures require d by other statutes, including NEPA (50 CFR 402.06(a)). In such cases, the Federal agency shou ld include the results of the ESA Section 7 consultation in the NEPA document (50CFR402.06( b)). The NRC considers this EA and associated correspondence with the FWS to fulfill its ob ligations under ESA Section 7.

The NRC initiated informal Section 7 consultation with FWS by l etter dated August 18, 2023 (NRC 2023), providing its effects determinations for six threat ened or endangered species. The FWS concurred with the NRC staffs findings on September 28, 20 23 (FWS 2023a).

Additional details regarding impacts to proposed or listed spec ies are included in Section 3.7.3.

5 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Proposed Action

The proposed action is to amend NFS SNM License, SNM-124, to a uthorize construction and operation of the Uranium Purification and Conversion Services ( U-Metal Project) at the NFS facility pursuant to a contract with the DOE's NNSA. Under the proposed action, NFS would construct a new, approximately 278.7 square meters (m 2) [3,000 square feet (ft2)] Utility Support Building (Building 389) and revise activities in the HEU Metal Processing Area Building (Building 301) to accommodate the new U-Metal Project (NFS 2022). The new building would be located within the protected area of the site west of the main processi ng building. These facilities would contain the U-metal conversion process activities and utilities subsystems.

2.1.1 Site Location and Layout

The NFS site is situated on approximately 33.2 hectare (ha) [82 acres (ac)] of land in the Town of Erwin, in Unicoi County in northeast Tennessee (see Figure 2 -1). The property is located at latitude 36°0747N and longitude 82°2557W, approximately 499 to 512 meter (m) [1,640 to 1,680 feet (ft)] above sea level. The facility is bounded by Ca rolina Avenue on the southeastern side, the Chessie Seaboard Multiplier (CSX) Railroad line on th e northwest side, and Martin Creek on the northeastern side of the facility location.

Four bodies of surface water are adjacent to, or in the immedia te vicinity of, the plant. The site contains a natural spring (Banner Spring), which originates on the NFS property. Banner Spring forms Banner Spring Branch, which is routed through an undergro und pipe across the site and empties into Martin Creek at the site boundary. Martin Creek em pties into North Indian Creek approximately 1,067 m (3,500 ft) north of the NFS facility, and North Indian Creek empties into the Nolichucky River approximately one mile from the site bound ary.

The NFS facility is located in a southwest-to-northeast oriente d valley, bounded on both sides by the Blue Ridge Mountains of the Appalachian Mountain chain. The surrounding mountains have a maximum elevation of approximately 756 m (2,480 ft) abov e sea level. The topography of the NFS property is relatively level; site elevations range from approximately 500 to 512 m (1,640 to 1,680 ft) above sea level.

6 Figure 2-1. Site Location and Surrounding Area (Source: NRC 201 1)

2.1.1.1 Facility Operation

The current operations performed at the facility are performed under SNM license SNM-124.

These activities include (1) product processing activities incl uding uranium hexafluoride (UF 6) conversion, fuel manufacturing, u ranium recovery and enrichment blending; (2) laboratory operations including wet chemical and physical testing; (3) gen eral services ancillary to the primary operation; (4) research and development work performed on source and SNM compounds and mixtures; (5) radioactive waste management of was te streams including decontamination packaging and storage, shipment of radioactive wastes, volume reduction and, solidification; and (6) ongoing decommissioning activities (NFS 2021b).

The proposed action of constructing and operating the U-Metal P roject would add an additional production process and a new utility support building (Building 389) within the site boundary.

Construction of Building 389 would occur within a previously di sturbed area that is currently paved and surrounded by several other existing buildings. The n ew building would be approximately 278.7 m2 (3,000 ft2) and house utility operations to support the operations in the existing Building 301 (NFS 2022). The overall building height w ould be similar to the existing facility buildings; standing approximately 30 ft [9 m] tall at its highest point.

7 The building's interior rooms would have masonry walls, steel d oors, and a concrete roof deck, except for the restroom facilities and office area where gypsum board with steel stud construction would be used. Building 389 would contain support equipment for main process operations such as a scrubber, solution storage tanks (e.g., wa stewater, bulk chemical supply),

electrical room, supply room, and office areas. Solution storag e is contained within a diked containment area. Building 389 would be adjacent to the west si de of the current processing area in the southwest corner of the plant site where the former Versatile Automated Gamma Assay System was used for radioactive waste analysis (NFS 2022).

The U-Metal Project process would take place on the main floor of the processing area located in Building 301 (already onsite) and would comprise several dif ferent operating areas. The process would involve performing uranium purification and conve rsion to uranium metal.

Electrical power for U-Metal Project operations (primary and au xiliary systems) would be provided directly from an existing nearby substation (NFS 2021b ).

2.1.2 Waste Generation and Management

The processes associated with the activities at the NFS facilit y would continue to generate gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes. The proposed action is expec ted to add new material (contributing to about a 1 percent increase in the total waste at the facility) but would not create new waste streams. This section describes the nature of the was tes generated and NFS waste management practices.

2.1.2.1 Radioactive Waste and Nonradioactive Waste

The following radioactive waste management activities occur at the NFS site:

  • treatment of basic and acidic waste streams at the National Po llutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted wastewater treatment facility (WWTF);
  • decontamination of liquid waste streams and process equipment;
  • packaging and storage of liquid and solid wastes contaminated with or containing nonrecoverable uranium;
  • shipment of radioactive wastes to licensed facilities or to li censed burial sites for disposal;
  • volume reduction by compaction, distillation, reuse, and/or ev aporation of waste materials containing enriched uranium; and,
  • solidification of radioactive waste.

The current facility also generates hazardous and nonhazardous wastes that are nonradioactive.

  • Nonradioactive Hazardous Waste: NFS generates hazardous waste that is not radiologically contaminated. In accordance with applicable regulations, NFS te mporarily stores such waste onsite and then ships it to an authorized offsite treatme nt, storage, or disposal facility.
  • Nonradioactive/Nonhazardous Waste: NFS generates nonradioactiv e/nonhazardous waste (such as waste oil, paper, and cafeteria waste) in the normal c ourse of operations. All waste materials are shipped off-site for treatment, recycling, and/or disposal at appropriate facilities.

8 2.1.2.2 Mixed Solid Waste

NFS manages "mixed" waste (hazardous waste that is radioactivel y contaminated) in accordance with applicable Federal and State hazardous waste ma nagement regulations. NFS has a Hazardous Waste Management Facility permit (table 1-1), i ssued by the TDEC Division of Solid Waste Management, which allow s storage of specific kinds of mixed waste in containers.

Most of the mixed waste stored on-site is mercury-contaminated waste generated by NFS laboratory operations (NFS 2021b).

2.1.2.3 Liquid Effluent

The liquid effluent for the current facility configuration incl udes the following:

  • Wastewater - The NFS Erwin Facility produces liquid effluents from several different activities: fuel production, HEU recovery, UF 6 conversion, enrichment blending, laboratory operations, laundry activities, and facility decommissioning ac tivities. This wastewater is batch treated, sampled, and then discharged from the onsite WWT F if levels are below those listed in 10 CFR Part 20.1301 and in compliance with the facility's NPDES permit (table 1-1). Treatment typically involves adjustment of pH usin g sodium hydroxide/sulfuric acid and precipitation and removal of fluoride ions and uranium through addition of lime slurrycalcium hydroxide. Disso lved ammonia is removed, as needed, using air stripping, and the pH is re-adjusted to discharge levels. Discharges are m ade directly to the Nolichucky River. No modifications to the existing permits woul d be required for the proposed U-Metal Project.
  • Sanitary Wastes - Sanitary waste from the facility consists of bathrooms and showers. NFS discharges under an Erwin Publicly Owned Treatment Works permit (table 1-1).
  • Stormwater Runoff - The primary pathway for runoff is from sou th to north across the NFS site and into Banner Spring Branch and Martin Creek. Banner Spr ing Branch flows into Martin Creek, which subsequently flows into North Indian Creek and then into the Nolichucky River. Drainage exits the NFS protected area through two sluice gate valves into Martin Creek. The gates are in place to allow the flow to be st opped in the event of a spill of hazardous material (NFS 2021b).

2.1.2.4 Gaseous Effluent (Effluents to Air)

Various control devices are used to remove radioactive particul ates and chemicals from gaseous effluents. A new air emission unit equipped with an air control device sys tem would be installed to support the U-metal process.

The primary systems are as follows:

  • Main Process Cleaning System - The facility's main process ven tilation system combines air effluents from the primary HEU processing areas. This combined effluent is cleaned by venturi and demisting scrubbers and high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration.
  • 30 percent American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) prefilters - These prefilters are used on heating, ven tilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) recirculation room air handlers in a large portion of th e facility at the NFS site.
  • Packed-bed or Sieve Tray Scrubbers - These scrubbers are used in several buildings.

Sodium hydroxide, water, and sulfuric acid are used as scrubbin g solutions.

9

  • HEPA filters - These filters are used throughout the facility at the NFS site for high-efficiency (99+ percent) removal of airborne particulates. In some instanc es, multiple HEPA filters are used in series to achieve higher removal efficiencies (NFS 2021 b).

NFS determined the combined total operations (including the U-M etal Project) would result in less than 4.5 metric tons (5 tons) per year of each chemical ai r contaminant and each regulated air pollutant that is not a hazardous air pollutant, and less t han 453.6 kilograms (1,000 pounds) per year of each hazardous air pollutant (NFS 2022). Gaseous em issions are listed in Table 2-1.

NFS has requested a permit exemption for insignificant emission s from TDEC under the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations for the U-Metal pro cess.

Table 2-1. Gaseous Emissions for the Proposed U-Metal Process

U-Metal Project Emission (T/yr)

Particulate 0.004 Carbon monoxide 1.7 NOx 1.23 Nitric Acid 0.17 Ammonia 2.29 Hydrogen fluoride 0.24 Source: NFS 2022

2.1.3 Monitoring Program

NFS conducts two environmental radiological monitoring programs to address offsite impacts of its site operations. These programs include sampling and analys is of effluents at and prior to discharge as well as sampling and analysis of various environme ntal media at offsite locations (NFS 2021b).

The environmental monitoring programs would remain unchanged be cause no new radiological or chemical constituents would occur with the addition of the U -Metal Project. The NFS Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would be revised to include the new building (Building 389).

2.1.3.1 Environmental Radiological Monitoring Program

NFS releases both gaseous and liquid effluents to the environme nt at its facility. NFS has effluent control systems to reduce the levels and concentration s of radiological and nonradiological constituents in those effluents. These control systems include scrubbers and air filtration filters, pre-discharge treatment of liquid effluents, and action levels set by NFS to meet the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) requirements and th e annual public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 (NFS 2009).

NFS also regularly samples and analyzes its gaseous and liquid effluents. NFS continuously samples all process stacks and vents that have the potential to release airborne radioactivity at concentrations greater than or equal to 10 percent of the value s in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 1. NFS analyzes the samples for gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity (NRC 2011).

10 2.1.3.2 Environmental Radiological Surveillance Program

NFS also samples ambient air, surface water, soil, sediment, ve getation, and groundwater as part of its environmental surveillance program. The purpose of the program is to provide (1) additional validation for the environmental monitoring program; (2) early detection of trends in environmental data; and (3) additional data in the event of an offsite release of radioactive material (NFS 2009).

2.1.4 Decommissioning

NFS would be required under 10 CFR 70.38 to submit a detailed s ite decommissioning plan, and facility decommissioning would begin upon NRC approval of that plan. The NRCs review would address both the public health and safety and the environ mental aspects of the proposed decommissioning plan.

NFS has been actively engaged in decommissioning portions of th e NFS Erwin Facility since the mid-1980s. Several processing buildings and former waste di sposal and storage areas have been either fully or partially decommissioned. The current focu s is on legacy building decommissioning (NFS 2021b).

Decommissioning activities for the proposed action would occur sometime after completion of the proposed action. The U-Metal Project would continue as long as the service is contracted (to be determined). Upon completion of U-metal activities, the faci lity would follow a safe shutdown approach, be disconnected from existing site facilities, and th e equipment would be left in place until another use was determined or the site was decommissioned.

During decommissioning, NFS would need to follow the general pr ocess identified for a site decommissioning, as presented in V olume 1 (Revision 2) of NUREG-1757, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees (NRC 2006).

This process includes the following: (1) ceasing operations at the site; (2) determining and confirming the locations and concentrations of any radiological contamination; (3) developing the schedules, decommissioning procedures, and final survey met hods to be used to demonstrate compliance with NRC criteria; (4) conducting the de contamination and decommissioning activities to achieve the applicable decommissi oning standards; and (5) disposing of the decommissioning wastes (NRC 2006). After NRC a pproval of the plan, NFS would begin site decommissioning, and the NRC would conduct ons ite inspections to ensure that all activities are conducted in accordance with the plan a nd conduct final confirmatory surveys prior to approving completion of decommissioning to mee t the applicable standards (NFS 2009).

2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not amend the li cense to include construction and operation of the new U-Metal project at the NFS site. The N NSA would not have an option for conversion services to replace the legacy uranium processin g equipment temporarily unless a new electrorefining technology to purify HEU metal becomes av ailable.

11 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION

3.1 Land Use

3.1.1 Affected Environment

The NFS site uses about 78.1 percent of the 33 ha (82 ac ) site area for licensed activities, which include process buildings, warehouses, offices, parking l ots, and waste management areas (NFS 2021b). The NFS site also consists of open fields an d small wooded areas. The land surrounding the site consists of residential and public us e, as well as agriculture. The Riverview Industrial Park is located west of the NFS site adjac ent to the CSX Railroad.

Interstate 23 runs west of the industrial park and is adjacent to the Nolichucky River. To the north of the NFS site is Martin Creek and a wooded area that se parates the site from residential properties. The Erwin State Trout Hatchery is located approxima tely 182 m (600 ft) east of the facility.

Figure 3-1. Location of Nuclear Fuel Services Site Near Erwin, TN (Source: NRC 2011)

3.1.2 Impacts

The proposed U-Metal Project would be located within a new buil ding to be constructed within the existing NFS site. As stated above, the affected area would be the addition of Building 389, which would be approximately 278.7 m 2 (3,000 ft2). The proposed project would not include any

12 previously undisturbed land. No new construction entrances woul d be created by the project; thus, vehicles would enter through existing entrances (NFS 2022 ).

The impacts due to construction and operation of the U-Metal Pr oject would not change land use within the facility or the surrounding areas. The U-Metal P roject building would be constructed and operated within the facilitys protected area o n land that was previously disturbed. Offsite land use would not be affected by the constr uction and operation of the U-Metal Project. Therefore, activities associated with constructi on and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect land use.

3.2 Visual and Scenic Resources

3.2.1 Affected Environment

The NFS site is situated in a valley locally known as the Vall ey Beautiful, in Unicoi County between the Bald Mountains to the southwest and the Unaka Range to the east, both of which are part of the Appalachian Mountains (NRC 2011). Martin Creek runs along the northern site boundary, and Banner Spring Branch is located in the central po rtion of the site, although it has been rerouted and enclosed within an underground pipe on the NF S site. Martin Creek is vegetated with grass, shrubs, and trees. The area surrounding t he NFS facility consists of a mix of residential, commercial, indus trial, and agricultural activities.

The major landscape features located in the immediate vicinity of the NFS site are the Nolichucky River and the forested hillsides that surround the v alley in which the NFS site is located. The NFS site is approximately 0.3 kilometer (km) [0.2 mile (mi)] from the river. The fuel fabrication plant elevation is about 9 m (30 ft) above the near est point on the Nolichucky River (NRC 2011) and, therefore, the NFS facility may be partially se en from the river.

3.2.2 Impacts

The aesthetic and scenic quality of the NFS site is currently l ow and does not provide a high-quality aesthetic landscape, because it is industrial in nature. No scenic areas are located within the immediate area of the NFS site, although scenic sections of the Nolichucky River and the Appalachian Trail are located within 3.3 km (2 mi) (NRC 2011). Since 2011, no new scenic designated areas have been identified (NFS 2022).

The U-Metal Project would reconfigure a current industrial buil ding and add a new Utility Support Building (Building 389), which would be fully contained within the protected area. The newly added building would be within the current footprint of t he NFS site and would stand 30 ft (9 m) high (NFS 2022). The buildings would be of similar height as the current buildings and, therefore, would not significantly alter the current viewscape.

A new emissions stack would replace an existing emissions stack and be similar in appearance but would be 3 m (10 ft) higher than the existing stack. A cran e [18 m (60 ft) crawler] would be used to replace HVAC units on the roof of Building 301 and to a ssist in the construction of Building 389. The crane would be used for a short period of tim e (approximately 60 working days) and would then be removed to allow for continued construc tion of Building 389. The visual and scenic resources would not be affected by any actions or ph ysical attributes of the new building for the U-Metal Project, during either construction or operation. Minimal impacts to visual and scenic resources are expected from the U-Metal, the viewshed of the site would remain similar to the current conditions given that its a prev iously developed site and the

13 building would be of similar size as the existing buildings. Th e crane may be visible for short periods of time, but it would be temporary and located within a n industrial area. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect the visual or scenic resource.

3.3 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality

3.3.1 Affected Environment

The climate in Unicoi County, Tennessee, consists of warm summe rs and mild winters, with the annual temperature averaging is 13°C (55.4°F). Temperatures ave rage 1.6°C (35°F) in January and 23°C (74.0°F) in January. The average annual precipitation in the Erwin area is 119 centimeters (cm) [47.0 inches (in)] and the average annual snow fall is 24 cm (9.3 in) (NOAA 2022). For more information regarding the general meteorology a nd climatology at the site refer to NRC, 2011.

Unicoi County is designated as being in attainment for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as specified in 40 CFR 81. Surrounding counties (Washi ngton and Carter) are also in attainment for NAAQS, with the exception of Sullivan County, which is in nonattainment status for one pollutant. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is a designated Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class 1 area and is located app roximately 75 km (47 mi) southwest of the NFS site. No PSD permits have been required fo r any pollutant sources at the facility (NFS 2021b).

3.3.2 Impacts

As part of the current operations, NFS monitors the air quality both onsite and offsite at many locations around the NFS site. Data provided in the license app lication show the results of that monitoring for various contaminant levels, in particular that t he effluent concentrations at the facility are generally lower than the regulatory limit. Many of the NFS emissions are further reduced using effluent control equipment. NFS must also comply with the provisions in its air permits as issued by the State of Tennessee (see Table 1-1).

The air quality impacts due to the additional construction and operational activities (including minimal traffic, see section 3.11) on the site would result in minor additions to the current air effluents, as discussed in section 2.1.3, and are not expected to exceed safety and regulatory requirements. Therefore, activities associated with constructio n and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect air quality at or near t he site.

3.4 Noise

3.4.1 Affected Environment

Noise is defined as any loud, discordant, or disagreeable sound or sounds. Certain activities inherently produce sound levels or sound characteristics that h ave the potential to create noise.

The sound generated by existing facilities may become noise due to land uses surrounding the facility. When lands adjoining an existing or proposed facility contain residential, commercial, institutional, or recreational uses near the facility, noise is likely to be a matter of concern to residents or users of adjacent lands. Sounds that could occur d uring facility operations, include:

14 (1) fixed equipment or process operations, (2) mobile equipment or process operations, and (3) transport movements of products, raw material, or waste.

Overall noise in the area is generated from multiple sources, i ncluding trains, trucks, and cars.

The NFS site is located in an industrial area that is shared wi th companies that contribute to the overall noise in the affected area. The noise environment near the NFS site is typical of a rural location. Major noise emission sources within the NFS facility include various alarm systems, fixed plant equipment (e.g., pumps, blowers), and heavy equipme nt (e.g., tractor trailers, front-end loaders, backhoes). The primary source of noise at the NFS facility boundary is from traffic, and other sources that are occasionally audible above backgroun d noise.

Although the Code of Ordinances for the Town of Erwin recognize s offenses against the peace and quiet, Erwin does not have a specific environmental noise standard that is applicable to the NFS site (NFS 2021b). Further, the Code of Ordinances does not reference a decibel level that defines excessive. NFS stated that plant-wide alarms needed for employee notification would provide the greatest potential for offsite noise exposure to ne arby residents, with the take-cover alarm being the loudest. Sound level surveys at various locatio ns on the outside perimeter of the NFS site during alarm testing did not indicate any levels a bove Occupational Safety and Health Administration limits (NRC 2011). NFS further stated it has not received complaints from the Town of Erwin regarding excessive noise (NFS 2022).

3.4.2 Impacts

The expected environmental noise generation would be attributed to use of earth-moving equipment and crane usage (e.g., crane, backhoe, grader, front loader, trencher, boom truck, lull, concrete trucks, fork trucks, compactor). These types of activities are currently performed at the NFS site on an as-needed basis. The expected use of constru ction equipment would be intermittent and expected to last less than 6 months.

Construction activities would occur within the protected area t hat is surrounded by a sand wall, which would provide significant noise mitigation for offsite lo cations. Additionally, construction activities would typically occur during daylight hours and on w eekdays to comply with the Town of Erwin construction time restriction to accommodate nearby re sidences. Upon completion of construction, noise levels are anticipated to return to typical site ambient levels (65 decibels within the protected area) (NFS 2022).

The activities associated with construction of the U-Metal Proj ect would be intermittent and temporary. The noise associated with operation of the U-metal p rocess would be similar to those of current operations and would not add additional decibe ls due to the location of the existing facility within a highly industrialized area. Therefor e, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not sig nificantly affect the noise levels in the vicinity of the NFS site.

3.5 Geologic Resource (Geology and Soils)

3.5.1 Affected Environment

The NFS site lies in the Valley and Ridge physiographic provinc e of northeastern Tennessee.

The topography consists of a series of alternating valleys and ridges that have a northeast-southwest trend, with the NFS site located in a valley. The Sha dy, Knox, Honaker, and Rome Formations are present in the valley. The NFS site is directly underlain by the Rome Formation

15 which is a non-karstic formation. Karst topography is present i n the southeasterly Shady Formation, which occurs upgradient of the NFS site. For more in formation on the geology of the site please refer to NRC 2011.

The principal mineral resources of Unicoi County are sand and g ravel used by the construction industry, metallurgical-grade manganese, and iron ore. Extracti on of sand and gravel from the bed and flood plain of the Nolichucky River and North Indian Cr eek began in the 1940s and was generally continuous until the mid-1970s when large-scale operations ceas ed. Manganese deposits are contained mostly in the clay-rich residual soils o f the Shady Dolomite. Manganese is also found in residual soils of the Honaker Dolomite and low er portions of the Rome Formation (NFS 2021b).

3.5.2 Impacts

The area where the approximately 278.7 m2 (3,000 ft 2) new utility support building (Building 389) would be constructed is a currently a paved surface. The b uilding would require a foundation; excavation would be to an approximate maximum depth of 2.4 m (8 ft) below grade.

Utility lines (e.g., city water, city sewer, and fire main) wou ld be at a depth of 0.3 m (3 ft), and the new stack would require a foundation with a maximum depth o f 1.2 m(4 ft). Any excavated soil would be retained and stored. Excavated areas would be bac kfilled until foundation work is completed. After completion of construction activities, all sur faces in and around Building 389 and Building 301 would be returned to a paved state. No subsurf ace systems, other than utility connections, (e.g., supply or retention tanks) would be install ed (NFS 2022).

Other than some minimal site regrading, the activities associat ed with construction of the U-Metal Project facility would not occur below grade. No proposed processes would affect the subsurface during operational activities. Based on the limited amount of area that would be disturbed during construction and given that no additional area that would be disturbed during operations, activities associated with construction and operati on of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect the geologic resource in the vicinity of the site.

3.6 Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)

3.6.1 Affected Environment - Surface Water

Banner Spring Branch, North Indian Creek, Martin Creek, and the Nolichucky River are within the immediate proximity of the NFS site. Banner Spring Branch i s located on the NFS site, North Indian Creek and Martin creek occur to the north of the NFS sit e and the Nolichucky River lies to the west of the site. Banner Spring Branch was enclosed in a n underground pipe to prevent any potential contamination during decommissioning activities. Banner Spring Branch is flows eastward and empties into Martin Creek at the NFS site boundary. Martin Creek empties into North Indian Creek, and North Indian Creek empties into the Nol ichucky River approximately 1,218 m (4,000 ft) downstream of the NFS site.

Banner Spring Branch, Martin Cree k, and the Nolichucky River us es include fish and aquatic life, livestock watering and wildlife, irrigation, and recreati on. The Nolichucky River is also classified for industrial use and as a domestic water supply (T DEC 2019). Recreational use of the Nolichucky River includes fishing (bass, walleye, and catfi sh), boating (canoeing/rafting),

swimming, and picnicking. Both the Erwin Publicly Owned Treatme nt Works (EPOTW) and NFS plant discharge into the same reach of the Nolichucky River.

16 The Town of Jonesborough, located about 13 km (8 mi) downstream of the NFS outfall point, uses the Nolichucky River as a municipal water supply (NRC 2011 ). The closest known crop irrigation use of river water occurs more than 16 km (10 mi) do wnstream of the NFS discharge.

NFS is permitted under its NPDES permit to discharge waste stre ams at the WWTF (i.e.,

process related discharges) into the Nolichucky River and storm water discharge into the Banner Spring and Martin Creek. Sanitary wastewater is discharged at E POTW in accordance with Industrial Pretreatment permit issued by Erwin Utilities. Table 3-1 below shows the average output volumes for each outfall (NFS 2021b).

Table 3-1. NFS Permitted Outfalls

Outfall Average Output (L/yr) Discharge Location Wastewater Treatment Facility 7,043,437 Nolichucky River (TN0002038)

Stormwater n/a Banner Spring Branch & Martin Creek (TNR050873)

Sanitary Sewer 41,837,157 Erwin EPOTW (013)

POTW = Publicly Owned Treatment Works.

Source: NFS 2021b.

NFS has restored wetlands on and nearby the site, as required b y its Aquatic Resource Alteration permit. NFS reports no wetlands currently present at the site (NFS 2022).

3.6.2 Affected Environment - Groundwater

As the result of the regional influence of dolomitic host rock on the groundwater quality, the principal dissolved constituents of the groundwater are calcium, magnesium carbonate, and bicarbonate, regardless of the production zone geology.

Data on the ambient nonradiological water quality is summarized in table 7 (Ambient Non-Radiological Groundwater Quality) of the LAR (NFS 2021a). Ambie nt nonradiological characteristics for groundwater are assessed routinely by measu rements of an upgradient well identified as NFS well 52.

Groundwater elevation measurements and modeling generally indic ate that groundwater flows in a northwest direction toward the Nolichucky River, which is a major discharge zone for the groundwater flowing beneath the NFS site. There are no known ho usehold, public, or industrial users of groundwater downgradient of the site (NFS 2021b).

Most drinking water sources are provided by the local municipal ity; however, wells and springs are an important source of water supply for individuals and sev eral communities in the area (Erwin and Chestoa quadrangles). A water-well survey has been p erformed for the facility consisting of a TDEC-TN Water Well Desktop Application (3.0-PUB LIC) records search for the surrounding area.

The well search consisted of determining water wells located wi thin a 1-mile radius and 3-mile radius of the NFS facility. One public water system wellhead pr otection area and two residential wells were listed within 1 mile from the NFS Erwin Facility. Th e public groundwater well, approximately 1.2 km (0.75 mi) northeast (upgradient) of the NF S Erwin Facility, is owned by Erwin Utilities and is listed as the railroad well. Modeling do ne in 1996 indicated that groundwater withdrawn from the railroad well does not originate beneath or downgradient from

17 the NFS site. The two residential wells are located approximate ly 1.4 km (0.9mi) (Resident 1) and 1.6 km (1mi) (Resident 2) south of the NFS site. No other w ells were identified from the database within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the NFS site. The 1.6 km (1mi) area of interest around the NFS site falls within the Jonesborough Water Department Source Wate r Protection Area.

3.6.3 Impacts on Surface Water

Under the proposed action, no significant changes in NFSs auth orized operations are planned with respect to discharge of facility effluents into surface wa ters. Liquid effluents at the NFS site are treated at the WWTF before they are discharged in complianc e with NRC regulatory limits and State-authorized NPDES permit levels into the Nolichucky Ri ver. Stormwater discharge at the NFS site is regulated under a NPDES stormwater permit.

Continued operation of NFS under the proposed action would requ ire NFS to continue to meet NRC regulatory limits for discharge of liquid effluents and req uire NFS to continue to renew, as needed, its NPDES discharge and stormwater management permits f rom the State of Tennessee. NFS is in the process of renewing its NPDES permit f or discharge of facility effluents through Outfall 001 (See figure 2-1).

When comparing background radiological concentrations to downst ream concentrations, the data demonstrates that radiological effluents are within regula tory limits found in 10 CFR 20.

Figure 5 of ER (NFS 2021b) shows the 2009-2020 total uranium co ncentrations in Martin Creek Upstream, Martin Creek Downstream, Nolichucky River Upstream, and Nolichucky River Downstream. In addition, effluents have historically been withi n the permit limits as noted in the NFS license renewal EA (NRC 2011) and continue to be as demonst rated in NFS biannual effluent monitoring reports.

The NRC staff expects the effect of site discharges of stormwater and treated effluents on the quality of surface waters would have minimal impacts because su ch discharges would occur in accordance with NRC regulatory limits and NPDES permit limits. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Proje ct would not significantly affect surface water in the vicinity of the site.

3.6.4 Impacts on Groundwater

Impacts on groundwater from the construction and operation of t he U-Metal Project are not expected. Historically, groundwater has been measured at depths greater than approximately 3 m (10 ft) below the ground surface. Construction of the facilit y would require a foundation; excavation is expected to reach 2.4 m (8 ft) below the surface. Additionally, utility lines that would connect to the current plant systems (e.g., city water, c ity sewer, fire main) and the new stack requiring a foundation would reach 0.9 m (3 ft) and 1.2 m (4 ft). Groundwater would continue to be monitored and documented.

Past operations at the NFS site resulted in the presence of rad ionuclides and organic constituents in the groundwater beneath the facility. The prima ry sources of contamination were (1) three unlined surface impoundments (formerly Ponds 1, 2, an d 3), (2) the "Pond 4" disposal area, and (3) radiological burial grounds, all of which were lo cated in the northern portion of the NFS site. Remedial actions have been taken in the past and are ongoing to address the primary groundwater contaminants of concern (NFS 2021b).

18 The operation of the U-Metal project would be contained within facility buildings (Building 301 and 389), any water generated or associated with the proposed action woul d not be connected to the areas that may infiltrate and add to the groundwater con tamination. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Proje ct would not significantly affect the groundwater resource in the vicinity of the site.

3.7 Ecological Resources

3.7.1 Affected Environment - Terrestrial

Appalachian oak forests, northern hardwood forests, Southeaster n spruce-fir forests, shrublands, grasslands, heath balds, hemlock forests, cove hard woods, and oak-pine communities are found in this region. The previous EA (NRC 2011 ) describes the species and habitats found in the Indian Creek valley located in and around the NFS site. The NFS site consists of open fields, woods, brush, and shrubs.

Indian Creek Valley has a number of vertebrate species, includi ng many mammalian species, numerous species of birds, and many reptiles and amphibians. Ea stern cottontails, mourning doves, and northern bobwhites are present in most areas within the Indian Creek Valley (NFS 2021b). The woods, swamps, and brushy areas onsite or in the vi cinity are likely to support some smaller wildlife species. Common species in the region inc lude European starling, northern cardinal, mourning dove, Carolina chickadee, opossum, eastern cottontail rabbit, and house mouse. Important game species of the region include white tail deer, eastern gray squirrel, ruffed grouse, and wild turkey, which occur in the fo rests of the surrounding mountains but are not common onsite. Carnivores, such as the gray fox, an d raptors, such as the red-tailed hawk, are ecologically important groups in the vicinity of the facility (NFS 2022).

3.7.2 Affected Environment-Aquatic

Aquatic habitat exists at the No lichucky River and nearby streams. A State-operated fish hatchery is located approximately 183 m (600 ft) upstream of th e facility. Some aquatic species found in the Nolichucky River include darters, catfish, bass, s tonerollers, and white crappie. The aquatic habitat in River consists of a substrate of rocks, sand, boulders, and some aquatic moss (NFS 2021b).

Process water discharges are only to the Nolichucky River under NPDES-permitted discharges.

Because the NFS site discharges are consistently in compliance with NFSs NPDES permit, and because the input represents less than 1 percent of the flow vo lume of the river, the impact on aquatic ecology is minimal. The proposed LAR would not increase the potential for negative ecological impacts from process water discharge. Stormwater dis charges enter Banner Spring Branch and Martin Creek. These discharges have no process water content and no potential for significant radiological or chemical effect on the ecology of t he creek or spring. Stormwater associated with the proposed action would be managed in the sam e way as they currently are under NFS existing Stormwater permit.

3.7.3 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species

Federally-Listed Species

The NRC staff used the FWSs Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool to determine Federall y proposed or listed species

19 that may be present in the NFS action area. The action area inc ludes the NFS facility, as described in NFS (2021).

IPaC (FWS 2023b) identified six threatened, endangered, or prop osed species (see Table 3-2).

In addition, the monarch butterfly ( Danaus plexippus), which is a candidate species, was also identified as potentially occurring within the action area. Can didate species are not afforded protections under the Endangered Species Act.

The six threatened, endangered, and proposed species included f our bat species, one freshwater mussel, and one plant. Since no ground disturbing or construction activities would occur within suitable habitat for the plant, the NRC staff dete rmined that the proposed action would have no effect on this species.

NFS (2021) is not aware of any documented occurrences of the fo ur bat species within 1 mile of the facility. However, the bats may transit the area when forag ing or migrating, and therefore, are considered in the analysis below.

Due to wastewater discharges that would occur as a result of th e proposed action, staff considered the potential impacts to Appalachian Elktoe ( Alasmidonta raveneliana) in the below analysis.

Table 3-2. Federally Listed Species Identified through Informat ion for Planning and Conservation tool Species Status Effects Determination

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) Endangered may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect

Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis Endangered may affect, not likely to septentrionalis) adversely affect

Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) Endangered may affect, not likely to adversely affect

Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus) Proposed may affect, not likely to Endangered adversely affect

Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta Endangered may affect, not likely to raveneliana) adversely affect Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) Threatened no effect

Indiana bats (Myotis sodalist) are medium-sized bats found throughout much of the eastern, southeastern, and north central United States. They migrate sea sonally between caves, where they hibernate during winter months, and their summer range whe re they roost in dead, dying, or live trees with cracks, crevices, or exfoliating bark. When female Indiana bats emerge from hibernation, they migrate to maternity colonies in their summer range. The timing of annual spring emergence of Indiana bats from their hibernacula may var y depending on latitude and

20 weather; however, literature indicates peak spring emergence of female Indiana bats occurs in mid-April and emergence of males occurs later.

Suitable summer habitat for Indiana bats consists of a wide var iety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent ed ges of agricultural fields, old fields, and pastures. Indiana bats exhibit strong site fidelity to summer roosting and foraging areas. Females form nursery colonies in a variety of habitat ty pes, including uplands and riparian habitats. A wide variety of tree species are used as n ursery colonies, indicating that it is tree form, not species that is important for roosts.

Members of maternity colonies forage in a variety of woodland s ettings, including upland and floodplain forest. Foraging activity is concentrated above and around foliage surfaces, such as over the canopy in upland and riparian woods, around crowns of individual or widely spaced trees, and along forest edges. They forage less frequently over old fields, and occasionally over bushes in open pastures. Forest edges, small openings, and wood lands with patchy trees provide a better supply of insects for foraging than dense wood ed areas.

No suitable habitat for bats occurs within the proposed area of construction and operations.

Potential habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These areas would be considered low-quality habitat given the small a nd fragmented patches of trees and the proximity to major disturbances from railways, highways, and industrialized areas. For example, a railway, a highway, and industrial buildings are loc ated in between the proposed facility site and the closest forested, riparian zone.

The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis) is a medium sized bat found throughout much of the eastern and north central United States, and all Canadian provinces from the Atlantic Ocean west to the southern Yukon Territory an d eastern British Columbia.

They migrate seasonally between caves, where they hibernate during winter months, and their summer range where they primarily roost underneath bark or in c avities or crevices of both live and dead trees.

Suitable summer habitat for NLEB consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjace nt and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent ed ges of agricultural fields, old fields, and pastures. Wetlands and water features are important foraging and drinking water sources. NLEB use multiple species of trees for roosts througho ut their range. Forest successional patterns, structural complexity of habitat, and st and and tree structure appear to be more crucial than tree species in creating and maintaining s uitable long-term roosting opportunities. Canopy coverage surrounding northern long-eared bat roosts generally ranges from about 50 percent to more than 80 percent.

No suitable habitat for bats occurs within the proposed area of construction and operations.

Potential habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These areas would be considered low-quality habitat given the small a nd fragmented patches of trees and the proximity to major disturbances from railways, highways, and industrialized areas. For example, a railway, a highway, and industrial buildings are loc ated in between the proposed facility site and the closest forested, riparian zone.

The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) is a medium-sized insectivorous bat found across a limited geographic range in limestone karst areas of the southeastern U nited States. Hibernating

21 populations are concentrated in caves across northern Alabama a nd Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. Their summer range extends from southw estern Virginia, western North Carolina, and northwestern Georgia, across southern Illin ois and Indiana to as far west as eastern Oklahoma and very southeastern Kansas. Gray bats are one of the few species of bats in North America that inhabit caves year-round, occupying cold hibernating caves or mines in the winter and warmer caves during summer.

Foraging by gray bats during summer is strongly correlated with open water of rivers, streams, lakes, or reservoirs. Gray bats are highly dependent on aquatic insects, especially mayflies, caddisflies, and stoneflies, though they will also opportunisti cally consume beetles and moths.

Most maternity colonies are located between 1 to 4 kilometers f rom foraging locations.

No suitable habitat for bats occurs within the proposed area of construction and operations.

Potential habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These areas would be considered low-quality habitat given the small a nd fragmented patches of trees and the proximity to major disturbances from railways, highways, and industrialized areas. For example, a railway, a highway, and industrial buildings are loc ated in between the proposed facility site and the closest forested, riparian zone.

The tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus ) is a small bat found across the eastern and central United States and portions of southern Canada, Mexico and Centr al America. They are the most common bat in Tennessee and are found throughout the State. Tricolored bats in Tennessee are part of the Northern Representation Unit (RPU) of tricolored bats. Northern tricolored bats hibernate in caves and mines during winter mont hs (whereas tricolored bats in the Southern RPU often hibernate in road-associated culverts, t ree cavities, and abandoned water wells). They typically emerge from hibernation between Ap ril and May.

Suitable summer habitat for tricolored bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats, where they roost, forage, and travel, and may include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent ed ges of agricultural fields, and old fields and pastures, as well as linear features such as fen cerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. Tricolored bats primarily roost in forested h abitat among leaf clusters of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees. Tricolored bats have also been documented roosting among pine needles, eastern red cedar, within artifici al roosts (i.e., human-constructed structures), and, rarely, within caves. They are known to succe ssfully roost and forage in forested areas near anthropogenic structures and buildings.

Tricolored bats primarily forage along forested edges of larger forest openings, along edges of riparian areas, and over water and avoid foraging in dense, unb roken forests, and narrow road cuts through forests. They are opportunistic feeders of small i nsects including caddisflies (Trichoptera), flying moths (Lepidoptera), small beetles (Coleoptera), small wasps and flying ants (Hymenoptera), true bugs (Homoptera), and flies (Diptera).

No suitable habitat for bats occurs within the proposed area of construction and operations.

Potential habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These areas would be considered low-quality habitat given the small a nd fragmented patches of trees and the proximity to major disturbances from railways, highways, and industrialized areas. For example, a railway runs between the proposed facility site and the closest patch of trees.

Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana ) is a freshwater mussel, native to the United States, that has been found in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. It can reach up

22 to 10 cm (4 in) in length. Habitats for the Appalachian Elktoe are similar to other freshwater mussels and are found in shallow to medium-sized creeks or rive rs and prefer areas where more rock and gravel occur near the bottom. This species does n ot thrive in areas of heavy flows of clay or silt.

Impacts to Bat Species

The NRC staff analyzed the potential impacts due to behavioral changes resulting from construction activities, regular site maintenance, and infrastr ucture repairs during operations.

The proposed project would not result in habitat loss, degradat ion, disturbance, or fragmentation since construction would occur within a previously disturbed si te and within developed, industrialized portions of the Erwin site. As noted above, pote ntial habitat on or near the site would be limited to small patches of forested areas. These area s would be considered low-quality, summer habitat since the patches of tress are the smal l and fragmented and located adjacent or very close to railways, highways, and industrialize d areas. For example, a railway runs between the proposed facility site and the closest patch o f trees.

Bats can be adversely affected through behavioral changes resul ting from construction and site maintenance activities. For instance, bats could abandon previo usly used summer habitat due to increased noise, lighting, and other human activity during c onstruction in a nearby area.

Increased noise may also affect foraging success. Schaub et al. (2008) found that foraging success of the greater mouse-eared bat (Myotis myotis) diminish ed in areas with noise mimicking the traffic sounds that would be experienced within 1 5 m (49 ft) of a highway.

Impacts such as noise, lighting, and human activity associated with construction would be temporary and located within areas that do not include foraging habitat. Noise and disturbances within foraging habitat would likely be similar to background n oise since the site is currently industrialized and located near a highway and a railway. FWS (2 010) found that bats that are repeatedly exposed to predictable, loud noises may habituate to such stimuli over time.

Accordingly, the NRC staff assumes that any bats, if present in the action area, have already acclimated to regular site disturbances and that continued dist urbances during construction would not be able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or eva luated and therefore, would be discountable.

The additional noise, lighting, and construction workers on the site would occur over a relatively short period of time and is unlikely to create noticeable impac ts beyond those that bats currently experience given the industrialized site and the urban surround ing that includes a railway, highway, and various industrial buildings and operations. The N RC staff does not believe that the construction project would result in long-term behavioral c hanges in bats beyond those resulting from current day-today operations that would be able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated, and therefore, would be discountable.

Potential Impacts to Mussels

Potential impacts to mussels could occur due to degradation of habitat or water quality within the Nolichucky River. The NRC staff determined, however, that a ny changes to water quality would be discountable or negligible given that all discharges w ould be regulated and limited through the NPDES permit. NFS site discharges have consistently remained in compliance with NFSs NPDES permit and NFS implements best management practices (BMPs) to further minimize any potential impacts (NFS 2021). In addition, the dis charge levels are a very minor

23 input that represents less than 1 percent of the flow volume of the river. The NRC staff finds that adding the U-Metal project would not create additional exposure to radionuclides and other contaminants. Such exposures during the proposed project would represent a discountable impact because they would not be able to be meaningfully detect ed, measured, or evaluated.

Based on NFS BMPs, limitations set forth in the NPDES permit, and the small volume of water that would be discharged, the NRC staff determined that impacts from discharges would be insignificant to the Appalachian Elktoe. The NRC did not identi fy any indirect effects, or any interrelated actions associated with the proposed action.

Conclusion and Determination of Effects

The NRC staff concluded, and FWS concurred (FWS 2023) that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat, the Indiana bat, grey bat, the tri -colored bat, and the Appalachian Elktoe and have No effect on Virginia spiraea.

State-Listed Species

A Request for Environmental Review was submitted to the TDEC on July 15, 2021, to obtain information about any documented occurrences of State-or feder ally listed threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the facility. The TDEC's August 20, 2021, response indicates that seven State-listed plant and animal species have been documented within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the NFS site (NFS 2021b). Additional species are docu mented by TDEC as occurring within 6.4 km (4 mi) of the NFS site, but no impacts on any spe cies are anticipated at such a great distance from the facility. The State-listed threatened o r endangered species that potentially occur in the region are presented in NFSs ER (Fede ral and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animal Species). Impacts to these species would be similar to those described for aquatic and terrestrial species in Section 3.7.3.

3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources

3.8.1 Affected Environment

Three National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed sites can be found within 16 km (10 mi) of Erwin, Unicoi County (NPS 2020). The listed sites includ e the Clarksville Iron Furnace on Tennessee State Highway 107 in the Cherokee National Forest, th e Clinchfield Depot found at the junction of Nolichucky Avenue and Union Street, and the A.R. Brown house located at 241 South Main Avenue. For more information on the historic and cul tural resources around the site, see NRCs 2011 license renewal EA (NFS 2011).

Four American Indian Tribes have current or historic ties to th e location of the NFS facility: the Cherokee Nation, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

3.8.2 Impacts

The proposed activities for the license amendment would occur i n an existing building and construction of a new building would occur within the industria l facility footprint and on previously disturbed ground. No additional impacts on undisturbed areas are anticipated.

Therefore, the activities associated with the proposed amendmen t would likely not alter any of the current characteristics of the site.

24 The effects on historic and cultural resources considered inclu de those resulting directly from land disturbance during construction, visual intrusion on the s ettings or environmental context of historical structures, visual and audio intrusions on Native Am erican sacred sites, reduced access to Native American traditional use areas, unauthorized a rtifact collection, and vandalism.

No current or potential impacts on potentially significant prehistoric, historic, or cultural resources have been identified by NFS that would be attributed to the U-Metal Project (NFS 2021). Therefore, activities associated with construction and o peration of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect historic and cultural resources in the vicinity of the site. The NRC has completed its Section 106 process under NHPA, as described in section 1.5.2.

3.9 Socioeconomics

3.9.1 Affected Environment

The NFS site is located approximately 80 km (50 mi) north-north east of Asheville, North Carolina, and 32 km (20 mi) south of Johnson City, Tennessee. T he NFS site is located near the southwest boundary of the Town of Erwin, Tennessee, which h as a population of 5,918 people (USCB 2019). The current population of the Town of Erwin represents an approximately 2.8 percent decrease from the estimated 2010 population of 6,09 1 (USCB 2019). Table 11 in the ER (Johnson City MSA Employment Statistics) provides employ ment and economic information from the Johnson City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (NFS 2021b).

3.9.2 Impacts

The U-Metal Project would create an additional 30-50 jobs durin g the construction phase, and 50-90 jobs during operations. However, current projections indi cate there may be a reduction in the workforce due to the scope of other operations on the site. As such, the additional jobs created by the U-Metal Project have the potential to offset the jobs lost from other activities on site. The slight increase in jobs is not expected to affect the job market, housing, or surrounding school systems due to the small net change in total workers and because of the availability of houses and schools in the area. Therefore, activities associate d with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect the socio economic resources in the vicinity of the site.

3.10 Public and Occupation Health

3.10.1 Affected Environment

All residents in the vicinity of the NFS site are exposed to ba ckground radiation from a variety of natural and human-made sources. These sources are listed in the license application ER in Table 16 (Background Sources of Radiation Exposure) (NFS 2021b).

NFS's routine radiological surveillance program includes determ ining the local background level of radioactivity in media that could potentially be affected by facility operations by monitoring ambient air, soil, vegetation, sediment, and water at several l ocations around the facility. The locations are Asheville Highway, Martins Creek Upstream, Nolich ucky River Upstream and Groundwater Well 52.

25 3.10.2 Impacts

No additional radiological sources are expected from the U-Meta l Project during construction and operation. As described above, the radiological surveillanc e program monitors and sampling occurs for ambient air, dosimetry, and surface waters. To ensure minimal impacts, safety factors are incorporated into the design of radiological material-related process equipment and any exposures are limited by NRCs regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. Emissions generated by the facility are reduced due to the use of effluen t control equipment, which minimizes the amount of air contaminants that reach the environ ment. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Proje ct would not significantly affect public and occupational health as a result of the proposed acti on.

3.11 Transportation

3.11.1 Affected Environment

The NFS facility in located in Erwin, Unicoi County, Tennessee. The facility is approximately 0.9 km (0.6 mi) from Interstate 26 via Jackson Love Highway and Car olina Avenue. ACSX Railroad line lies on the northwest boundary of the site. Banner Hill Ro ad runs along the southeast boundary.

Transportation routes would remain unchanged from current opera tions at the NFS site, with the proposed addition of the U-Metal Project. NFS estimates 30-50 a dditional vehicles would be needed to support construction activities and 50-90 vehicles di stributed over three 8-hour shifts Monday-Friday (of which 17-30 would come at the beginning of th e shift) for facility operations.

NFS staggers shift start times in 30-minute segments to minimiz e traffic impacts and allow for security access (NFS 2022).

3.11.2 Impacts

The transportation of radioactive material to and from the NFS site is not anticipated to change due to the license amendment. Similarly, the quantities and types of materials would not significantly change, nor would the transportation route be projected to be affected by the amendment.

Construction materials would be transported via truck on the ma in roadways and via access points to the site (Interstate 26 and main site access roads). Oversized deliveries are not anticipated. Materials would be delivered to the site via exist ing access points or gates, therefore no new construction accesses would be created. Delive ries would be grouped as much as possible to reduce material transport requirements. Tra ffic is not expected to increase significantly compared to curren t levels of traffic due to the minimal project increase in vehicle traffic and mitigation measures, such as staggering shift start times for employees. During operation, the net increase in workers commuting to and from th e site is not expected to significantly increase. Therefore, activities associated with c onstruction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect transportation in the vicinity of the site.

26 3.12 Environmental Justice

3.12.1 Demographics and Socioeconomic Environment

The NFS Erwin Facility is located 80 km (50 mi) north-northeast of Asheville, North Carolina, and 32 km (20 mi) south of Johnson City, Tennessee. The NFS fac ility is located near the southwest boundary of the Town of Erwin, Tennessee, which has a population of 5,918 people (USCB 2019). The current population of the Town of Erwin repres ents an approximately 2.8 percent decrease from the estimated 2010 population of 6,091 (U SCB 2019; NFS 2021b).

The Region of Interest (ROI) for the NFS Erwin Facility include s four Tennessee Counties:

Carter, Sullivan, Unicoi, and Washington. The ROI economic data for 2019 is presented in Table 3-from the license amendment application. For comparison, the median household income for the State of Tennessee is $53,320 and 13.9 percent o f the population is below the poverty level.

Table 3-3. 2019 ROI Economic Data

Median Household Income Location (2015-2019) Persons Below Poverty Level Unicoi County 41,890 15.8 Carter County 38,092 19.3 Washington County 48,334 15.8 Sullivan County 46,684 15.1 Source: NFS 2021b.

In 2004, the Commission issued its Policy Statement on the Tre atment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions in the Federal Register (69FR52040; August 24, 2004). Regarding EAs, the NRCs policy statement on environmental justice (EJ) declares the following:

If there will be no significant impact as a result of the propo sed action, it follows that an EJ review would not be necessary. However, the agency m ust be mindful of special circumstances that might warrant not making a Findin g of No Significant Impact (FONSI). In most EAs, the Commission expects that there will be little or no offsite impacts and, consequently, impacts woul d not occur to people outside the facility. However, if there is a clear poten tial for significant offsite impacts from the proposed action, then an appropriate E J review might be needed to provide a basis for concluding that there are no uniq ue impacts that would be significant. If the impacts are significant because of the uniqueness of the communities, then a FONSI may not be possible and mitigatio n or an EIS should be considered.

In the section Guidelines for Implementation of NEPA as to EJ Issues, the NRC explains that special circumstances arise only when the proposed action has a clear potential for offsite impacts on minority and low-income communities associated with the proposed action.

The staff reviewed the socioeconomic data, which did not indica te any significant percentages of minority or low-income populations within the area surroundi ng the NFS facility. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would not have disproportionately high

27 and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity of the NFS site.

3.13 Waste Management

3.13.1 Affected Environment - Radioactive and Nonradioactive Waste

As discussed in section 2.1 the following radioactive waste man agement activities occur on the NFS site:

  • treating basic and acidic waste streams at the NPDES-permitted WWTF;
  • decontamination of liquid waste streams and of process equipme nt;
  • packaging and storage of both liquid and solid wastes contamin ated with or containing nonrecoverable uranium;
  • shipment of radioactive wastes to licensed facilities or to li censed burial sites for disposal;
  • volume reduction by compaction, distillation, reuse, and/or ev aporation of waste materials containing enriched uranium; and
  • solidification of radioactive waste.

The current facility also generates other hazardous and nonhaza rdous wastes that are nonradioactive.

  • Nonradioactive Hazardous Waste: NFS generates hazardous waste that is not radiologically contaminated. In accordance with applicable regulations, NFS te mporarily stores such waste onsite and then ships it to an authorized offsite treatme nt, storage, or disposal facility.
  • Nonradioactive/Nonhazardous Waste: NFS generates nonradioactiv e/nonhazardous waste (such as waste oil, paper, and cafeteria waste) in the normal c ourse of operations. All waste materials are shipped offsite for treatment, recycling, and/or disposal at appropriate facilities.

The proposed action would generate additional wastes in this ca tegory, but the amounts would be minimal and not require any additional changes to NFSs curr ent program.

3.13.1.1 Mixed Solid Waste

NFS manages "mixed" waste (hazardous waste that is radioactivel y contaminated) in accordance with applicable Federal and State hazardous waste ma nagement regulations. NFS has a Hazardous Waste Management Facility permit, issued by the TDECs Division of Solid Waste Management, which allows storage of specific kinds of mix ed waste in containers. Most of the mixed waste stored onsite is mercury-contaminated waste generated by NFS laboratory operations (NFS 2021b).

The proposed action would generate additional wastes in this ca tegory, but the amounts would be minimal and would not require any additional changes to NFS s current program.

3.13.1.2 Liquid Effluent

The liquid effluent for the current facility configuration incl udes the following:

28

  • Wastewater - The NFS Erwin Facility produces liquid effluents from several different activities: fuel production, highly enriched uranium recovery, UF6 conversion, enrichment blending, laboratory operations, laundry activities, and facili ty decommissioning activities.

This wastewater is batch treated, sampled, and then discharged from the onsite WWTF, if levels are below 10 CFR 20.1301 and in compliance with the faci lity's NPDES permit.

Treatment typically involves adjus tment of pH using sodium hydroxide/sulfuric acid, and precipitation and removal of fluoride ions and uranium through addition of lime slurry calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2). Dissolved ammonia is removed, as needed; using air stripping and the pH is re-adjusted to discharge levels. Discharges are m ade directly to the Nolichucky River.

  • Sanitary Wastes - Sanitary waste from the NFS facility comes f rom bathrooms and showers. The facility discharges under an EPOTW permit.
  • Stormwater Runoff - The primary pathway for runoff is from sou th to north across the NFS site and into Banner Spring Branch and Martin Creek. Banner Spr ing Branch flows into Martin Creek, which subsequently flows into North Indian Creek and then into the Nolichucky River. Drainage exits the NFS site protected Area th rough two sluice gate valves into Martin Creek. The gates are in place to allow the flow to be stopped in the event of a spill of hazardous material.

The proposed action, a license amendment adding the U-Metal Pro ject to the current facility, would be expected to generate additional liquid effluents. The additional effluents created by the U-Metal Project would be similar in nature to existing effluent s created by existing facility operations. The additional volume of liquid effluents would be minimal. NFS anticipates no changes would be required to its current program and applicable permits (NFS 2022).

3.13.1.3 Gaseous Effluent (Effluents to Air)

The primary systems associated with gaseous effluents are as fo llows:

  • Main Process Cleaning System - The NFS Erwin Facility's main p rocess ventilation system combines air effluents from the primary HEU processing areas. T his combined effluent is cleaned by venturi and demisting scrubbers and HEPA filtration.
  • 30 percent ASHRAE prefilters - These prefilters are used on HV AC recirculation room air handlers in a large portion of the facility.
  • Packed-bed or Sieve Tray Scrubbers - These scrubbers are used in several buildings.

Sodium hydroxide, water, and sulfuric acid are used as scrubbin g solutions.

  • HEPA filters - These filters are used throughout the facility for high-efficiency (99+%)

removal of airborne particulates. In some instances, multiple H EPA filters are used in series to achieve higher removal efficiencies (NFS 2021b).

Under the proposed action, a license amendment adding the U-Met al Project to the current facility, would be expected to generate additional gaseous effl uents. As described in Section 2.1.3, the U-Metal Project would not create any new chemical or radiological effluents, and thus the gaseous effluents would be similar in nature to existing ef fluents created by the existing operations.

29 3.13.2 Impacts

As described in section 2.1.3 and above, the addition of the U-Metal Project to license SNM-124 would not significantly increase waste streams. NFS has various programs and applicable permits already in place to monitor and manage effluents genera ted at the facility. Therefore, activities associated with construction and operation of the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect waste management at the NFS site.

3.14 Cumulative Impacts

The NRC staff considered the impacts of the proposed action, as described above, combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future act ions, as described in (NFS 2022), that could affect the same resources as the proposed act ion. Because no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions would be affected by the prop osed action, and no significant offsite environmental impacts are expected to result from the p roposed action, the geographic area considered in this discussion of cumulative impacts is the NFS site boundary.

As discussed in the preceding sections of chapter 3, the NRC st aff determined that impacts on all resource areas from the proposed action would not be signif icant. Due to operations already occurring at the site, the proposed project would have minimal impacts on environmental resources. The NRC staff conclude s that the proposed action would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts when added to the past, present, or reasonab ly foreseeable future actions on the NFS site. As previously described, the proposed activiti es would take place on previously disturbed land and not result in significantly greater effluent s or other impacts. The proposed activities would also not be expected to add to historical site contamination. Any new NRC-regulated activities at the site that may occur within the boun dary would be evaluated, as appropriate, as part of a separate licensing and environmental review.

30

4.0 CONCLUSION

AND RECOMMENDATION

4.1 Conclusion

Based on its review of the proposed action, in accordance with the requirements of 10CFRPart51, the NRC staff has determined that NFSs request to amend its license SNM-124 to add the U-Metal Project would not significantly affect t he quality of the human environment. No significant radiol ogical or nonradiological imp acts are expected from the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff has determined that p ursuant to 10CFR51.31, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not require d for the proposed action, and pursuant to 10CFR51.32, a FONSI is appropriate. The FONSI wil l be published in the Federal Register.

4.2 List of Preparers

This EA was prepared by the Environmental Center of Expertise i n the Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support in the Office of Nuclear M aterial Safety and Safeguards.

The contributors include Jill Caverly, Senior Environmental Pro ject Manager, and Ashley Waldron, Environmental Project Manager.

31

5.0 REFERENCES

10 CFR Part 20. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Standards for protection against radiation, Part20, Chapter I, Title 10, Energy.

10 CFR Part 70. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, Part 70, Title 10, Energy.

10 CFR Part 51. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related r egulatory functions, Part 51, Chapter I, Title10, Energy.

36 CFR Part 800. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800, Protection of historic properties, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property.

40 CFR Part 52. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Title 40, Protection of Environment.

40 CFR Part 81. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 81, Designation of Area for Air Quality Planning Purposes, Title 40, Protection of Environment.

50CFRPart 402, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 402, Interagency Cooperation Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended, SubpartB, Consul tation Procedures

69FR52040. August 24, 2004. Policy Statement on the Treatmen t of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions. Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2010. Packaging and Transport ation for Offsite Shipment of Materials of National Security Interest. DOE O 461.1B. Decembe r 16, 2010.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996. DOE/EIS-0240, Dispositi on of Surplus High Enriched Uranium Final Environmental Impac t Statement. Vol. 1. Washingt on, DC: 1996.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023a. Letter from Christ ine Pineda to Daniel Elbert, NRC re: Concurrence with Determinations of Effect for Threatened an d Endangered Species at the proposed U-Metal Project ADAMS Accession No. ML23272A109.

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023b. IPAC List of threa tened and endangered species.

June 2023. ADAMS Accession No. ML23202A166

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Programmatic Biolog ical Opinion on the Effects of Ongoing and Future Military and Land Management Acti vities at the Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center in Bartholomew, Brown, and Johnson Counties in Indiana on the Federally Endangered Indiana Bat ( Myotis sodalis).

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/bos/

10_IN_FinalAtterburyBO.pdf

NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.) 2022. Supplemental Environme ntal Report for the Amendment of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-124, Revi sion 1 January 2023 ADAMS Accession No. ML23041A236.

32 NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.) 2022. Response to NRC Reques t for Additional Information to Support Environmental Review of NFS Application to Amend SNM-124 to Construct and Operate a Uranium Metal Process. June 30, 2022. ADAMS Accession No. ML221193A034

NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.). 2021a. (Cover Letter for Ame ndment submittal) BWXT Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS), License Amendment Request fo r U-Metal at the NFS Site, November 18, 2021. ADAMS Accession No. ML21327A099

NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.). 2021b. Supplemental Environ mental Report for the Amendment of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-124, Revi sion 0 November 2021 ADAMS Accession No. ML22066B005

NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.). 2009. Environmental Report. NRC SNM License No.124.

Docket No.70-143.Erwin, Tennessee: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. 2009. ER 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML091900072.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2022.

<https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/ us-climate-normals/> (Accesse d 18 October 2023)

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023. Letter from Chr istine Pineda, NRC to Daniel Elbert, FWS re: Nuclear Fuel Services License Amendment Request to Operate Uranium Purification and Conversion Services in Unicoi County, Tennesse e. August 18, 2023. ADAMS Accession No. ML23228A158.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022a. Letter from Ja mes R. Downs, NRC to Timothy Knowles, NFS re: Acceptance of Application for U-Metal License Enterprise Project.

March 25, 2022. ADAMS Accession No. ML22080A238

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022b. Letter from Ji ll Caverly, NRC to Timothy Knowles, NFS re: Requests for Additional Information to Support Environmental Review. April 28, 2022. ADAMS Accession No. ML22111A281.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022c. Letter from Jo hn Moses to Tribes re:

Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preserv ation Act. March 13, 2022.

ADAMS Accession No. ML22256A146.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022d. Letter from Je ssie Quintero to Patrick McIntrye, re: Consultation under Section 106 of the National Hi storic Preservation Act. March 13, 2022. ADAMS Accession No. ML22098A154.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from Joh n D. Kinneman, NRC to Mark P. Elliott, NFS re: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. - License Renewal. August 9, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. ML113040428.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Final Environme ntal Assessment for Nuclear Fuel Services License Renewal Application. October 26, 2011. ADAMS Accession No. ML112560265.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006. NUREG-1757 Cons olidated Decommissioning Guidance: Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees. September 2006. ADAMS Accession No. ML063000243.

33 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2003. NUREG-1748, En vironmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Ass ociated with NMSS Programs. August 2003, ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279.

Schaub A, Ostwald J, Siemers BM. 2008. Foraging bats avoid nois e. Journal of Experimental Biology 211:3174-3180.

TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation). 20 23. May 4, 2023 Email from Jerry Bingaman to Ashley Waldron (NRC) - Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment: Nuclear Fuel Services Proposed Uranium Purification and Conversion Service (U-Metal project). ADAMS Accession No. ML23131A361.

34

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML23299A062&oldid=3693542"