[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16421-16423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7576]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-30 and 50-185]


National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Plum Brook Reactor 
and Plum Brook Mock-Up Reactor Environmental Assessment and Finding of 
No Significant Impact

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. TR-3 and R-
93, issued to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 
the licensee. The license amendment would allow decommissioning of the 
Plum Brook Reactor and the Plum Brook Mock-up Reactor at the Plum Brook 
Reactor Facility (PBRF) near Sandusky, Ohio.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The PBRF consists of a complex of buildings with two non-power 
reactors. Both reactors have been shut down and defueled. The Plum 
Brook Reactor (Docket No. 50-30, NRC License No. TR-3) is a 60-megawatt 
materials test reactor, constructed to perform irradiation testing of 
fueled and unfueled experiments for space program application. The Plum 
Brook Mock-up Reactor (Docket No. 50-185, NRC License No. R-93) is a 
100-kilowatt swimming-pool type reactor constructed to test ``mock-up'' 
irradiation components for the Plum Brook Reactor. The PBRF reactors 
were shut down in 1973. NASA currently has possession only licenses to 
possess the residual radioactive materials at the facility. All reactor 
fuel elements have been removed from the facility and the possession 
only licenses do not allow operation of the reactors.
    NASA has proposed to decontaminate the facility to levels that 
would allow unrestricted release of the 11-hectare (27-acre) PBRF and 
termination of the licenses. The licensee submitted a decommissioning 
plan in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(b) on December 20, 1999. 
Decommissioning, as described in the plan, will consist of transferring 
licensed radioactive equipment and

[[Page 16422]]

material from the site and decontamination of the facility to meet 
unrestricted release criteria (this is called the DECON option, as 
described in NUREG-0586, ``Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement 
on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities''). While the decontamination 
work is in process, remedial action status surveys will be conducted to 
ensure that the contaminated material has been removed to levels below 
the limits required for unrestricted release (25 mrem/yr). Final status 
surveys will be conducted also. After the Commission verifies that the 
release criteria have been met, the reactor license will be terminated.
    A ``Notice and Solicitation of Comments Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1405 
and 10 CFR 50.82(b)(5) Concerning Proposed Action to Decommission the 
Plum Brook Reactor Facility'' was published in the Federal Register (65 
FR 12040) on March 7, 2000.
    Further, 10 CFR 51.53(d) requires that each applicant for a license 
amendment to authorize decommissioning of a production or utilization 
facility must submit an environmental report that reflects any new 
information or significant environmental change associated with the 
proposed decommissioning activities. The licensee's environmental 
report is contained in Section 8 of the licensee's decommissioning 
plan.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is necessary because the licensee has decided 
to decommission the facility rather than other alternatives. As 
specified in 10 CFR 50.82, any licensee may apply to the NRC for 
authority to decommission the affected facility.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff has evaluated the radiological impacts of the 
proposed action as presented in Section 8.5 of the decommissioning plan 
submitted on December 20, 1999, and concludes that the associated 
radiological effects of the decommissioning will be acceptable. The 
staff considered impacts on onsite workers, on transportation workers, 
and on the public, both during the decommissioning activities and after 
license termination.
    The licensee has established controls to ensure occupational 
exposure remains below NRC regulatory limits for decommissioning 
personnel. The collective total dose equivalent to all onsite workers 
for all of the decommissioning activities is estimated to be about 70 
person-rem over the approximate 4-year decommissioning project. This is 
less than the estimated occupational exposure of 344 person-rem 
presented in NUREG-0586 and is a result of the approximately 30 years 
of decay that has already taken place.
    Occupational exposure associated with shipment of low level waste 
has been estimated at less than 18 person-rem. This is similar to the 
estimate of 22 person-rem for the reference test reactor presented in 
NUREG-0586 and, again, the lower dose can be attributed to the decay 
that has occurred since the reactors were shutdown.
    The licensee concluded that the offsite public exposure would be 
small from routine release, based on the generic estimates of NUREG-
0586 and on analyzed exposures for potential accidents (``the largest 
accident analyzed resulted in an offsite dose of about 0.5 mrem''). The 
licensee's estimates for transportation related exposures were less 
than 8.2 person-rem and were also consistent with NUREG-0586, again 
considering the decay time since shutdown. The licensee has also 
established an As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) program to 
minimize exposure and must ensure that decommissioning activities will 
not exceed the limits in 10 CFR 20.1301, ``Dose Limits for Individual 
Members of the Public.''
    The anticipated potential exposure to the public after license 
termination will be negligible. To be released for unrestricted use, 
the maximum dose to the ``average member of the critical group'' must 
be less than 25 mrem/yr. The actual dose to the public is expected to 
be much less than 25 mrem/yr because decontamination will be more 
extensive than that required to meet minimum license termination 
requirements and public exposure will not occur for some time because 
the licensee has no plans to make the site available for public reuse.
    Based on its review of the specific proposed activities associated 
with the dismantling and decommissioning of the PBRF, the NRC staff 
concludes that the proposed action will not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
any effluents that may be released off site, and there is no 
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not involve any historic sites. Non-radiological hazardous 
materials, including friable lead paint and asbestos insulation, will 
be managed as described in the decommissioning plan and transported 
offsite for disposal at a licensed burial site. The proposed action 
does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    The three alternatives to the proposed action for the PBFR are 
SAFSTOR, ENTOMB, and no action.
    SAFSTOR (safe storage) is the alternative in which the nuclear 
facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the 
nuclear facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated 
(delayed decontamination) to levels that permit release for 
unrestricted use. Implementing this alternative would necessitate 
continued surveillance and maintenance of the PBRF over a period of 
time. Impacts during the storage period would be minimal, although 
there would be substantial monitoring and maintenance costs. 
Eventually, decontamination and decommissioning would be required. The 
radiological impacts of delayed decontamination and decommissioning 
would be comparable to, or slightly less than, those of the proposed 
action because of radioactive decay prior to DECON.
    ENTOMB (entombment) is the alternative in which radioactive 
contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as 
concrete. The entombed structure would be appropriately maintained and 
continued surveillance would be necessary over a substantial period of 
time until radioactivity decayed to a level permitting release of the 
property for unrestricted use. The time period necessary for entombment 
has been estimated to last for time frames on the order of a hundred 
years. The ENTOMB option would result in lower radiological exposure, 
but would require continued use of resources and would incur the costs 
associated with such long-term monitoring and maintenance.
    The no-action alternative would leave the facility in its present 
configuration, SAFSTOR, and would limit the activities that the 
licensee could conduct on the site. However, the regulations in 10 CFR 
50.82(b) only allow this condition to exist for a limited period of 
time.

[[Page 16423]]

    The licensee has determined that the proposed action (DECON) is the 
most efficient use of the existing facility, because the SAFSTOR, 
ENTOMB, and no-action alternatives would entail continued surveillance, 
maintenance, and physical security measures to be in place and 
continued monitoring by licensee personnel. The alternatives would also 
entail the costs associated with these activities.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources different 
from those previously committed for construction and operation of the 
PBRF.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 21, 2000, the 
staff consulted with the State of Ohio official, Ruth Vandegrift, 
Supervisor Decommissioning for the Ohio Department of Health, Bureau of 
Radiation Protection regarding the environmental impact of the proposed 
action. The state official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission 
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment. The environmental impacts are 
expected to be bounded by the analyses in NUREG-0586. Accordingly, the 
Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact 
statement for the proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated December 20, 1999, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. It is also available at 
http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports under ``What's New on This Page,'' 
``Decommissioning'' or ``Other Documents.''

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of March 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Chief, Events Assessment, Generic Communications, and Non-Power 
Reactors Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-7576 Filed 3-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P