[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 54 (Thursday, March 20, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13733-13735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6731]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-146]


Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation and GPU Nuclear, Inc. 
Saxton Nuclear Experimental Facility; Notice of Issuance of 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment for Amended Facility License No. DPR-4, issued 
to the Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation (SNEC) and GPU Nuclear, 
Inc. (the licensees), for the Saxton Nuclear Experimental Facility. The 
proposed action would approve the SNEC Facility License Termination 
Plan (LTP).

Description of Proposed Action

    The proposed action is NRC approval of the SNEC's LTP, which 
contains the radiation release criteria [i.e., derived concentration 
guideline levels (DCGLs)], and the description of the final status 
survey plan required by the NRC. NRC review and approval of the LTP 
will verify that the remainder of the decommissioning activities will 
be performed in accordance with NRC regulations.
    The SNEC Facility is a deactivated pressurized-water nuclear 
reactor located on about 5,300 square meters (1.148 acres) less than a 
mile north of the Borough of Saxton in Liberty Township, Bedford 
County, Pennsylvania. The reactor was licensed to operate at 23.5 
megawatt thermal (MWT).
    The SNEC Facility was built from 1960 to 1962 and operated from 
1962 to 1972. The Facility was placed in a SAFSTOR-equivalent status 
after its shutdown in 1972 when all the nuclear fuel was removed from 
the reactor and returned to the owner of the fuel, the Atomic Energy 
Commission. The control rod blades and superheated steam test loop were 
also shipped offsite. Following fuel removal, some equipment, tanks, 
and piping located outside of the reactor containment vessel (CV) were 
removed. From 1972 to 1974, the buildings and structures that supported 
reactor operations were partially decontaminated.
    Radiological decontamination of reactor support structures and 
buildings was performed between 1987-1989 in preparation for demolition 
of these structures. This work included decontamination of the Control 
and Auxiliary Building, the Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, the 
Yard Pipe

[[Page 13734]]

Tunnel, and the Filled Drum Storage Bunker, and removal of the 
Refueling Water Storage Tank. After the NRC accepted the final release 
radiological survey for this work, these structures were demolished in 
1992.
    In April of 1998, the NRC approved the final stage of 
decommissioning. In 1998, the large component structures: pressurizer, 
steam generator, and reactor vessel were removed and shipped to the 
Chem-Nuclear low-level waste disposal facility in Barnwell, South 
Carolina. The only remaining structure of the original facility is the 
CV. The Saxton Steam Generating Station basement and adjoining Intake/
Discharge Tunnels and associated underground discharge piping have also 
been involved in decommissioning activities. This decommissioning is in 
preparation for release of the site for unrestricted use.
    The licensees are proposing to decontaminate the site to meet the 
unrestricted release criteria [0.25 Sieverts per year (Sv/yr) (25 
milliroentgen-equivalent-man per year (25 mrem/yr)) and residual 
radioactivity as low as reasonably achievable] per 10 CFR 20.1402.

Summary of the Environmental Assessment

    The NRC staff reviewed the licensees' application which included a 
Decommissioning Environmental Report. To document its review, the NRC 
staff has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) which discusses the 
SNEC Facility background; site description; current environmental 
conditions including land use, geology, water resources (surface water 
and groundwater) and waste management; examines the no action 
alternative to the proposed action; and presents the environmental 
impact of the proposed action including radiological, non-radiological 
and cumulative environmental impacts. The radiological and non-
radiological impacts of the proposed action are reproduced from the EA 
below.

Radiological Impacts

    At the time of license termination, the only source of exposure to 
members of the public would be any residual radioactivity within 
remaining buildings or within the site soils.
    The derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) are 
concentration limits on the residual radioactivity that can be left in 
buildings and in soils, and still be in compliance with the dose limit 
of 0.25 Sv/yr (25 mrem/yr) as specified in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E. 
The manner in which the DCGLs are derived for the SNEC is documented in 
the LTP.
    NRC would evaluate the adequacy of the DCGLs in providing 
protection for members of the public as the site is released for 
unrestricted use based on the approved LTP. The LTP would be bounded by 
the dose limit of 0.25 Sv/yr (25 mrem/yr) as specified in 10 CFR part 
20, subpart E.
    In deriving the soil DCGLs, a resident-farmer would be considered 
as the average member of the critical population group. The 
hypothetical resident farmer is assumed to build a house, draw water 
from a well, grow plant food and fodder, raise livestock, and catch 
fish from a pond all within or affected by residual radioactivity in 
the soil. The resident farmer scenario is considered to embody the 
greatest number of exposure pathways of any scenario envisioned.
    The DCGLs for buildings assumes a light industrial worker as the 
average member of the critical group. The worker is assumed to be 
exposed to residual radioactivity remaining on the walls and floor of a 
remaining structure at the site as he goes about light industrial 
activities.
    NRC would evaluate the appropriateness of the exposure scenarios 
postulated and the methodology used for deriving the DCGLs. NRC would 
only approve the LTP if the evaluation concluded that the potential 
radiation exposures caused by residual radionuclide concentrations have 
not been underestimated by the licensees and are protective of the 
general public.
    The licensees would use a series of surveys and a final status 
survey to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, 
consistent with the Radiation Survey and Site Investigation process and 
the Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process. Planning for the final 
status survey involves an iterative process that requires appropriate 
site classification (on the basis of the potential residual 
radionuclide concentration levels relative to the DCGLs) and formal 
planning using the DQO process. The licensees have committed to an 
integrated design that would address the selection of appropriate 
survey and laboratory instrumentation and procedures, and that includes 
a statistically based measurement and sampling plan for collecting and 
evaluating the data needed for the final status survey. The staff has 
determined that the sampling strategy and survey data evaluation 
methodology presented in the LTP are adequate.
    Based on the discussion above, there are no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Non-Radiological Impacts

    The scope of the EA is limited to the adequacy of the DCGLs and the 
adequacy of the final status survey described in the LTP. The purposed 
action does not involve any historic sites. Therefore, there are no 
significant non-radiological impacts on the environmental resources.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the EA, NRC concludes that the approval of the LTP 
will not cause any significant impacts on the human environment and is 
protective of human health. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to 
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensees' letter dated February 2, 2000, as supplemented on June 23, 
August 11, September 18 and December 4, 2000, January 30, February 14, 
March 15 and 19, June 20, July 2 and September 4, 2001, and January 11 
and 24, February 4, May 22 and 28, July 11, August 20, September 17, 
23, 24, and 26, October 10, and December 16, 2002. Documents may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room 
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
The EA can be found in ADAMS under accession number ML030350564. 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by 
e-mail to [email protected]. Single copies of the EA may be obtained from 
Alexander Adams, Jr., Senior Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, M.S. O-12-G-13, 
Washington, DC 20555.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of March, 2003.

[[Page 13735]]

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patrick M. Madden,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Section, Operating Reactor 
Improvements Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-6731 Filed 3-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P