[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27521-27523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7163]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 030-05976]


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Western Ecology Division, 
Corvallis and Newport Facilities, OR: Issuance of Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact for license amendment.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., Chief, Fuel 
Cycle and Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, 
Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, 
Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011. Telephone: (817) 860-8100; e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of 
an amendment to Material License No. 36-12343-02 issued to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, Western Ecology Division (EPA 
or the licensee). This license pertains to the following three EPA 
facilities located in Oregon: (1) Corvallis Environmental Research 
Laboratory; (2) Willamette Research Station (also in Corvallis); and 
(3) the Pacific Coastal Ecology Branch facility in Newport. Granting 
the amendment request would authorize the release of these facilities 
for unrestricted use, and would terminate the license as requested. In 
accordance with conditions in its license, the EPA was authorized to 
use radioactive material at its three facilities to conduct tracer 
studies involving marine organisms and plants (excluding animal 
studies); perform sample analysis; conduct tests for soil moisture; and 
for instrument calibration.
    On November 30, 2004 (as supplemented by letter dated December 27, 
2005), EPA requested that NRC release the three facilities for 
unrestricted use and to terminate the license. The licensee conducted 
radiological surveys of the subject facilities and concluded that the 
license termination criteria specified in subpart E to 10 CFR part 20 
for unrestricted release have been met. The amendment will be issued if 
NRC determines that the request meets the standards specified in 10 CFR 
part 20 and related NRC guidance documents.

II. Environmental Assessment (EA)

    Identification of Proposed Action: The proposed action is to enable 
the licensee to use its subject facilities in any manner without NRC 
restriction. The NRC proposes to accomplish this by terminating NRC 
License No. 36-12343-02 because the licensee has permanently ceased all 
licensed activities and transferred or disposed of all licensed 
radioactive materials.
    The Need for the Proposed Action: The licensee has permanently 
ceased all licensed activities at its subject facilities. The EPA 
desires to release these facilities for unrestricted use. The 
facilities will continue to be used for research with non-licensed 
materials. When the licensing action is complete, the licensee will be 
in compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 30.36, ``Expiration and 
Termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites and Separate 
Buildings or Outdoor Areas.''
    Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action: NRC Materials License 
No. 36-12343-02 authorizes the EPA to possess small quantities of 
radioactive material, in both sealed and unsealed form. Under its 
license, the EPA's use of licensed material included the performance of 
tracer studies involving marine organisms and plants (excluding animal 
studies), use in gas chromatographs for sample analysis, use in Troxler 
Model 4300 Series gauges to measure soil moisture, and use in a liquid 
scintillation counter for instrument calibration. By letter dated 
November 30, 2004, EPA requested that NRC release the subject 
facilities for unrestricted use and terminate the license.
    A final status survey report (FSSR) was completed by the licensee, 
and a copy of the report was attached to the November 30, 2004, letter. 
During the November 2005 NRC inspection, EPA identified additional 
previous locations of use that had not been documented in

[[Page 27522]]

the November 2004 FSSR submittal. An addendum to the FSSR was attached 
to a letter from EPA dated December 27, 2005. As discussed below, the 
EPA concluded that all three facilities were sufficiently free of 
radioactive material to permit unrestricted release of the facilities.
    As part of its amendment request, the licensee conducted a 
historical review of its three facilities and found that the 
radionuclides of concern were carbon-14, calcium-45, chromium-51, 
hydrogen-3, phosphorus-32, sulfur-35, nickel-63, americium-241, and 
barium-133. Radioactive materials were used at the two Corvallis 
facilities from 1977 to 2004. Radioactive materials were used at the 
Newport facility from 1987-1995 under NRC License No. 36-23261-01. 
(This license was terminated in July 1995 after NRC License No. 36-
12343-02 was amended to bring the Newport facility within its scope). 
To demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for 
unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402, the licensee 
developed derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs). The NRC 
compared the licensee's proposed DCGLs to the screening criteria 
provided in NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' 
Volume 2. The NRC concluded that the proposed DCGLs were acceptable for 
use as release criteria.
    The EPA's historical assessment identified two incidents that may 
have involved leaking sealed sources at the Corvallis Environmental 
Research Laboratory. One event occurred in March 1979 involving a 
sealed source containing a tritium-scandium foil. At the time of the 
event, the laboratory was cleaned and decontaminated. Significant 
remodeling had taken place since the laboratory had been cleaned and 
decontaminated, so additional NRC confirmatory surveys were not 
performed in this area. A second event occurred in June 1982 involving 
either a leaking nickel-63 sealed source detector or radiotracers 
injected into a gas chromatograph. The licensee believed that the 
detector did not leak and that the contamination was tritium, not 
nickel-63. The laboratory was decontaminated and the event reported to 
the NRC at the time.
    The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the FSSR to 
identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the 
environment. No additional hazards or impacts were identified.
    The licensee's radiation safety program allowed unrestricted 
release of previous locations of use once the areas were shown to be 
free from residual contamination. Final status surveys of the former 
locations of use were conducted when the laboratories were removed from 
service. Additional limited final status surveys were performed in 12 
previous locations of use within the three subject facilities during 
November 2004, because the historical survey records were not adequate 
or complete to show that the locations were free from residual 
contamination. Final status surveys on remaining locations of use that 
had not been previously released were also performed during June 2004, 
November 2004 and December 2005. These final status surveys were 
conducted in buildings and laboratories identified during the 
historical assessment as previous locations of use with licensed 
radioactive materials.
    The NRC conducted a confirmatory survey of 26 separate locations in 
the subject facilities during the NRC's November 2005 inspection. The 
NRC focused these confirmatory surveys in previous locations of use 
that were identified in the licensee's historical assessment as 
locations that potentially used licensed material in unsealed form. The 
confirmatory survey included the site at the Corvallis Environmental 
Research Laboratory where a leak from a sealed source may have occurred 
in June 1982. These confirmatory surveys also included the licensee-
identified previous locations of use that were not in the original FSSR 
submittal dated November 2004. The surveys included ambient gamma 
exposure rate measurements, as well as, fixed and removable surface 
contamination measurements. The removable surface contamination 
measurements included measurements for hydrogen-3 and carbon-14. None 
of the confirmatory sample results exceeded the proposed DCGLs 
identified in the FSSR.
    In its FSSR, the licensee stated that radioactive waste material 
from previously licensed operations was transferred to an authorized 
waste contractor. All other previously licensed radioactive materials 
were transferred to authorized recipients. Solid waste disposal did not 
include on-site burial or incineration. Discharges to sewers were 
reviewed by inspectors during routine inspections to ensure compliance 
with the release limits specified in 10 CFR part 20. Accordingly, the 
NRC finds that surface and groundwater sources were not impacted by 
previous EPA operations involving licensed material at the subject 
facilities.
    Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives of the Proposed Action: 
The licensee seeks NRC approval of the license termination request. The 
alternatives to the proposed action are: (1) The no-action alternative, 
or (2) to deny the license termination request and require the licensee 
to take some alternate action.
    1. No-Action Alternative: One alternative available to the NRC is 
to take no action by denying the license termination request. The no-
action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with the NRC's 
regulation (10 CFR 30.36(d)) requiring licensees to decommission their 
facilities when licensed activities permanently cease.
    2. Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2: A second alternative is 
to deny the licensee's request in favor of alternate release criteria 
as allowed by Sec.  20.1403 (criteria for restricted conditions) or 
Sec.  20.1404 (alternate criteria). However, the NRC's analysis of the 
final status survey data confirmed that the proposed DCGLs meet the 
license termination requirements of Sec.  20.1402. Accordingly, the NRC 
has determined that the second alternative is not reasonable, and this 
alternative action is eliminated from further consideration.
    Conclusion: Based on its review, the NRC staff concludes that the 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action do not 
warrant denial of the license termination request. The staff believes 
that the proposed action will result in no significant environmental 
impacts. The staff has determined that the proposed action, approval of 
the license termination, is the appropriate alternative for selection.
    Agencies and Persons Contacted: The NRC staff did not consult with 
the local U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or the State Historic 
Preservation Officer because licensed activities occurred only within 
the three EPA facilities in Corvallis and Newport, Oregon. There was no 
evidence of use or release of radioactive material outside of these 
facilities. Accordingly, there was no impact to historic properties or 
the cultural resources, endangered species, or critical habitats 
outside these facilities. The State of Oregon notified the NRC by 
telephone on March 29, 2006 that it had no comments on the EA. This 
conversation was documented in a Memorandum to the Docket File dated 
March 29, 2006. EPA notified the NRC by letter dated March 29, 2006 
that it had four clarification comments on the EA. These comments have 
been incorporated.

[[Page 27523]]

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed 
license amendment to release the subject facilities for unrestricted 
use and terminate the license. On the basis of the EA, the NRC has 
concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the 
proposed action, and the license amendment does not warrant the 
preparation of an environmental impact statement. Accordingly, it has 
been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.

IV. Further Information

    Documents related to this action, including the application for 
amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at 
the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide 
Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and 
image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for 
the documents related to this Notice are:
    1. NRC, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of 
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-
Licensed Nuclear Facilities,'' NUREG-1496, July 1997 (ML042310492, 
ML042320379, and ML042330385).
    2. Gile, Jay D., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Western 
Ecology Division, Cessation of Licensed Activities and Request for 
License Termination, November 30, 2004 (ML043620316, ML043620322, 
ML043620325, ML043620321).
    3. Gile, Jay D., Environmental Protection Agency's Western Ecology 
Division, NRC Form 314 Certificate of Disposition of Materials, 
December 1, 2004 (ML043620317).
    4. McBride, Kathy, Environmental Protection Agency's Western 
Ecology Division, NRC Form 314 (Certificate of Disposition of 
Materials) Retraction Memo, December 14, 2005 (ML060110330).
    5. Burr, Dave, Environmental Protection Agency's Western Ecology 
Division, Decommissioning Audit Response, Addendum to the Final Status 
Survey Report, Certificate of Disposition of Materials and Request for 
License Termination, December 27, 2005 (ML060110298, ML060110337, 
ML060110472, ML060110496).
    6. NRC Inspection Report 030-05976/05-001, January 10, 2006 
(ML060120525).
    7. Burr, Dave, Environmental Protection Agency's Western Ecology 
Division, EPA Comments on the draft Environmental Assessment, March 29, 
2006 (ML060890410).
    8. Schlapper, Beth A., Memorandum to Docket File 030-05976, State 
of Oregon Telephone Response Of No Comment For Comments On The Draft 
Environmental Assessment, March 29, 2006 (ML060880514).
    If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by e-mail to [email protected].
    These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public 
computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction 
contractor will copy documents for a fee.

    Dated at Arlington, Texas this 19th day of April, 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
D. Blair Spitzberg,
Chief, Fuel Cycle & Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear 
Materials Safety, Region IV.
[FR Doc. E6-7163 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P