Notice of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact of License Amendment for Augustana College at Sioux Falls, SD, 16879-16881 [E5-1449]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 62 / Friday, April 1, 2005 / Notices
requirements related to the application
of footnote (2) to Table 1 of 10 CFR part
50, Appendix G, and the proposed
exemption should be granted to SNC
such that those requirements related to
the application of footnote (2) to Table
1 of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G need
not be applied to Vogtle, Units 1 and 2.
4.0
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Commission has
determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by
law, will not present an undue risk to
the public health and safety, and is
consistent with the common defense
and security. Also, special
circumstances are present. Therefore,
the Commission hereby grants SNC an
exemption from the requirements 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix G, Table 1,
footnote (2), for Vogtle, Units 1 and 2.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the
Commission has determined that the
granting of this exemption will not have
a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment (70 FR 13215).
This exemption is effective upon
issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day
of March 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Director, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5–1450 Filed 3–31–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 030–01063]
Notice of Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact of
License Amendment for Augustana
College at Sioux Falls, SD
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for
license amendment.
AGENCY:
D.
Blair Spitzberg, PhD., Fuel Cycle and
Decommissioning Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400,
Arlington, TX 76011. Telephone: (817)
860–8100; e-mail dbs@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering the
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:15 Mar 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
16879
issuance of an amendment to NRC
Materials License No. 40–06921–03 to
remove a former burial site from the
license. This licensing action will allow
Augustana College to release the
property for unrestricted use. If
approved, Augustana College will
continue to possess radioactive
materials in accordance with the
conditions of its license but will not be
required to maintain radiological
control over the burial site. The NRC
has prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) in support of this
action in accordance with the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based
on the EA, the NRC has determined that
a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is appropriate.
accordance with 10 CFR 30.36 and
NUREG–1757, Volume 1, Revision 1, a
decommissioning plan was not required
from the licensee. The purpose of this
EA is to assess the environmental
consequences of this licensing action
using the guidance provided in
NUREG–1748.
II. Environmental Assessment
Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
Background
The proposed action is necessary to
release the burial site from the license
for unrestricted use. The need for the
proposed action is for the licensee to be
in compliance with the requirements of
10 CFR 30.36, ‘‘Expiration and
Termination of Licenses and
Decommissioning of Sites and Separate
Buildings or Outdoor Areas.’’ By
releasing the site for unrestricted use,
the applicant will not be burdened with
additional regulations that would no
longer be applicable to them.
The radioactive burial site is located
on the campus of Augustana College
(the licensee) in the central part of
Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The burial
site is located in a grove of crabapple
trees on the east side of the Gilbert
Science Center near the corner of 33rd
Street and Summit Avenue. Based on
the licensee’s records, the burial site
consists of a line of six pits (holes)
containing radioactive material. The
holes were dug using manual equipment
(post-hole digger & shovel) to a depth of
5 feet (1.5 meters) and are arranged in
6-foot (1.8-meter) intervals.
The licensee has been authorized by
the NRC and its predecessor, the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), to
possess radioactive material since 1958.
The docket file records indicate that
Augustana College first began
possessing radioactive material during
1963. The licensee’s records document
that about 12 millicuries (0.44
gigabecquerels) of carbon-14, a longlived beta particle emitter, were
disposed at the burial site between 1968
and 1969.
Review Scope
By letters dated February 17, April 25
and August 25, 2003, the licensee
requested that the former radioactive
materials burial site located on campus
property be released for unrestricted
use. Prior to January 28, 1981, the NRC
permitted licensees to dispose of small
quantities of licensed materials by
burial in soil without specific NRC
authorization. This was authorized
pursuant to 10 CFR 20.304. This
regulation has since been rescinded by
the NRC. The NRC is considering the
issuance of an amendment to Materials
License No. 40–06921–03 to release the
burial site for unrestricted use. In
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve
the licensee’s request to amend its
license to release the former burial site
located at Augustana College in Sioux
Falls, South Dakota, for unrestricted
use. The licensee would not be required
to remediate the burial site if the NRC
approves the license amendment
request.
Alternatives
The alternatives to the proposed
action are (1) the no-action alternative,
or (2) to deny the amendment request
and require the licensee to take
additional actions such as the
remediation of the burial site.
Affected Environment and
Environmental Impacts of Proposed
Action
By letter dated March 25, 1968, the
licensee requested information from the
AEC on ‘‘* * * how and where to
dispose of solid and liquid form carbon14 wastes * * * accumulated.’’ The
AEC responded in a letter dated April
1, 1968, stating that the disposal options
available to the licensee at the time
included disposal by burial in soil.
Licensees were authorized to dispose of
radioactive material by burial in
accordance with 10 CFR 20.304 between
1959 and 1981. The April 1, 1968, letter
reminded the licensee of the regulatory
requirements—that each burial may not
exceed 50,000 microcuries (50
millicuries, or 1.85 gigabecquerels) of
carbon-14, each burial must be made at
a depth of at least 4 feet (1.2 meters),
and each burial must be separated from
other burial sites by at least 6 feet (1.8
meters).
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
16880
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 62 / Friday, April 1, 2005 / Notices
Based on the licensee’s records, no
more than 12 millicuries (0.44
gigabecquerels) of carbon-14 were
buried. The licensee’s estimate was
based on available disposal records from
the 1968 to 1969 time frame. Although
the records do not clearly identify the
amount of material buried, the licensee
made the assumption from the records
available that each hole contained the
maximum amount of carbon-14 that
could have been received under the
license’s authorization limit. Since six
holes were constructed, the licensee
assumed that the maximum possession
limit of 2 millicuries (0.074
gigabecquerels) were buried in each
hole. This total may be an overestimate
of the amount buried but is below the
regulatory limit of 50 millicuries (1.85
gigabecquerels) per year that was
allowed during 1968 to 1969.
According to the licensee’s records,
only dry wastes were buried. Liquid
wastes were disposed via the sewer as
allowed by AEC regulations at that time.
In addition, the experiments involved
carbon-14 in a chemical form that
would have resulted in a loss of carbon
to the atmosphere during the
experiments. Therefore, the actual
amount of carbon-14 buried could be
less than 12 millicuries (0.44
gigabecquerels). The NRC conducted a
review of archived records to ascertain
whether the licensee’s estimate was
accurate. Nothing was identified in the
NRC’s records that refuted the licensee’s
claim that only 12 millicuries (0.44
gigabecquerels), or less, of radioactive
material were buried during 1968 to
1969.
The licensee’s request to release the
former burial site for unrestricted use
was based on dose modeling
calculations using the NRC-approved
RESRAD Computer Code, Version 6.21.
The licensee used the code’s default
values for its calculations, including a
default value of 100 picocuries (3.7
becquerels) per gram of carbon-14. [The
NRC and the licensee’s contractor
estimated that the actual concentration
was around 1 picocurie (0.037
becquerels) per gram based on the
amount of material buried and the
volume of the burial pit.] Using this
conservative approach, the individual
dose summed over all pathways was
calculated at time zero (1969) to be 77.8
millirems (0.778 millisieverts) per year.
At Year 10 (1979), the dose had fallen
to less than 1 millirem (0.01
millisievert) per year, and by Year 30
(1999) the dose had fallen to 0.00
millirems (0.0 millisieverts) per year.
These calculations were independently
verified by the NRC. The NRC notes that
the calculated values beyond Year 10
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:15 Mar 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
(1979) are below the 25-millirem (0.25
millisieverts) limit for unrestricted
release of the site as stipulated in 10
CFR 20.1402. Furthermore, the
radiological impacts of releasing the
burial site for unrestricted use are
bounded by the impacts evaluated in
NUREG–1496, ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement in Support of
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for
License Termination of NRC-Licensed
Nuclear Facilities.’’
The NRC staff considered the
potential impacts of the leaching of
radioactive and non-radioactive material
into the groundwater. The licensee
estimated that the groundwater table is
at a depth of 20 feet (6 meters), and the
depth of the disposed material was
about 4–6 feet (1.2–1.8 meters) deep.
The shallow surface groundwater in the
vicinity of the site is not used as a
drinking water supply. Local members
of the public obtain water from the city.
Further, the impacts that potentially
contaminated groundwater would have
on members of the public were
considered as part of the RESRAD
modeling scenario. The NRC believes
that the burial site, if left undisturbed,
will not have a radiological impact on
the site groundwater.
Environmental Impacts of Alternative
Actions
1. Environmental Impacts of the NoAction Alternative
The no-action alternative would result
in impacts similar to or the same as the
proposed action. However, this
alternative would be inconsistent with
the Commission’s regulations, therefore,
it is not a reasonable alternative.
2. Environmental Impacts of Alternative
2
Alternative 2 to the proposed action is
to deny the amendment request and
require the licensee to take some
additional action such as the
remediation of the burial site. If the
licensee were required to remediate the
burial site, the potential harm to the
workers or members of the public from
exposure to radioactive material would
be bounded by the RESRAD
calculations. In other words, the
remediation of the site would most
likely have a minimal radiological
impact on site workers and members of
the public.
Remediation of the site may have
short-term health and safety
consequences caused by the excavation,
packaging, and shipping of the residual
radioactive material. These nonradiological impacts would include the
normal risks of exhuming the wastes
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
with earth-moving equipment and
transportation of the material to an outof-state disposal facility. The risks
include death or injury from a
construction or transportation accident.
The remediation of the former burial
site would cause some environmental
harm. The waste material would have to
be excavated, packaged, and transported
to an out-of-state disposal facility. The
excavation process would be
accomplished by heavy equipment and
trucks that would disturb the general
area. The prevailing winds will most
likely disperse some of the excavated
material offsite. The resulting surface
void would have to be refilled with
clean soil and contoured. Vegetation in
the vicinity of the reclaimed site would
be temporarily disturbed.
Since the licensee successfully
demonstrated that the current dose is
0.00 millirems (0.0 millisieverts) using
the RESRAD program, the NRC has
determined that the remediation of the
burial site is not a practical option.
Conclusion
Based on its review, the NRC staff has
concluded that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action and the preparation
of an environmental impact statement is
not warranted. The staff has determined
that the proposed action, approval of the
license amendment request to release
the former burial site from the license
for unrestricted use, is the appropriate
alternative for selection.
Agencies and Persons Contacted
The NRC staff has determined that the
proposed action is not a major
construction activity and will not affect
listed or proposed endangered species.
Additionally, it is not an undertaking
that will affect historic properties.
Therefore, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service and the State Historic
Preservation Office were not contacted.
The Department of Environment &
Natural Resources, State of South
Dakota, was consulted by the NRC. The
State responded by letter dated
September 23, 2004, and suggested that
the NRC consider use of institutional
controls to prevent the unintentional
disturbance of the burial site. The NRC
responded by letter dated October 27,
2004, stating that it was appropriate to
release the site without restrictions,
including institutional controls. The
NRC contacted the Administrator, Waste
Management Program, South Dakota
Department of Environment & Natural
Resources, for the State’s response. The
State accepted the NRC’s position as
documented in the October 27, 2004,
letter, but plans to pursue the issue of
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 62 / Friday, April 1, 2005 / Notices
institutional controls directly with the
College.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff concludes that the
proposed action complies with the
radiological criteria for unrestricted use
as stipulated in 10 CFR 20.1402. The
licensee demonstrated that any
remaining residual radioactivity will not
result in radiological exposures in
excess of the 25 millirem (0.25
millisievert) total effective dose
equivalent limit specified in § 20.1402.
Dose modeling indicates that current
and future members of the public will
not receive any radiological dose from
the burial site. The NRC staff prepared
this EA in support of the proposed
action to amend the license. On the
basis of this EA, the NRC has concluded
that there are no significant
environmental impacts and the license
amendment does not warrant the
preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement. Accordingly, it has been
determined that a FONSI is appropriate.
IV. Further Information
A copy of this document will be
available electronically for public
inspection in the NRC Public Document
Room or from the Publicly Available
Records (PARS) component of the
NRC’s document system. From this site,
you can access the NRC’s Agencywide
Document Access and Management
System (ADAMS), which provides text
and image files of NRC’s public
documents. The following references are
available for inspection at NRC’s Public
Electronic Reading Room at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
(the Public Electronic Reading Room).
ADAMS accession numbers are located
in parentheses following the reference.
1. Wanous, Michael, Augustana
College letter to NRC, February 17, 2003
(ML030850812).
2. Wanous, Michael, Augustana
College letter to NRC, April 25, 2003
(ML031220675).
3. NRC, ‘‘Environmental Review
Guidance for Licensing Actions
Associated with NMSS Programs,’’
NUREG–1748, August 2003
(ML032540811).
4. Wanous, Michael, Augustana
College letter to NRC, August 25, 2003
(ML032400519).
5. NRC, ‘‘Consolidated
Decommissioning Guidance,’’ NUREG–
1757, Volume 1, Revision 1, September
2003 (ML032530410).
6. NRC, ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement in Support of
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for
License Termination of NRC-Licensed
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:15 Mar 31, 2005
Jkt 205001
Nuclear Facilities,’’ NUREG–1496, July
1997 (ML042310492).
7. Satorius, Mark, ‘‘Request for
Comments Regarding Environmental
Assessment of Former Burial Site at
Augustana College,’’ NRC letter to State
of South Dakota, September 10, 2004
(ML042540432).
8. Lancaster, Rick, ‘‘Request for
Comments Regarding Environmental
Assessment of Former Burial Site at
Augustana College,’’ State of South
Dakota letter to NRC, September 23,
2004 (ML042730227).
9. Satorius, Mark, ‘‘Request for
Institutional Controls Over Former
Burial Site at Augustana College,’’ NRC
letter to State of South Dakota, October
27, 2004 (ML043010521).
10. Evans, Robert, ‘‘Telephone Call
With State of South Dakota Regarding
Former Burial Site at Augustana
College,’’ NRC Memorandum To Docket
File, December 8, 2004
(ML0434400520).
If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact
the NRC Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at (800) 397–4209, (301)
415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Documents may also be viewed
electronically on the public computers
located at the NRC’s PDR, O 1 F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee.
Dated at Arlington, Texas this 22nd day of
March 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patricia K. Holahan,
Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
Region IV.
[FR Doc. E5–1449 Filed 3–31–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72–11]
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact Regarding an
Amendment
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental Assessment.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James R. Hall, Senior Project Manager,
Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555. Telephone:
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16881
(301) 415–1336; fax number: (301) 415–
8555; e-mail: jrh@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or the staff) is considering issuance of
an amendment to Special Nuclear
Materials License No. 2510 that would
allow for the storage of Greater Than
Class C (GTCC) waste at the Rancho
Seco Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI). The Sacramento
Municipal Utility District (SMUD) is
currently storing spent nuclear fuel at
the Rancho Seco ISFSI on the site of the
decommissioned Rancho Seco Nuclear
Generating Station in Sacramento
County, California.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Identification of Proposed Action
By application, dated July 29, 2004,
SMUD submitted a request to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
in accordance with Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 72.56,
‘‘Application for amendment of
license,’’ to amend the license to allow
for the storage of GTCC waste at the
Rancho Seco ISFSI. SMUD proposes to
store the GTCC waste in a GTCC
canister and load the canister into a
Horizontal Storage Module in the
NUHOMS–24P dry cask storage system
used at the Rancho Seco ISFSI. SMUD
proposes to co-locate the GTCC waste
canister with the spent fuel canisters at
the ISFSI, but no GTCC waste will be
co-mingled with the spent fuel.
The proposed action before the NRC
is whether to approve the amendment.
Need for the Proposed Action
SMUD is in the process of
decommissioning the Rancho Seco
Nuclear Generating Station in
Sacramento County, California. SMUD
needs to temporarily store GTCC waste
resulting from plant operations and
from decommissioning, such as
activated metals in the form of baffles
and formers, cut-up sections of incoreinstrument tips, and associated surface
contamination, in the ISFSI until there
is a permanent repository that will
accept GTCC waste. Approving the
amendment would allow the licensee to
store GTCC at the Rancho Seco ISFSI.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The staff has reviewed the
amendment request submitted by the
licensee and has determined that
allowing the storage of GTCC waste at
the Rancho Seco ISFSI would have no
significant impacts to the environment.
In its Safety Evaluation Report related to
the ISFSI license, the NRC staff found
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 62 (Friday, April 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16879-16881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-1449]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 030-01063]
Notice of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact of License Amendment for Augustana College at Sioux Falls, SD
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
for license amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Blair Spitzberg, PhD., Fuel Cycle
and Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive,
Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011. Telephone: (817) 860-8100; e-mail
dbs@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of an amendment to NRC Materials License No. 40-06921-03 to
remove a former burial site from the license. This licensing action
will allow Augustana College to release the property for unrestricted
use. If approved, Augustana College will continue to possess
radioactive materials in accordance with the conditions of its license
but will not be required to maintain radiological control over the
burial site. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in
support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR
Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate.
II. Environmental Assessment
Background
The radioactive burial site is located on the campus of Augustana
College (the licensee) in the central part of Sioux Falls, South
Dakota. The burial site is located in a grove of crabapple trees on the
east side of the Gilbert Science Center near the corner of 33rd Street
and Summit Avenue. Based on the licensee's records, the burial site
consists of a line of six pits (holes) containing radioactive material.
The holes were dug using manual equipment (post-hole digger & shovel)
to a depth of 5 feet (1.5 meters) and are arranged in 6-foot (1.8-
meter) intervals.
The licensee has been authorized by the NRC and its predecessor,
the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), to possess radioactive
material since 1958. The docket file records indicate that Augustana
College first began possessing radioactive material during 1963. The
licensee's records document that about 12 millicuries (0.44
gigabecquerels) of carbon-14, a long-lived beta particle emitter, were
disposed at the burial site between 1968 and 1969.
Review Scope
By letters dated February 17, April 25 and August 25, 2003, the
licensee requested that the former radioactive materials burial site
located on campus property be released for unrestricted use. Prior to
January 28, 1981, the NRC permitted licensees to dispose of small
quantities of licensed materials by burial in soil without specific NRC
authorization. This was authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 20.304. This
regulation has since been rescinded by the NRC. The NRC is considering
the issuance of an amendment to Materials License No. 40-06921-03 to
release the burial site for unrestricted use. In accordance with 10 CFR
30.36 and NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 1, a decommissioning plan was
not required from the licensee. The purpose of this EA is to assess the
environmental consequences of this licensing action using the guidance
provided in NUREG-1748.
Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve the licensee's request to amend
its license to release the former burial site located at Augustana
College in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for unrestricted use. The
licensee would not be required to remediate the burial site if the NRC
approves the license amendment request.
Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
The proposed action is necessary to release the burial site from
the license for unrestricted use. The need for the proposed action is
for the licensee to be in compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR
30.36, ``Expiration and Termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of
Sites and Separate Buildings or Outdoor Areas.'' By releasing the site
for unrestricted use, the applicant will not be burdened with
additional regulations that would no longer be applicable to them.
Alternatives
The alternatives to the proposed action are (1) the no-action
alternative, or (2) to deny the amendment request and require the
licensee to take additional actions such as the remediation of the
burial site.
Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action
By letter dated March 25, 1968, the licensee requested information
from the AEC on ``* * * how and where to dispose of solid and liquid
form carbon-14 wastes * * * accumulated.'' The AEC responded in a
letter dated April 1, 1968, stating that the disposal options available
to the licensee at the time included disposal by burial in soil.
Licensees were authorized to dispose of radioactive material by burial
in accordance with 10 CFR 20.304 between 1959 and 1981. The April 1,
1968, letter reminded the licensee of the regulatory requirements--that
each burial may not exceed 50,000 microcuries (50 millicuries, or 1.85
gigabecquerels) of carbon-14, each burial must be made at a depth of at
least 4 feet (1.2 meters), and each burial must be separated from other
burial sites by at least 6 feet (1.8 meters).
[[Page 16880]]
Based on the licensee's records, no more than 12 millicuries (0.44
gigabecquerels) of carbon-14 were buried. The licensee's estimate was
based on available disposal records from the 1968 to 1969 time frame.
Although the records do not clearly identify the amount of material
buried, the licensee made the assumption from the records available
that each hole contained the maximum amount of carbon-14 that could
have been received under the license's authorization limit. Since six
holes were constructed, the licensee assumed that the maximum
possession limit of 2 millicuries (0.074 gigabecquerels) were buried in
each hole. This total may be an overestimate of the amount buried but
is below the regulatory limit of 50 millicuries (1.85 gigabecquerels)
per year that was allowed during 1968 to 1969.
According to the licensee's records, only dry wastes were buried.
Liquid wastes were disposed via the sewer as allowed by AEC regulations
at that time. In addition, the experiments involved carbon-14 in a
chemical form that would have resulted in a loss of carbon to the
atmosphere during the experiments. Therefore, the actual amount of
carbon-14 buried could be less than 12 millicuries (0.44
gigabecquerels). The NRC conducted a review of archived records to
ascertain whether the licensee's estimate was accurate. Nothing was
identified in the NRC's records that refuted the licensee's claim that
only 12 millicuries (0.44 gigabecquerels), or less, of radioactive
material were buried during 1968 to 1969.
The licensee's request to release the former burial site for
unrestricted use was based on dose modeling calculations using the NRC-
approved RESRAD Computer Code, Version 6.21. The licensee used the
code's default values for its calculations, including a default value
of 100 picocuries (3.7 becquerels) per gram of carbon-14. [The NRC and
the licensee's contractor estimated that the actual concentration was
around 1 picocurie (0.037 becquerels) per gram based on the amount of
material buried and the volume of the burial pit.] Using this
conservative approach, the individual dose summed over all pathways was
calculated at time zero (1969) to be 77.8 millirems (0.778
millisieverts) per year. At Year 10 (1979), the dose had fallen to less
than 1 millirem (0.01 millisievert) per year, and by Year 30 (1999) the
dose had fallen to 0.00 millirems (0.0 millisieverts) per year. These
calculations were independently verified by the NRC. The NRC notes that
the calculated values beyond Year 10 (1979) are below the 25-millirem
(0.25 millisieverts) limit for unrestricted release of the site as
stipulated in 10 CFR 20.1402. Furthermore, the radiological impacts of
releasing the burial site for unrestricted use are bounded by the
impacts evaluated in NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License
Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities.''
The NRC staff considered the potential impacts of the leaching of
radioactive and non-radioactive material into the groundwater. The
licensee estimated that the groundwater table is at a depth of 20 feet
(6 meters), and the depth of the disposed material was about 4-6 feet
(1.2-1.8 meters) deep. The shallow surface groundwater in the vicinity
of the site is not used as a drinking water supply. Local members of
the public obtain water from the city. Further, the impacts that
potentially contaminated groundwater would have on members of the
public were considered as part of the RESRAD modeling scenario. The NRC
believes that the burial site, if left undisturbed, will not have a
radiological impact on the site groundwater.
Environmental Impacts of Alternative Actions
1. Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative
The no-action alternative would result in impacts similar to or the
same as the proposed action. However, this alternative would be
inconsistent with the Commission's regulations, therefore, it is not a
reasonable alternative.
2. Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2
Alternative 2 to the proposed action is to deny the amendment
request and require the licensee to take some additional action such as
the remediation of the burial site. If the licensee were required to
remediate the burial site, the potential harm to the workers or members
of the public from exposure to radioactive material would be bounded by
the RESRAD calculations. In other words, the remediation of the site
would most likely have a minimal radiological impact on site workers
and members of the public.
Remediation of the site may have short-term health and safety
consequences caused by the excavation, packaging, and shipping of the
residual radioactive material. These non-radiological impacts would
include the normal risks of exhuming the wastes with earth-moving
equipment and transportation of the material to an out-of-state
disposal facility. The risks include death or injury from a
construction or transportation accident.
The remediation of the former burial site would cause some
environmental harm. The waste material would have to be excavated,
packaged, and transported to an out-of-state disposal facility. The
excavation process would be accomplished by heavy equipment and trucks
that would disturb the general area. The prevailing winds will most
likely disperse some of the excavated material offsite. The resulting
surface void would have to be refilled with clean soil and contoured.
Vegetation in the vicinity of the reclaimed site would be temporarily
disturbed.
Since the licensee successfully demonstrated that the current dose
is 0.00 millirems (0.0 millisieverts) using the RESRAD program, the NRC
has determined that the remediation of the burial site is not a
practical option.
Conclusion
Based on its review, the NRC staff has concluded that there are no
significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action
and the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not
warranted. The staff has determined that the proposed action, approval
of the license amendment request to release the former burial site from
the license for unrestricted use, is the appropriate alternative for
selection.
Agencies and Persons Contacted
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a
major construction activity and will not affect listed or proposed
endangered species. Additionally, it is not an undertaking that will
affect historic properties. Therefore, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
and the State Historic Preservation Office were not contacted.
The Department of Environment & Natural Resources, State of South
Dakota, was consulted by the NRC. The State responded by letter dated
September 23, 2004, and suggested that the NRC consider use of
institutional controls to prevent the unintentional disturbance of the
burial site. The NRC responded by letter dated October 27, 2004,
stating that it was appropriate to release the site without
restrictions, including institutional controls. The NRC contacted the
Administrator, Waste Management Program, South Dakota Department of
Environment & Natural Resources, for the State's response. The State
accepted the NRC's position as documented in the October 27, 2004,
letter, but plans to pursue the issue of
[[Page 16881]]
institutional controls directly with the College.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff concludes that the proposed action complies with the
radiological criteria for unrestricted use as stipulated in 10 CFR
20.1402. The licensee demonstrated that any remaining residual
radioactivity will not result in radiological exposures in excess of
the 25 millirem (0.25 millisievert) total effective dose equivalent
limit specified in Sec. 20.1402. Dose modeling indicates that current
and future members of the public will not receive any radiological dose
from the burial site. The NRC staff prepared this EA in support of the
proposed action to amend the license. On the basis of this EA, the NRC
has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts and
the license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined
that a FONSI is appropriate.
IV. Further Information
A copy of this document will be available electronically for public
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly
Available Records (PARS) component of the NRC's document system. From
this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's
public documents. The following references are available for inspection
at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-
rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). ADAMS accession
numbers are located in parentheses following the reference.
1. Wanous, Michael, Augustana College letter to NRC, February 17,
2003 (ML030850812).
2. Wanous, Michael, Augustana College letter to NRC, April 25, 2003
(ML031220675).
3. NRC, ``Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions
Associated with NMSS Programs,'' NUREG-1748, August 2003 (ML032540811).
4. Wanous, Michael, Augustana College letter to NRC, August 25,
2003 (ML032400519).
5. NRC, ``Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance,'' NUREG-1757,
Volume 1, Revision 1, September 2003 (ML032530410).
6. NRC, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-
Licensed Nuclear Facilities,'' NUREG-1496, July 1997 (ML042310492).
7. Satorius, Mark, ``Request for Comments Regarding Environmental
Assessment of Former Burial Site at Augustana College,'' NRC letter to
State of South Dakota, September 10, 2004 (ML042540432).
8. Lancaster, Rick, ``Request for Comments Regarding Environmental
Assessment of Former Burial Site at Augustana College,'' State of South
Dakota letter to NRC, September 23, 2004 (ML042730227).
9. Satorius, Mark, ``Request for Institutional Controls Over Former
Burial Site at Augustana College,'' NRC letter to State of South
Dakota, October 27, 2004 (ML043010521).
10. Evans, Robert, ``Telephone Call With State of South Dakota
Regarding Former Burial Site at Augustana College,'' NRC Memorandum To
Docket File, December 8, 2004 (ML0434400520).
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737
or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Documents may also be viewed
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1
F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Dated at Arlington, Texas this 22nd day of March 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patricia K. Holahan,
Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV.
[FR Doc. E5-1449 Filed 3-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P