University of Michigan; University of Michigan Ford Nuclear Reactor; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 6104-6105 [E6-1571]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6104-6105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1571]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-02]


University of Michigan; University of Michigan Ford Nuclear 
Reactor; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering the issuance of a license amendment to Facility Operating 
License No. R-28, issued to the University of Michigan (UM or the 
licensee), that would allow decommissioning of the UM Ford Nuclear 
Reactor (FNR) located at the North Campus in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw 
County, Michigan.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    By letter dated June 18, 2004, the licensee submitted a 
decommissioning plan in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulation Part 50.82(b)(5) (10 CFR 50.82(b)(5)) in order to dismantle 
the 2 megawatts thermal (MWt) FNR, to dispose of its component parts 
and radioactive material, and to decontaminate the facility in 
accordance with the proposed dismantling plan to meet the Commission's 
unrestricted release criteria. After the Commission verifies that the 
release criteria have been met, Facility Operating License No. R-28 
would be terminated. The licensee submitted an Environmental Report on 
June 18, 2004, that addressed the estimated environmental impacts 
resulting from decommissioning the UM FNR.
    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 
University of Michigan Ford Nuclear Reactor (FNR)'' was published in 
the Federal Register on September 8, 2004 (69 FR 54326). No comments 
were received during the comment period.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is necessary to permanently cease operations of 
UM FNR. The licensee needs this license change because it no longer 
plans to conduct licensed activities at the UM FNR. As specified in 10 
CFR 50.82, any licensee may apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
for authority to surrender a license voluntarily and to decommission 
the affected facility. Additionally, 10 CFR 51.53(d) stipulates that 
each applicant for a license amendment to authorize decommissioning of 
a production or utilization facility shall submit with its application 
an environmental report that reflects any new information or 
significant environmental change associated with the proposed 
decommissioning activities. Upon completion of the decommissioning 
activities, UM is planning to use the area that would be released for 
other academic purposes.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action

    Residual radioactive contamination resulting from past reactor 
operations is contained in the FNR facility. All decontamination will 
be performed by trained personnel in accordance with previously 
reviewed procedures, and will be overseen by experienced health physics 
staff. Solid and liquid waste will be removed from the facility and 
managed in accordance with NRC regulations. The operations are 
calculated to result in a total occupational radiation exposure of 
about 4.8 person-rem. Radiation exposure to the general public during 
decommissioning is expected to be negligible. This will be accomplished 
by keeping the public at a safe distance and by meeting NRC 
requirements for effluent releases during decommissioning.
    Occupational and public exposure may result from offsite disposal 
of the low-level residual radioactive material from the FNR. The 
handling, storage, and shipment of this radioactive material are to 
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.2006, ``Transfer for Disposal and 
Manifest,'' and 49 CFR Parts 100-177, ``Transportation of Hazardous 
Materials.'' It is anticipated that about 112 ft3 of 
irradiated hardware will be shipped during one truck shipment in Type B 
shipping casks to a waste processor. A volume of 11,000 ft3 
of other waste in strong tight containers will be shipped during 27 
truck shipments to the Envirocare of Utah facility. Included in the 
other waste shipment is mixed waste consisting primarily of activated 
and/or contaminated lead with a volume of 43 ft3 and cadmium 
with a volume of 1 ft3. Radiation exposure to the general 
public during waste shipments is expected to be negligible. In 
addition, Liquid waste that is generated during the decommissioning 
activities will be released to the environment in accordance with the 
regulations in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart K, ``Waste Disposal,'' or will 
be solidified and disposed of as solid waste in accordance with state 
and Federal guidelines.
    The licensee analyzed accidents applicable to decommissioning 
activities. These accidents involve inhalation of hazardous or 
radioactive materials, confined space issues, heavy equipment movement, 
external radiation exposure, and dermal contact with radioactive and 
hazardous materials. To minimize the risk from identified hazards, 
procedures and conformance with FNR license and regulatory requirements 
will be used.
    Based on the review of the specific proposed activities associated 
with the dismantling and decontamination of the UM FNR facility, the 
staff has determined that the proposed action will not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents, change any effluents that may 
be released off site,

[[Page 6105]]

and cause any significant increase in occupational or public radiation 
exposure. Therefore, the staff concludes that 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. In addition to the lead and 
cadmium discussed above, asbestos is present at the UM FNR facility. 
Asbestos will be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. 
Decommissioning activities will not affect non-radiological facility 
effluents and have no other environmental impact. The licensee states 
that there are no significant plant communities and no wetlands within 
the site.
    There are three species listed as threatened or endangered under 
the Federal ESA within Washtenaw County. These are Indiana bat (Myotis 
sodalis), the Mitchell's satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii 
mitchellii), and the Eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera 
leucophaea). There are no records of any of these three species on the 
UM FNR site. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no 
significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that there are no 
significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    The licensee has proposed to use the DECON alternative for the UM 
FNR facility. The DECON alternative is where the equipment, structures, 
and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are 
removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be 
released for unrestricted use. As a first alternative to the proposed 
DECON method, SAFSTOR will be used. In SAFSTOR, the nuclear facility is 
placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility 
to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred 
decontamination) to levels that permit release for unrestricted use. As 
a second alternative, the ENTOMB alternative is where radioactive 
contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as 
concrete; the entombed structure is appropriately maintained; and 
continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactivity decays to 
a level permitting release of the property for unrestricted use.
    The SAFSTOR, ENTOMB, and no-action alternatives would entail 
continued surveillance and physical security measures to be in place 
and continued monitoring by licensee personnel. The SAFSTOR and no-
action alternatives would also require continued maintenance of the 
facility. The radiological impacts of SAFSTOR would be less than the 
DECON option because of radioactive decay prior to the start of 
decommissioning activities. However, this option involves the continued 
use of resources during the SAFSTOR period. The ENTOMB option would 
also result in lower radiological exposure than the DECON option but 
would involve the continued use of resources. UM FNR has determined 
that the proposed action (DECON) is the most efficient use of the 
existing facility, since it proposes to use the space that will become 
available for other academic purposes. These alternatives would have no 
significant environmental impact. In addition, the regulations in 10 
CFR 50.82(b)(4)(i) only allow an alternative if it provides for 
completion of decommissioning without significant delay.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Environmental Report submitted on June 18, 
2004, for the UM FNR facility.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

    In accordance with the NRC staff's stated policy, on November 22, 
2005, the NRC staff consulted with the Michigan State official, Chris 
Antieau, Department of Environmental Quality, Land and Water Management 
Division, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action on 
the Coastal Zone Management Act. The state official stated that he 
concurred with the environmental assessment and had no comments. In 
addition, the staff contacted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action to threatened 
or endangered species. The FWS provided the NRC staff with a list of 
threatened and endangered species to assist the NRC staff to determine 
if the UM FNR proposed action would cause any environmental impact in 
reference to the Endangered Species Act. On December 2, 2005, the NRC 
staff also consulted with the Michigan State Official, Robert D. 
Skowronek, Department of Environmental Quality, Waste and Hazardous 
Materials Division. Mr. Skowronek 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. 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 
licensee's letter dated June 18, 2004, which is available for public 
inspection, and can be copied for a fee, at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The NRC 
maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), 
which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These 
documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading 
Room on the internet at https://www.nrc.gov. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who have problems in accessing the documents located 
in ADAMS may contact the PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-
415-4737 or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brian E. Thomas,
Branch Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch, Division of Policy and 
Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E6-1571 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P