University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor, 86024-86030 [2016-28711]
Download as PDF
86024
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2016 / Notices
Available Records System (PARS)
component of NRC’s document system
(ADAMS) which is accessible from the
NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html or https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/ACRS/.
Video teleconferencing service is
available for observing open sessions of
ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use
this service should contact Mr. Theron
Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician
(301–415–8066), between 7:30 a.m. and
3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before
the meeting to ensure the availability of
this service. Individuals or
organizations requesting this service
will be responsible for telephone line
charges and for providing the
equipment and facilities that they use to
establish the video teleconferencing
link. The availability of video
teleconferencing services is not
guaranteed.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day
of November, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew L. Bates,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016–28550 Filed 11–28–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–186; NRC–2013–0090]
University of Missouri-Columbia
Research Reactor
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
renewal of Facility Operating License
No. R–103, held by the Curators of the
University of Missouri (the licensee) for
the continued operation of its
University of Missouri-Columbia
Research Reactor (MURR or the reactor).
The NRC is issuing an environmental
assessment (EA) and finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) associated
with the renewal of the license.
DATES: The EA and FONSI are available
on November 29, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2013–0090 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Nov 28, 2016
Jkt 241001
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0090. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly
available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the
convenience of the reader, the ADAMS
accession numbers are provided in a
table in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’
section of this document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Geoffrey A. Wertz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
0893; email: Geoffrey.Wertz@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is considering renewal of
Facility Operating License No. R–103,
held by the Curators of the University of
Missouri, which would authorize
continued operation of its reactor for 20
years from date of issuance, located in
the University Research Park, Columbia,
Boone County, Missouri. As required by
section 51.21 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Criteria
for and identification of licensing and
regulatory actions requiring
environmental assessments,’’ the NRC
staff prepared an EA documenting its
environmental review. Based on the
results of the EA that follows, the NRC
has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed renewed license is not
required and is issuing a FONSI in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.32.
II. Environmental Assessment
Facility Site and Environs
The MURR facility is located on 7.5
acres of land in the central portion of
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the 84-acre University Research Park in
Boone County. Boone County is located
in the central part of the state and
consists of an area of approximately 683
square miles (1,769 square km) and is
approximately 41 miles (66 km) in its
greatest north-to-south length and 22
miles (35.4 km) in its greatest east-towest width. The University Research
Park is an extension of the University of
Missouri-Columbia, main campus and is
located approximately 1.6 kilometers (1
mile) southwest of the main campus.
The MURR facility includes a five-story
reactor containment building which is
centrally located and integrated into a
one-story laboratory building.
Immediately surrounding the MURR
facility are other research buildings and
parking lots associated with the
University Research Park. Facilities
beyond the University Research Park
include a golf course to the west;
campus sports arenas and fields to the
northeast, east, and south; and the
University’s main campus. The City of
Columbia is to the north. There are few
permanent residences nearby with only
225 persons living within 1 kilometer
(0.6 miles) of the MURR facility. The
nearest permanent residence is located
approximately 760 meters (0.5 miles)
north of the site. The nearest
dormitories are located approximately 1
kilometer (0.6 miles) from the MURR
facility. The MURR is a tank-type
(pressure vessel) reactor where the tank
is located in an open pool. The reactor
is light water moderated and cooled. It
is licensed to operate at a maximum
thermal steady state power level of 10
megawatts (MWt). The reactor core is
located in a pressure vessel within the
lined reactor pool. The reactor pool is 3
meters (10 feet) in diameter and 9
meters (30 feet) deep. The reactor is
fueled with highly-enriched uranium
plate-type fuel contained in eight fuel
elements. A detailed description of the
reactor can be found in the MURR safety
analysis report (SAR). There have been
no major modifications to the MURR
since issuance of Operating License
Amendment No. 2 on July 9, 1974,
which authorized the MURR to operate
at its current power level. However, the
facility has added several laboratories
and hot cells over the intervening time
period in order to conduct research
activities. A complete description of
these changes will be provided in the
NRC staff’s safety evaluation report
(SER) accompanying the issuance of the
renewed license.
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would renew
Facility Operating License No. R–103
for an additional 20 years from the date
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2016 / Notices
of issuance of the renewal license. The
proposed action is in accordance with
the licensee’s application dated August
31, 2006, as supplemented by letters
dated January 15, January 29, May 18,
July 2, July 16, August 31, September 3,
September 30, October 29, and
November 30, 2010; March 11 and
September 8, 2011; January 6 and June
28, 2012; January 28, July 31, and
October 1, 2015; and February 8, April
8, April 15, May 31, and July 25, 2016
(the renewal application). In accordance
with 10 CFR 2.109, ‘‘Effect of timely
renewal application,’’ the existing
license remains in effect until the NRC
takes final action on the renewal
application.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
allow the continued operation of the
reactor to routinely provide training,
research, and services to the research
community and the commercial sector
for a period of 20 years.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
Radiological Impacts
Gaseous radioactive effluents are
discharged through a multi-stage
filtration system to the facility
ventilation exhaust stack during reactor
operations. The stack height is 21
meters (70 feet) above grade level;
however, the effective stack height is
greater due to the stack exhaust
volumetric flow rate of 864 cubic meters
per minute (30,500 cubic feet per
minute). Other parts of the MURR
facility are maintained at a negative
pressure with respect to the reactor
exhaust system which helps ensure that
any release pathways are through the
facility ventilation exhaust stack that
provides an elevated release point for
dispersion of the effluent. The licensee
indicated that the most significant
radionuclide released from reactor
operation into the gaseous effluent
stream is Argon-41 (Ar-41), which
accounts for greater than 99 percent of
the radioactivity released. The licensee
measures the quantity of Ar-41 released
annually from the facility ventilation
exhaust stack under normal reactor
steady-state operating conditions and
provides the results in their annual
reports. The licensee also provided
calculations, using the maximum
annual Ar-41 radioactivity release
allowed by Technical Specification (TS)
3.7, ‘‘Radiation Monitoring Systems and
Airborne Effluents,’’ which results in a
maximum potential dose to a member of
the public of 0.0235 milliSieverts (mSv)
(2.35 mrem), which occurs at the nearest
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Nov 28, 2016
Jkt 241001
residence: A location which is 760
meters (2493 feet) from the licensee’s
release point (elevated stack). The NRC
staff performed independent
calculations to verify that the licensee’s
calculated public dose from Ar-41
represented a conservative estimate. The
NRC staff calculated a maximum public
dose from Ar-41 of 0.0415 mSv (4.15
mrem).
A review of the licensee’s annual
reports for the 5 years of operation from
2010 through 2015 shows that Ar-41
constitutes the significant radioactive
isotope released from the MURR facility.
The maximum annual release of Ar-41
was approximately 78 percent of the TS
3.7 limit in 2013, and the average Ar-41
release was approximately 70 percent of
the TS 3.7 limit over the period from
2010 through 2015.
The licensee also considered the
radiological effect of nitrogen-16 (N-16),
which is produced from neutron
activation of oxygen-16 in the reactor
primary cooling system and pool
coolant water. N-16 decays with a very
short half-life of 7 seconds. Because the
primary cooling system is a closed
system that is shielded or located in
areas with restricted access to the
MURR staff during reactor operation,
radiation exposure from or release of N16 are not concerns. The MURR has
hold-up tanks in both the primary
coolant demineralizer loop and the pool
coolant system, which allows the
majority of N-16 in these systems to
decay. The hold-up tanks are located in
an area designated as a high radiation
area which has locked, restricted access.
Therefore, most of the N-16 has been
removed through decay prior to
reaching the pool surface or in areas
where the MURR staff requires access.
Other radioactive gaseous effluents
released, as reported in the licensee’s
annual reports were approximately 1
percent or less of the air effluent
concentration limits set by 10 CFR part
20, appendix B, ‘‘Annual Limits on
Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air
Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides
for Occupational Exposure; Effluent
Concentrations; Concentrations for
Release to Sewerage,’’ Table 2, ‘‘Effluent
Concentrations,’’ Column 1, ‘‘Air.’’
Since the potential annual radiation
dose resulting from the maximum
effluent release from the normal
operation of the MURR to a member of
the public in the unrestricted area at the
nearest residence is 2.35 mrem (0.0235
mSv) to 4.15 mrem (0.0415 mSv), the
licensee demonstrates compliance with
the dose limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv) set
by 10 CFR 20.1301, ‘‘Dose limits for
individual members of the public.’’
Additionally, this potential radiation
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
86025
dose also demonstrates compliance with
the ‘‘as low as is reasonably achievable’’
(ALARA) air emissions dose constraint
of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) specified in 10
CFR 20.1101, ‘‘Radiation protection
programs,’’ paragraph (d). The NRC staff
reviewed the radiological dose
calculations provided by the licensee,
the assumptions used, and the results of
several years of effluent releases from
the licensee’s annual reports, as well as
toured the facility, and finds the results
of the licensee’s dose estimates to be
reasonable.
The licensee directs all potentially
radioactive liquid waste into a liquid
waste retention system until the liquid
waste can be assayed for radioactive
content, and chemically treated, if
necessary, for disposal by discharge to
the sanitary sewer system. Discharge of
any liquid waste to the sanitary sewer
requires the use of the MURR
procedures to ensure that the liquid
discharge meets the requirements of 10
CFR 20.2003, ‘‘Disposal by release into
sanitary sewerage,’’ prior to release into
the sanitary sewer. A review of the
licensee’s disposal data from its annual
reports over the years 2010 through
2015, indicates that tritium constitutes
more than 90 percent of the total
activity released to the sanitary sewer,
and all radioactive liquid releases were
well below 10 percent of the regulatory
limits in 10 CFR part 20, appendix B.
The MURR Health Physics Group
oversees the handling of solid low-level
radioactive waste generated at the
MURR facility. This waste consists
mainly of contaminated items such as
demineralizer resins, filters, plastic
bags, gloves, absorbent material, and
wipes, as well as reactor equipment or
components that are no longer of use.
The MURR Health Physics Group
disposes of the waste by shipment to a
low level waste broker, or directly to a
waste processing site for final disposal,
in accordance with all applicable
regulations for transportation of
radioactive materials.
The licensee transfers mixed waste,
consisting of substances having both
hazardous and radioactive materials, to
the Missouri University Environmental
Health and Safety Department for
disposal. If the mixed waste contains
only short-lived radioactive materials, it
may be stored until the short-lived
materials decay to background levels
and is then disposed of as hazardous
waste. Mixed waste with long-lived
radioactive material is transferred to an
authorized facility for disposal.
To comply with the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, the licensee has
entered into a contract with the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) that
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
86026
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2016 / Notices
provides that DOE retains title to the
fuel utilized at the MURR and that DOE
is obligated to take the fuel from the site
for final disposition. Spent nuclear fuel
is shipped regularly from the site to the
DOE following a period of time, which
allows for the decay of short-lived
radioisotopes and lowers the
temperature of the spent fuel, in
accordance with the MURR procedures
and the applicable regulations for
transportation of radioactive materials.
No changes during the license renewal
period are expected in the procedures
for shipment of spent fuel that would
affect the environment.
The MURR is cooled by three coolant
systems: Primary, pool, and secondary.
Natural convection can be used to cool
the reactor core up to a license limit
power of 50 kilowatts thermal (kWt),
and forced circulation is required for
higher power levels up to the license
limit of 10 MWt. Above 50 kWt, the
reactor core is cooled by the primary
cooling system which circulates
pressurized primary coolant through the
reactor pressure vessel and then through
the primary coolant heat exchangers,
which transfer the heat to the secondary
cooling system. The reactor pool, which
contains the reactor pressure vessel and
other reactor systems, is cooled by the
pool cooling system which circulates
the flow of pool coolant through the
pool coolant heat exchanger and
transfers the heat to the secondary
cooling system. The heat from the
primary and pool coolant systems is
transferred to the secondary coolant
system which dissipates the heat to the
atmosphere from a mechanical cooling
tower. The temperature control of the
primary and pool cooling systems is
maintained by an automatic temperature
control system which adjusts secondary
coolant flow to support the desired heat
transfer and coolant temperature. The
primary coolant is monitored for fission
product activity by the Fuel Element
Failure Monitoring System, which
provides a continuous indication of the
primary coolant radioactivity to the
control room operators. The Secondary
Coolant Monitoring System
continuously monitors the secondary
coolant for radioactivity which could
indicate a leak from the primary or pool
coolant heat exchangers. Continuously
monitoring both cooling systems for
radioactivity helps to ensure that the
potential for any radioactivity to leak
into the secondary cooling system, and
environment, are minimized. The
licensee also conducts periodic tests of
the coolant systems to further reduce
the likelihood of secondary system
contamination.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Nov 28, 2016
Jkt 241001
As described in Chapter 11 of the
MURR SAR, personnel exposures are
well within the limits set by 10 CFR
20.1201, ‘‘Occupational dose limits for
adults,’’ and the ALARA dose criteria in
10 CFR 20.1101, paragraph (b). The
MURR Health Physics Group tracks
personnel exposures, which are usually
less than 5.0 milliSieverts (500
millirem) per year. The MURR ALARA
program requires the Health Physics
Group to investigate any personnel
exposure that exceed 0.3 milliSieverts
(30 millirem) in a month, which is less
than 1 percent of the annual limit of 50
milliSieverts (5,000 millirem) specified
in 10 CFR 20.1201. Environmental
dosimeters mounted in several locations
in and around the MURR facility
provide a quarterly measurement of
total radiation exposures at those
locations. These dosimeters typically
measure annual doses of less than 0.3
milliSieverts (30 millirem), except in
the area of the loading dock, where
packages containing radioactive
materials in transit may be stored for
short periods of time. In this location,
the environmental dosimeters measure
annual doses typically less than 1.0
milliSievert (100 millirem). The
proposed action does not authorize any
changes in the design or operation of the
facility that would alter these
occupational dose levels. There is no
significant increase in individual or
cumulative occupational radiation
exposure as a result of license renewal.
The licensee conducts an
environmental monitoring program to
record and track the radiological impact
of the MURR operation on the
surrounding unrestricted area. The
program consists of soil and vegetation
collected semi-annually from eight
locations; water samples collected semiannually from three locations; and
quarterly radiation exposure
measurements at 45 locations of varying
distances and directions from the MURR
facility and at two control locations
away from any direct influence from the
reactor. The MURR Health Physics
Group administers the program and
maintains the appropriate records.
Based on a review of the licensee’s
annual reports over the years from 2010
through 2015, the survey program
indicated that radioactivity and
radiation levels at the monitoring
locations were not significantly higher
than those measured prior to the start of
activities at the MURR facility. Year-toyear trends in radioactivity and
radiation levels are consistent between
monitoring locations. Also, no
correlation exists between total annual
reactor operation and annual
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
radioactivity and radiation levels
measured at the monitoring locations.
Based on the NRC staff’s review of data
from the annual reports over the years
from 2010 through 2015, the NRC staff
concludes that operation of the MURR
does not have any significant
radiological impact on the surrounding
environment. No changes in reactor
operation that would affect off-site
radiation levels are proposed as part of
the license renewal.
Because occupational and public
exposures are below regulatory limits,
the NRC staff concludes that the
proposed action would not have a
significant radiological impact.
Accident scenarios are provided in
the guidance in NUREG–1537,
‘‘Guidelines for Preparing and
Reviewing Applications for the
Licensing of Non-Power Reactors,’’
issued February 1996, and the results of
the licensee’s analysis was provided in
Chapter 13 of the MURR SAR. The most
significant radiological fission product
release accident at a research reactor is
considered as the maximum
hypothetical accident (MHA), which for
the MURR is the failure of a fueled
experiment during irradiation. The
MHA scenario involves the irradiation
of a 5-gram low-enriched uranium
target, for approximately 150 hours,
producing approximately 150 Curies of
Iodine-131 through Iodine-135, as well
as other radioactive isotopes. The
scenario assumes that 100 percent of the
activity of the sample is released into
the reactor pool water; 100 percent of
the noble gases in the pool rise to the
surface, and becomes airborne, and 0.1
percent of the radioiodine in the pool
also becomes airborne via pool water
evaporation. The containment
ventilation system isolates on actuation
of the pool surface radiation monitors,
and the radiation workers evacuate the
reactor containment within 5 minutes.
The licensee conservatively calculated
doses to facility personnel during
evacuation and the maximum potential
doses to members of the public at
various locations around the MURR
facility. The license estimated an
occupational dose of 1,180 mrem (11.80
mSv), for a five minute (evacuation)
duration, and 0.0112 mrem (0.00012
mSv) for the maximum exposed member
of the public. The NRC staff performed
independent calculations to verify that
the licensee’s calculated doses
represented conservative estimates for
the MHA. The NRC staff, using
conservative assumptions, estimated a
dose to a worker of 2,001 mrem (20.01
mSv) for a five minute duration, and 66
mrem (0.66 mSv) for the maximum
exposed member of the public. The
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2016 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
details of these calculations are
provided in the NRC staff’s SER that the
NRC staff is preparing to document its
safety review of the application for a
renewed license. The occupational
radiation doses resulting from the
postulated MHA would be well below
the 10 CFR 20.1201 limit of 5,000 mrem
(50 mSv). The maximum calculated
radiation doses for members of the
public resulting from the postulated
MHA would be below the 10 CFR
20.1301 limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv).
Because the licensee has not
requested any changes to the facility
design or operating conditions as part of
its application for license renewal, the
proposed action will not significantly
increase the probability or consequences
of accidents and there will be no
significant changes in the type or
significant increase in the effluents that
may be release off site. The licensee has
systems in place for controlling the
release of radiological effluents and
implements a radiation protection
program to monitor personnel exposures
and releases of radioactive effluents.
The systems and radiation protection
program are appropriate for the types
and quantities of effluents expected to
be generated by continued operation of
the reactor. In addition, the NRC staff
evaluated information contained in the
licensee’s renewal application, and data
the licensee reported to the NRC for the
last 5 years of operation to determine
the projected radiological impact of the
facility on the environment during the
period of the renewed license. The NRC
staff found that releases of radioactive
material and personnel exposures have
been well within applicable regulatory
limits.
Based on its evaluation, the NRC staff
concludes that continued operation of
the reactor would not have a significant
radiological impact.
Non-Radiological Impacts
As discussed above, the MURR is
cooled by three coolant systems:
Primary, pool, and secondary. The
MURR facility uses approximately 38
million gallons of water per year (or 72
gallons per minute), the majority of
which is used to provide make-up water
for the secondary system (50 gallons per
minute). The source of this water is the
University of Missouri Columbia raw
water supply system, which draws
water from 5 deep wells, and which can
provide up to 4,700 gallons per minute.
Therefore, the water usage needed to
replenish the secondary coolant lost due
to evaporation from the MURR facility
cooling tower would not impact the
University of Missouri Columbia raw
water supply, which has excess
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Nov 28, 2016
Jkt 241001
capacity. Release of thermal effluents
from the MURR cooling tower will not
have a significant effect on the
environment. Chemicals are used in the
treatment of secondary coolant and
liquid radioactive waste. Sulfuric acid is
used to control the potential of
Hydrogen (pH) of the secondary coolant,
and other chemicals are added to
control water hardness and
microbiological growth. Chemical
treatment of liquid radioactive waste is
used to precipitate radionuclides for
removal as solids, or to adjust the pH
level for disposal. Other chemicals are
routinely used in the performance of
experiments, which are evaluated and
controlled by procedure. Given that the
proposed action does not involve any
change in the operation of the reactor or
change in the emissions or heat load
dissipated to the environment, the
proposed action would not have a
significant impact on land use, visual
resources, air quality, noise, nonradiological wastes, or terrestrial or
aquatic resources. Additionally, because
the MURR does not discharge cooling
water directly to the environment, the
proposed action would have no effect
on surface waters. Furthermore, in
preparation for replacement of the
secondary coolant cooling towers in
2012, the licensee sampled the cooling
tower sump sludge for radioactivity and
found none. The MURR’s continued use
of 38 million gallons of groundwater per
year from wells owned and maintained
by the University of Missouri-Columbia
represents a negligible portion of water
compared to that used by the University
as a whole. The proposed action would
result in no groundwater conflicts,
degradation of groundwater, or other
significant impacts to groundwater
resources.
Based on its evaluation, the NRC staff
concludes that the proposed action
would have no significant nonradiological impacts.
Other Applicable Environmental Laws
In addition to the National
Environmental Policy Act, the NRC has
responsibilities that are derived from
other environmental laws, including the
Endangered Species Act, Coastal Zone
Management Act, National Historic
Preservation Act, Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, and the Executive
Order 12898—Environmental Justice.
The following is a brief discussion of
impacts associated with these laws and
other requirements.
1. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The ESA was enacted to prevent
further decline of endangered and
threatened species and restore those
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
86027
species and their critical habitat.
Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal
agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife’s (FWS) or National Marine
Fisheries Service regarding actions that
may affect listed species or designated
critical habitats.
The NRC staff conducted a search of
Federally listed species and critical
habitats that have the potential to occur
in the vicinity of the MURR using the
FWS Environmental Conservation
Online System (ECOS) Information for
Planning and Conservation (IPaC)
system. The IPaC system report
identified four Federally endangered or
threatened species that may occur or
could potentially be affected by the
proposed action (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16190A040). However, none of these
species are likely to occur near the
MURR because the facility is located
within the University Research Park, an
84-acre developed area used for research
and academic purposes. The MURR was
constructed in the 1960s and has
remained in use since that time.
University Research Park is bordered by
a golf course, athletic fields, other
academic and office buildings
associated with the University of
Missouri-Columbia, and residential
properties. Accordingly, the area does
not provide suitable habitat for any
Federally listed species. Further, the
IPaC report determined that no critical
habitat is within the vicinity of the
MURR. Accordingly, the NRC concludes
that the proposed license renewal of the
MURR would have no effect on
Federally listed species or critical
habitats. Federal agencies are not
required to consult with the FWS if the
agencies determine that an action will
not affect listed species or critical
habitats (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16120A505). Thus, the ESA does not
require consultation for the proposed
the MURR license renewal, and the NRC
considers its obligations under ESA
Section 7 to be fulfilled for the proposed
action.
2. Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)
The CZMA, in part, encourages States
to preserve, protect, develop, and where
possible, restore or enhance, resources.
Applicants for Federal licenses to
conduct an activity that affects any land
or water use or natural resource of the
coastal zone of a state must provide a
certification in that the proposed
activities complies with the State’s
approved coastal zone management
program and will conduct activities
consistent with that program.
The State of Missouri does not
contain any coastal zones. Because the
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
86028
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2016 / Notices
MURR is not located within or near any
managed coastal zones, the proposed
action would not affect any coastal
zones. Therefore, the NRC finds that the
licensee does not need to provide a
certification under the CZMA.
3. National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA)
The NHPA requires Federal agencies
to consider the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties. As
stated in the Act, historic properties or
resources are any prehistoric or historic
district, site, building, structure, or
object included in, or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP lists
one historical site located on the
University of Missouri campus. The site
is the East Campus Neighborhood
Historic District. The location of the
East Campus Neighborhood Historic
District is approximately 4 kilometers
(2.4 miles) northeast of the MURR
facility. The closest off-campus
historical site is the Sanborn Field and
Soil Erosion Plots located 2 kilometers
(1.2 miles) northeast of the MURR
facility. Given the distance between the
MURR facility and the Sanborn Field
and Soil Erosion Plots, continued
operation of the MURR will not impact
any historical sites. Based on this
information, the NRC finds that the
potential impacts of license renewal
would have no adverse effect on historic
and archaeological resources.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
4. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The FWCA requires Federal agencies
that license water resource development
projects to consult with the FWS (or
NMFS, when applicable) and State
wildlife resource agencies regarding the
potential impacts of the project on fish
and wildlife resources.
The licensee is not planning any
water resource development projects,
including any modifications relating to
impounding a body of water, damming,
diverting a stream or river, deepening a
channel, irrigation, or altering a body of
water for navigation or drainage.
Therefore, no coordination with other
agencies pursuant to the FWCA is
required for the proposed action.
5. Executive Order 12898—
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations,’’ 59 FR 7629
(February 16, 1994), directs agencies to
identify and address the
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
of their actions on minority and low-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Nov 28, 2016
Jkt 241001
income populations, to the greatest
extent practicable and permitted by law.
The environmental justice impact
analysis evaluates the potential for
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income
populations that could result from the
relicensing and the continued operation
of the MURR. Such effects may include
human health, biological, cultural,
economic, or social impacts. Minority
and low-income populations are subsets
of the general public residing around
the MURR, and all are exposed to the
same health and environmental effects
generated from activities at the MURR.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity
of the MURR—According to the 2010
Census, approximately 22 percent of the
population (total of approximately
138,000 individuals) residing within a
10-mile radius of MURR identified
themselves as a minority. The largest
minority populations were Black or
African American (approximately
15,000 persons or 11 percent) and Asian
(approximately 4,600 persons or 3.3
percent). According to the 2010 Census,
about 19 percent of the Boone County
population identified themselves as
minorities, with Black or African
Americans and Asians comprising the
largest minority populations (9.3 and
3.8 percent, respectively). According to
the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2015
American Community Survey 1-Year
Estimates, the minority population of
Boone County, as a percent of the total
population, had increased to about 21
percent with Black or African
Americans and Asians origin
comprising the largest minority
populations (9 and 4 percent,
respectively).
Low-income Populations in the
Vicinity of the MURR—According to the
U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010–2014
American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, approximately 29,600
individuals (22.2 percent) residing
within a 10-mile radius of the MURR
were identified as living below the
Federal poverty threshold. The 2014
Federal poverty threshold was $24,230
for a family of four.
According to the U.S. Census
Bureau’s 2015 American Community
Survey 1-Year Estimates, the median
household income for Missouri was
$50,238, while 14.8 percent of the state
population and 10.2 percent of families
were found to be living below the
Federal poverty threshold. Boone
County had a slightly higher median
household income average ($50,520)
and a higher percentage of persons (18.5
percent) and lower percentage of
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
families (6.9 percent) living below the
poverty level, respectively.
Impact Analysis—Potential impacts to
minority and low-income populations
would consist of radiological effects;
however, radiation doses from
continued operations associated with
this license renewal are expected to
continue at current levels, and would be
well below regulatory limits. Because
the proposed action involves no
construction or land disturbance, no
additional visual or noise impacts are
expected to result from the proposed
action.
Based on this information and the
analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this
EA, the proposed action would not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income
populations residing in the vicinity of
the MURR.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to license renewal,
the NRC considered denial of the
proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). If the NRC denied the
request for license renewal, reactor
operations would cease and
decommissioning would be required
(sooner than if a renewed license were
issued) and the environmental effects of
decommission would occur.
Decommissioning would be conducted
in accordance with an NRC-approved
decommissioning plan, which would
require a separate environmental review
under 10 CFR 51.21. Cessation of
facility operations would reduce or
eliminate radioactive effluents and
emissions associated with operations.
However, as previously discussed in
this EA, radioactive effluents and
emissions from reactor operations
constitute a small fraction of the
applicable regulatory limits. Therefore,
the environmental impacts of license
renewal and the denial of the request for
license renewal would be similar. In
addition, denying the request for license
renewal would eliminate the benefits of
teaching, research, and services
provided by the MURR.
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed action does not involve
the use of any different resources or
significant quantities of resources
beyond those previously considered in
the issuance of Amendment No. 2 to
Facility Operating License No. R–103
for the MURR dated July 9, 1974, which
authorized the MURR to operate at a
maximum steady-state power level of 10
MWt.
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
86029
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2016 / Notices
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with NRC policy, the
staff consulted with the Missouri State
Liaison Officer on October 28, 2016,
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action, explained the
environmental reviews and forwarded a
draft of this environmental assessment.
On November 16, 2016, the Missouri
State Liaison Officer indicated, by
electronic mail, that the State
understood the NRC review and had no
comments regarding the proposed
action (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16321A511).
The NRC staff also consulted with the
State of Missouri, Department of Natural
Resources, State Historic Preservation
Office (Missouri SHPO) pursuant to
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act by letter dated June 17,
2010 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML101730044). The Missouri SHPO
responded by letter dated July 2, 2010
(ADAMS Accession No. ML101950104).
The Missouri SHPO informed the NRC
that the MURR in Columbia is eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places. However, the SHPO
stated that because the proposed license
renewal would not involve any new
construction, excavation, demolition or
rehabilitation, the action should have no
adverse effect.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC is considering issuance of a
renewed Facility Operating License No.
R–103, held by the Curators of the
University of Missouri for the continued
operation of the MURR for an additional
20 years.
On the basis of the EA included in
Section II of this notice and
incorporated by reference in this
finding, the NRC staff finds that the
proposed action will not have a
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment. The NRC staff’s
evaluation considered information
provided in the licensee’s application,
as supplemented, and the NRC staff’s
review of related environmental
documents. Section IV below lists the
environmental documents related to the
proposed action and includes
information on the availability of these
documents. Accordingly, the NRC has
determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
IV. Availability of Documents
The following table identifies the
environmental and other documents
cited in this document and related to
the NRC’s FONSI. These documents are
available for public inspection online
through ADAMS at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html or in person at
the NRC’s PDR as described previously.
ADAMS
Accession No.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Document
Application for License Renewal for the University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor as Per 10 CFR 2.109—Cover Letter, August 31, 2006.
Safety Analysis Report for the University of Missouri-Columbia Application for License Renewal, Volume 1 of 2—August 31,
2006 (redacted version).
Safety Analysis Report for the University of Missouri-Columbia Application for License Renewal, Chapters 10–18, Volume 2 of
2, August 31, 2006 (redacted version).
University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) Environmental Report for License Renewal, August 31, 2006 .......................
Transmittal of University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor’s Responses to the NRC Request for Additional Information
Regarding Renewal for Amendment Facility Operating License, January 15, 2010.
Written Communication as Specified by 10 CFR 50.4(b)(1) Regarding the Response to the University of Missouri at Columbia—Request for Additional Information RE: License Renewal Environmental Report, January 29, 2010.
University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor’s Response to NRC RAI dated April 20, 2010, May 18, 2010 ......................
MO, Dept. of Natural Resources, Review of University of Missouri, Columbia Research Reactor, 1513 Research Park Drive is
Eligible for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and Determination of Proposed License Renewal have no
adverse Effect, July 2, 2010.
University of Missouri, Columbia, Response to NRC Request for Additional Information, dated June 1, 2010, July 16, 2010
(redacted version).
University of Missouri, Columbia, Licensee Response to NRC Request for Additional Information—Chapter 10, August 31,
2010 (redacted version).
University of Missouri, Columbia, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal, September 3,
2010.
University of Missouri, Columbia, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal, September 30,
2010.
University of Missouri, Columbia Response to NRC Request for Additional Information 45-Day Response Questions, October
29, 2010 (redacted version).
Written Communication as Specified by 10 CFR 50.4(b)(1) Regarding the Response to the University of Missouri at Columbia—Request for Additional Information RE: License Renewal, Safety Analysis Report, Complex Questions, dated May 6,
2010, October 29, 2010.
University of Missouri, Columbia—Response to NRC Request for Additional Information 45-Day Response Questions, (TAC
No. ME1580) November 30, 2010 (redacted version).
University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Renewal Request for Amendment Facility Operating License R–103, March 11, 2011.
University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor’s Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Renewal
Request for Amended Facility Operating License R–103, September 8, 2011.
University of Missouri—Columbia, Written Communication as Specified by 10 CFR 50.4(b)(1) Regarding Responses to the
University of Missouri at Columbia—Request for Additional Information RE: License Renewal, Safety Analysis Report, January 6, 2012.
University of Missouri, Columbia—Licensee Response to NRC Request for Additional Information dated May 6, 2010 (Complex Questions) and June 1, 2012 (45-day Response Questions) RE: License Renewal, June 28, 2012 (redacted version).
Written Communication as Specified by 10 CFR 50.4(b)(1) Regarding the Response to the University of Missouri at Columbia—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Renewal of Facility Operating License No. R–103 for the University
of Missouri, January 28, 2015.
University of Missouri-Columbia—Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Renewal Request for Amended
Facility Operating License, July 31, 2015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Nov 28, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
ML062540114
ML092110573
ML092110597
ML062540121
ML100220371
ML100330073
ML101440148
ML101950104
ML12354A237
ML120050315
ML102500533
ML12355A019
ML12355A023
ML103060018
ML12355A026
ML110740249
ML11255A003
ML12010A186
ML12346A004
ML15034A474
ML15216A122
86030
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 29, 2016 / Notices
ADAMS
Accession No.
Document
University of Missouri, Columbia—Responses to NRC Request for Additional Information, Dated April 17, 2015, Regarding
Renewal Request for Amended Facility Operating License, October 1, 2015.
University of Missouri-Columbia—Response to NRC Request for Additional Information dated December 18, 2015, Regarding
Renewal Request for License No. R–103, February 8, 2016.
University of Missouri at Columbia—Responses to NRC Request for Additional Information dated February 8, 2016, Regarding Renewal Request (Financial Review), April 8, 2016.
University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor, Response to Request for Additional Information on License Renewal, April
15, 2016.
University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor’s Responses to the NRC Request for Additional Information dated October
28, 2015, Regarding Our Renewal Request for Amended Facility Operating License No. R–103, May 31, 2016.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor Proposed License Renewal, IPaC Trust Resources Report, July 8, 2016.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Consultations Frequently Asked Questions, July 15, 2013 ........................
University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor’s Responses to the NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding the
Proposed Technical Specifications for License Renewal, July 25, 2016.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day
of November 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alexander Adams, Jr.,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Licensing
Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016–28711 Filed 11–28–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. CP2015–123; MC2017–22 and
CP2017–42; MC2017–23 and CP2017–43;
MC2017–24 and CP2017–44 and MC2017–
25 and CP2017–45]
New Postal Products
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is noticing
recent Postal Service filings for the
Commission’s consideration concerning
negotiated service agreements. This
notice informs the public of the filing,
invites public comment, and takes other
administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: December 2,
2016 (Comment due date applies to all
Docket Nos. listed above)
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
comments electronically should contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
telephone for advice on filing
alternatives.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Docketed Proceeding(s)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Nov 28, 2016
Jkt 241001
I. Introduction
The Commission gives notice that the
Postal Service filed request(s) for the
Commission to consider matters related
to negotiated service agreement(s). The
request(s) may propose the addition or
removal of a negotiated service
agreement from the market dominant or
the competitive product list, or the
modification of an existing product
currently appearing on the market
dominant or the competitive product
list.
Section II identifies the docket
number(s) associated with each Postal
Service request, the title of each Postal
Service request, the request’s acceptance
date, and the authority cited by the
Postal Service for each request. For each
request, the Commission appoints an
officer of the Commission to represent
the interests of the general public in the
proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505
(Public Representative). Section II also
establishes comment deadline(s)
pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal
Service’s request(s) can be accessed via
the Commission’s Web site (https://
www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of
the Postal Service’s request(s), if any,
can be accessed through compliance
with the requirements of 39 CFR
3007.40.
The Commission invites comments on
whether the Postal Service’s request(s)
in the captioned docket(s) are consistent
with the policies of title 39. For
request(s) that the Postal Service states
concern market dominant product(s),
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39
U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39
CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s)
that the Postal Service states concern
competitive product(s), applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements
include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633,
39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ML15275A314
ML16041A221
ML16103A536
ML16110A164
ML16155A132
ML16190A040
ML16120A505
ML16209A236
39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment
deadline(s) for each request appear in
section II.
II. Docketed Proceeding(s)
1. Docket No(s).: CP2015–123; Filing
Title: Notice of United States Postal
Service of Change in Prices Pursuant to
Amendment to Priority Mail Express &
Priority Mail Contract 20; Filing
Acceptance Date: November 22, 2016;
Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public
Representative: Katalin K. Clendenin;
Comments Due: December 2, 2016.
2. Docket No(s).: MC2017–22 and
CP2017–42; Filing Title: Request of the
United States Postal Service to Add
Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail &
First-Class Package Service Contract 13
to Competitive Product List and Notice
of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted
Governors’ Decision, Contract, and
Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance
Date: November 22, 2016; Filing
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR
3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative:
Helen Fonda; Comments Due: December
2, 2016.
3. Docket No(s).: MC2017–23 and
CP2017–43; Filing Title: Request of the
United States Postal Service to Add
Priority Mail & First-Class Package
Service Contract 35 to Competitive
Product List and Notice of Filing (Under
Seal) of Unredacted Governors’
Decision, Contract, and Supporting
Data; Filing Acceptance Date: November
22, 2016; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C.
3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public
Representative: Helen Fonda; Comments
Due: December 2, 2016.
4. Docket No(s).: MC2017–24 and
CP2017–44; Filing Title: Request of the
United States Postal Service to Add
Priority Mail & First-Class Package
Service Contract 36 to Competitive
Product List and Notice of Filing (Under
Seal) of Unredacted Governors’
Decision, Contract, and Supporting
Data; Filing Acceptance Date: November
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86024-86030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28711]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-186; NRC-2013-0090]
University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-103, held by the Curators
of the University of Missouri (the licensee) for the continued
operation of its University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor (MURR
or the reactor). The NRC is issuing an environmental assessment (EA)
and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) associated with the
renewal of the license.
DATES: The EA and FONSI are available on November 29, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0090 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0090. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For
the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided
in a table in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Geoffrey A. Wertz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0893; email: Geoffrey.Wertz@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is considering renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-
103, held by the Curators of the University of Missouri, which would
authorize continued operation of its reactor for 20 years from date of
issuance, located in the University Research Park, Columbia, Boone
County, Missouri. As required by section 51.21 of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Criteria for and identification of
licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments,''
the NRC staff prepared an EA documenting its environmental review.
Based on the results of the EA that follows, the NRC has determined not
to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed renewed
license is not required and is issuing a FONSI in accordance with 10
CFR 51.32.
II. Environmental Assessment
Facility Site and Environs
The MURR facility is located on 7.5 acres of land in the central
portion of the 84-acre University Research Park in Boone County. Boone
County is located in the central part of the state and consists of an
area of approximately 683 square miles (1,769 square km) and is
approximately 41 miles (66 km) in its greatest north-to-south length
and 22 miles (35.4 km) in its greatest east-to-west width. The
University Research Park is an extension of the University of Missouri-
Columbia, main campus and is located approximately 1.6 kilometers (1
mile) southwest of the main campus. The MURR facility includes a five-
story reactor containment building which is centrally located and
integrated into a one-story laboratory building. Immediately
surrounding the MURR facility are other research buildings and parking
lots associated with the University Research Park. Facilities beyond
the University Research Park include a golf course to the west; campus
sports arenas and fields to the northeast, east, and south; and the
University's main campus. The City of Columbia is to the north. There
are few permanent residences nearby with only 225 persons living within
1 kilometer (0.6 miles) of the MURR facility. The nearest permanent
residence is located approximately 760 meters (0.5 miles) north of the
site. The nearest dormitories are located approximately 1 kilometer
(0.6 miles) from the MURR facility. The MURR is a tank-type (pressure
vessel) reactor where the tank is located in an open pool. The reactor
is light water moderated and cooled. It is licensed to operate at a
maximum thermal steady state power level of 10 megawatts (MWt). The
reactor core is located in a pressure vessel within the lined reactor
pool. The reactor pool is 3 meters (10 feet) in diameter and 9 meters
(30 feet) deep. The reactor is fueled with highly-enriched uranium
plate-type fuel contained in eight fuel elements. A detailed
description of the reactor can be found in the MURR safety analysis
report (SAR). There have been no major modifications to the MURR since
issuance of Operating License Amendment No. 2 on July 9, 1974, which
authorized the MURR to operate at its current power level. However, the
facility has added several laboratories and hot cells over the
intervening time period in order to conduct research activities. A
complete description of these changes will be provided in the NRC
staff's safety evaluation report (SER) accompanying the issuance of the
renewed license.
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would renew Facility Operating License No. R-
103 for an additional 20 years from the date
[[Page 86025]]
of issuance of the renewal license. The proposed action is in
accordance with the licensee's application dated August 31, 2006, as
supplemented by letters dated January 15, January 29, May 18, July 2,
July 16, August 31, September 3, September 30, October 29, and November
30, 2010; March 11 and September 8, 2011; January 6 and June 28, 2012;
January 28, July 31, and October 1, 2015; and February 8, April 8,
April 15, May 31, and July 25, 2016 (the renewal application). In
accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, ``Effect of timely renewal application,''
the existing license remains in effect until the NRC takes final action
on the renewal application.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to allow the continued operation of
the reactor to routinely provide training, research, and services to
the research community and the commercial sector for a period of 20
years.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
Radiological Impacts
Gaseous radioactive effluents are discharged through a multi-stage
filtration system to the facility ventilation exhaust stack during
reactor operations. The stack height is 21 meters (70 feet) above grade
level; however, the effective stack height is greater due to the stack
exhaust volumetric flow rate of 864 cubic meters per minute (30,500
cubic feet per minute). Other parts of the MURR facility are maintained
at a negative pressure with respect to the reactor exhaust system which
helps ensure that any release pathways are through the facility
ventilation exhaust stack that provides an elevated release point for
dispersion of the effluent. The licensee indicated that the most
significant radionuclide released from reactor operation into the
gaseous effluent stream is Argon-41 (Ar-41), which accounts for greater
than 99 percent of the radioactivity released. The licensee measures
the quantity of Ar-41 released annually from the facility ventilation
exhaust stack under normal reactor steady-state operating conditions
and provides the results in their annual reports. The licensee also
provided calculations, using the maximum annual Ar-41 radioactivity
release allowed by Technical Specification (TS) 3.7, ``Radiation
Monitoring Systems and Airborne Effluents,'' which results in a maximum
potential dose to a member of the public of 0.0235 milliSieverts (mSv)
(2.35 mrem), which occurs at the nearest residence: A location which is
760 meters (2493 feet) from the licensee's release point (elevated
stack). The NRC staff performed independent calculations to verify that
the licensee's calculated public dose from Ar-41 represented a
conservative estimate. The NRC staff calculated a maximum public dose
from Ar-41 of 0.0415 mSv (4.15 mrem).
A review of the licensee's annual reports for the 5 years of
operation from 2010 through 2015 shows that Ar-41 constitutes the
significant radioactive isotope released from the MURR facility. The
maximum annual release of Ar-41 was approximately 78 percent of the TS
3.7 limit in 2013, and the average Ar-41 release was approximately 70
percent of the TS 3.7 limit over the period from 2010 through 2015.
The licensee also considered the radiological effect of nitrogen-16
(N-16), which is produced from neutron activation of oxygen-16 in the
reactor primary cooling system and pool coolant water. N-16 decays with
a very short half-life of 7 seconds. Because the primary cooling system
is a closed system that is shielded or located in areas with restricted
access to the MURR staff during reactor operation, radiation exposure
from or release of N-16 are not concerns. The MURR has hold-up tanks in
both the primary coolant demineralizer loop and the pool coolant
system, which allows the majority of N-16 in these systems to decay.
The hold-up tanks are located in an area designated as a high radiation
area which has locked, restricted access. Therefore, most of the N-16
has been removed through decay prior to reaching the pool surface or in
areas where the MURR staff requires access. Other radioactive gaseous
effluents released, as reported in the licensee's annual reports were
approximately 1 percent or less of the air effluent concentration
limits set by 10 CFR part 20, appendix B, ``Annual Limits on Intake
(ALIs) and Derived Air Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for
Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for
Release to Sewerage,'' Table 2, ``Effluent Concentrations,'' Column 1,
``Air.''
Since the potential annual radiation dose resulting from the
maximum effluent release from the normal operation of the MURR to a
member of the public in the unrestricted area at the nearest residence
is 2.35 mrem (0.0235 mSv) to 4.15 mrem (0.0415 mSv), the licensee
demonstrates compliance with the dose limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv) set by
10 CFR 20.1301, ``Dose limits for individual members of the public.''
Additionally, this potential radiation dose also demonstrates
compliance with the ``as low as is reasonably achievable'' (ALARA) air
emissions dose constraint of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) specified in 10 CFR
20.1101, ``Radiation protection programs,'' paragraph (d). The NRC
staff reviewed the radiological dose calculations provided by the
licensee, the assumptions used, and the results of several years of
effluent releases from the licensee's annual reports, as well as toured
the facility, and finds the results of the licensee's dose estimates to
be reasonable.
The licensee directs all potentially radioactive liquid waste into
a liquid waste retention system until the liquid waste can be assayed
for radioactive content, and chemically treated, if necessary, for
disposal by discharge to the sanitary sewer system. Discharge of any
liquid waste to the sanitary sewer requires the use of the MURR
procedures to ensure that the liquid discharge meets the requirements
of 10 CFR 20.2003, ``Disposal by release into sanitary sewerage,''
prior to release into the sanitary sewer. A review of the licensee's
disposal data from its annual reports over the years 2010 through 2015,
indicates that tritium constitutes more than 90 percent of the total
activity released to the sanitary sewer, and all radioactive liquid
releases were well below 10 percent of the regulatory limits in 10 CFR
part 20, appendix B.
The MURR Health Physics Group oversees the handling of solid low-
level radioactive waste generated at the MURR facility. This waste
consists mainly of contaminated items such as demineralizer resins,
filters, plastic bags, gloves, absorbent material, and wipes, as well
as reactor equipment or components that are no longer of use. The MURR
Health Physics Group disposes of the waste by shipment to a low level
waste broker, or directly to a waste processing site for final
disposal, in accordance with all applicable regulations for
transportation of radioactive materials.
The licensee transfers mixed waste, consisting of substances having
both hazardous and radioactive materials, to the Missouri University
Environmental Health and Safety Department for disposal. If the mixed
waste contains only short-lived radioactive materials, it may be stored
until the short-lived materials decay to background levels and is then
disposed of as hazardous waste. Mixed waste with long-lived radioactive
material is transferred to an authorized facility for disposal.
To comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the licensee
has entered into a contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
that
[[Page 86026]]
provides that DOE retains title to the fuel utilized at the MURR and
that DOE is obligated to take the fuel from the site for final
disposition. Spent nuclear fuel is shipped regularly from the site to
the DOE following a period of time, which allows for the decay of
short-lived radioisotopes and lowers the temperature of the spent fuel,
in accordance with the MURR procedures and the applicable regulations
for transportation of radioactive materials. No changes during the
license renewal period are expected in the procedures for shipment of
spent fuel that would affect the environment.
The MURR is cooled by three coolant systems: Primary, pool, and
secondary. Natural convection can be used to cool the reactor core up
to a license limit power of 50 kilowatts thermal (kWt), and forced
circulation is required for higher power levels up to the license limit
of 10 MWt. Above 50 kWt, the reactor core is cooled by the primary
cooling system which circulates pressurized primary coolant through the
reactor pressure vessel and then through the primary coolant heat
exchangers, which transfer the heat to the secondary cooling system.
The reactor pool, which contains the reactor pressure vessel and other
reactor systems, is cooled by the pool cooling system which circulates
the flow of pool coolant through the pool coolant heat exchanger and
transfers the heat to the secondary cooling system. The heat from the
primary and pool coolant systems is transferred to the secondary
coolant system which dissipates the heat to the atmosphere from a
mechanical cooling tower. The temperature control of the primary and
pool cooling systems is maintained by an automatic temperature control
system which adjusts secondary coolant flow to support the desired heat
transfer and coolant temperature. The primary coolant is monitored for
fission product activity by the Fuel Element Failure Monitoring System,
which provides a continuous indication of the primary coolant
radioactivity to the control room operators. The Secondary Coolant
Monitoring System continuously monitors the secondary coolant for
radioactivity which could indicate a leak from the primary or pool
coolant heat exchangers. Continuously monitoring both cooling systems
for radioactivity helps to ensure that the potential for any
radioactivity to leak into the secondary cooling system, and
environment, are minimized. The licensee also conducts periodic tests
of the coolant systems to further reduce the likelihood of secondary
system contamination.
As described in Chapter 11 of the MURR SAR, personnel exposures are
well within the limits set by 10 CFR 20.1201, ``Occupational dose
limits for adults,'' and the ALARA dose criteria in 10 CFR 20.1101,
paragraph (b). The MURR Health Physics Group tracks personnel
exposures, which are usually less than 5.0 milliSieverts (500 millirem)
per year. The MURR ALARA program requires the Health Physics Group to
investigate any personnel exposure that exceed 0.3 milliSieverts (30
millirem) in a month, which is less than 1 percent of the annual limit
of 50 milliSieverts (5,000 millirem) specified in 10 CFR 20.1201.
Environmental dosimeters mounted in several locations in and around the
MURR facility provide a quarterly measurement of total radiation
exposures at those locations. These dosimeters typically measure annual
doses of less than 0.3 milliSieverts (30 millirem), except in the area
of the loading dock, where packages containing radioactive materials in
transit may be stored for short periods of time. In this location, the
environmental dosimeters measure annual doses typically less than 1.0
milliSievert (100 millirem). The proposed action does not authorize any
changes in the design or operation of the facility that would alter
these occupational dose levels. There is no significant increase in
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure as a result of
license renewal.
The licensee conducts an environmental monitoring program to record
and track the radiological impact of the MURR operation on the
surrounding unrestricted area. The program consists of soil and
vegetation collected semi-annually from eight locations; water samples
collected semi-annually from three locations; and quarterly radiation
exposure measurements at 45 locations of varying distances and
directions from the MURR facility and at two control locations away
from any direct influence from the reactor. The MURR Health Physics
Group administers the program and maintains the appropriate records.
Based on a review of the licensee's annual reports over the years from
2010 through 2015, the survey program indicated that radioactivity and
radiation levels at the monitoring locations were not significantly
higher than those measured prior to the start of activities at the MURR
facility. Year-to-year trends in radioactivity and radiation levels are
consistent between monitoring locations. Also, no correlation exists
between total annual reactor operation and annual radioactivity and
radiation levels measured at the monitoring locations. Based on the NRC
staff's review of data from the annual reports over the years from 2010
through 2015, the NRC staff concludes that operation of the MURR does
not have any significant radiological impact on the surrounding
environment. No changes in reactor operation that would affect off-site
radiation levels are proposed as part of the license renewal.
Because occupational and public exposures are below regulatory
limits, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would not have
a significant radiological impact.
Accident scenarios are provided in the guidance in NUREG-1537,
``Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing
of Non-Power Reactors,'' issued February 1996, and the results of the
licensee's analysis was provided in Chapter 13 of the MURR SAR. The
most significant radiological fission product release accident at a
research reactor is considered as the maximum hypothetical accident
(MHA), which for the MURR is the failure of a fueled experiment during
irradiation. The MHA scenario involves the irradiation of a 5-gram low-
enriched uranium target, for approximately 150 hours, producing
approximately 150 Curies of Iodine-131 through Iodine-135, as well as
other radioactive isotopes. The scenario assumes that 100 percent of
the activity of the sample is released into the reactor pool water; 100
percent of the noble gases in the pool rise to the surface, and becomes
airborne, and 0.1 percent of the radioiodine in the pool also becomes
airborne via pool water evaporation. The containment ventilation system
isolates on actuation of the pool surface radiation monitors, and the
radiation workers evacuate the reactor containment within 5 minutes.
The licensee conservatively calculated doses to facility personnel
during evacuation and the maximum potential doses to members of the
public at various locations around the MURR facility. The license
estimated an occupational dose of 1,180 mrem (11.80 mSv), for a five
minute (evacuation) duration, and 0.0112 mrem (0.00012 mSv) for the
maximum exposed member of the public. The NRC staff performed
independent calculations to verify that the licensee's calculated doses
represented conservative estimates for the MHA. The NRC staff, using
conservative assumptions, estimated a dose to a worker of 2,001 mrem
(20.01 mSv) for a five minute duration, and 66 mrem (0.66 mSv) for the
maximum exposed member of the public. The
[[Page 86027]]
details of these calculations are provided in the NRC staff's SER that
the NRC staff is preparing to document its safety review of the
application for a renewed license. The occupational radiation doses
resulting from the postulated MHA would be well below the 10 CFR
20.1201 limit of 5,000 mrem (50 mSv). The maximum calculated radiation
doses for members of the public resulting from the postulated MHA would
be below the 10 CFR 20.1301 limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv).
Because the licensee has not requested any changes to the facility
design or operating conditions as part of its application for license
renewal, the proposed action will not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of accidents and there will be no
significant changes in the type or significant increase in the
effluents that may be release off site. The licensee has systems in
place for controlling the release of radiological effluents and
implements a radiation protection program to monitor personnel
exposures and releases of radioactive effluents. The systems and
radiation protection program are appropriate for the types and
quantities of effluents expected to be generated by continued operation
of the reactor. In addition, the NRC staff evaluated information
contained in the licensee's renewal application, and data the licensee
reported to the NRC for the last 5 years of operation to determine the
projected radiological impact of the facility on the environment during
the period of the renewed license. The NRC staff found that releases of
radioactive material and personnel exposures have been well within
applicable regulatory limits.
Based on its evaluation, the NRC staff concludes that continued
operation of the reactor would not have a significant radiological
impact.
Non-Radiological Impacts
As discussed above, the MURR is cooled by three coolant systems:
Primary, pool, and secondary. The MURR facility uses approximately 38
million gallons of water per year (or 72 gallons per minute), the
majority of which is used to provide make-up water for the secondary
system (50 gallons per minute). The source of this water is the
University of Missouri Columbia raw water supply system, which draws
water from 5 deep wells, and which can provide up to 4,700 gallons per
minute. Therefore, the water usage needed to replenish the secondary
coolant lost due to evaporation from the MURR facility cooling tower
would not impact the University of Missouri Columbia raw water supply,
which has excess capacity. Release of thermal effluents from the MURR
cooling tower will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Chemicals are used in the treatment of secondary coolant and liquid
radioactive waste. Sulfuric acid is used to control the potential of
Hydrogen (pH) of the secondary coolant, and other chemicals are added
to control water hardness and microbiological growth. Chemical
treatment of liquid radioactive waste is used to precipitate
radionuclides for removal as solids, or to adjust the pH level for
disposal. Other chemicals are routinely used in the performance of
experiments, which are evaluated and controlled by procedure. Given
that the proposed action does not involve any change in the operation
of the reactor or change in the emissions or heat load dissipated to
the environment, the proposed action would not have a significant
impact on land use, visual resources, air quality, noise, non-
radiological wastes, or terrestrial or aquatic resources. Additionally,
because the MURR does not discharge cooling water directly to the
environment, the proposed action would have no effect on surface
waters. Furthermore, in preparation for replacement of the secondary
coolant cooling towers in 2012, the licensee sampled the cooling tower
sump sludge for radioactivity and found none. The MURR's continued use
of 38 million gallons of groundwater per year from wells owned and
maintained by the University of Missouri-Columbia represents a
negligible portion of water compared to that used by the University as
a whole. The proposed action would result in no groundwater conflicts,
degradation of groundwater, or other significant impacts to groundwater
resources.
Based on its evaluation, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed
action would have no significant non-radiological impacts.
Other Applicable Environmental Laws
In addition to the National Environmental Policy Act, the NRC has
responsibilities that are derived from other environmental laws,
including the Endangered Species Act, Coastal Zone Management Act,
National Historic Preservation Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
and the Executive Order 12898--Environmental Justice. The following is
a brief discussion of impacts associated with these laws and other
requirements.
1. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The ESA was enacted to prevent further decline of endangered and
threatened species and restore those species and their critical
habitat. Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service
regarding actions that may affect listed species or designated critical
habitats.
The NRC staff conducted a search of Federally listed species and
critical habitats that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of
the MURR using the FWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS)
Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system. The IPaC
system report identified four Federally endangered or threatened
species that may occur or could potentially be affected by the proposed
action (ADAMS Accession No. ML16190A040). However, none of these
species are likely to occur near the MURR because the facility is
located within the University Research Park, an 84-acre developed area
used for research and academic purposes. The MURR was constructed in
the 1960s and has remained in use since that time. University Research
Park is bordered by a golf course, athletic fields, other academic and
office buildings associated with the University of Missouri-Columbia,
and residential properties. Accordingly, the area does not provide
suitable habitat for any Federally listed species. Further, the IPaC
report determined that no critical habitat is within the vicinity of
the MURR. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that the proposed license
renewal of the MURR would have no effect on Federally listed species or
critical habitats. Federal agencies are not required to consult with
the FWS if the agencies determine that an action will not affect listed
species or critical habitats (ADAMS Accession No. ML16120A505). Thus,
the ESA does not require consultation for the proposed the MURR license
renewal, and the NRC considers its obligations under ESA Section 7 to
be fulfilled for the proposed action.
2. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
The CZMA, in part, encourages States to preserve, protect, develop,
and where possible, restore or enhance, resources. Applicants for
Federal licenses to conduct an activity that affects any land or water
use or natural resource of the coastal zone of a state must provide a
certification in that the proposed activities complies with the State's
approved coastal zone management program and will conduct activities
consistent with that program.
The State of Missouri does not contain any coastal zones. Because
the
[[Page 86028]]
MURR is not located within or near any managed coastal zones, the
proposed action would not affect any coastal zones. Therefore, the NRC
finds that the licensee does not need to provide a certification under
the CZMA.
3. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
The NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties. As stated in the Act, historic
properties or resources are any prehistoric or historic district, site,
building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP lists one
historical site located on the University of Missouri campus. The site
is the East Campus Neighborhood Historic District. The location of the
East Campus Neighborhood Historic District is approximately 4
kilometers (2.4 miles) northeast of the MURR facility. The closest off-
campus historical site is the Sanborn Field and Soil Erosion Plots
located 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) northeast of the MURR facility. Given
the distance between the MURR facility and the Sanborn Field and Soil
Erosion Plots, continued operation of the MURR will not impact any
historical sites. Based on this information, the NRC finds that the
potential impacts of license renewal would have no adverse effect on
historic and archaeological resources.
4. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The FWCA requires Federal agencies that license water resource
development projects to consult with the FWS (or NMFS, when applicable)
and State wildlife resource agencies regarding the potential impacts of
the project on fish and wildlife resources.
The licensee is not planning any water resource development
projects, including any modifications relating to impounding a body of
water, damming, diverting a stream or river, deepening a channel,
irrigation, or altering a body of water for navigation or drainage.
Therefore, no coordination with other agencies pursuant to the FWCA is
required for the proposed action.
5. Executive Order 12898--Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,'' 59 FR
7629 (February 16, 1994), directs agencies to identify and address the
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations, to the
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from
the relicensing and the continued operation of the MURR. Such effects
may include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or social
impacts. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general
public residing around the MURR, and all are exposed to the same health
and environmental effects generated from activities at the MURR.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity of the MURR--According to the
2010 Census, approximately 22 percent of the population (total of
approximately 138,000 individuals) residing within a 10-mile radius of
MURR identified themselves as a minority. The largest minority
populations were Black or African American (approximately 15,000
persons or 11 percent) and Asian (approximately 4,600 persons or 3.3
percent). According to the 2010 Census, about 19 percent of the Boone
County population identified themselves as minorities, with Black or
African Americans and Asians comprising the largest minority
populations (9.3 and 3.8 percent, respectively). According to the U.S.
Census Bureau's 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the
minority population of Boone County, as a percent of the total
population, had increased to about 21 percent with Black or African
Americans and Asians origin comprising the largest minority populations
(9 and 4 percent, respectively).
Low-income Populations in the Vicinity of the MURR--According to
the U.S. Census Bureau's 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, approximately 29,600 individuals (22.2 percent) residing
within a 10-mile radius of the MURR were identified as living below the
Federal poverty threshold. The 2014 Federal poverty threshold was
$24,230 for a family of four.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2015 American Community
Survey 1-Year Estimates, the median household income for Missouri was
$50,238, while 14.8 percent of the state population and 10.2 percent of
families were found to be living below the Federal poverty threshold.
Boone County had a slightly higher median household income average
($50,520) and a higher percentage of persons (18.5 percent) and lower
percentage of families (6.9 percent) living below the poverty level,
respectively.
Impact Analysis--Potential impacts to minority and low-income
populations would consist of radiological effects; however, radiation
doses from continued operations associated with this license renewal
are expected to continue at current levels, and would be well below
regulatory limits. Because the proposed action involves no construction
or land disturbance, no additional visual or noise impacts are expected
to result from the proposed action.
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this EA, the proposed action would
not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing
in the vicinity of the MURR.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to license renewal, the NRC considered denial of
the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). If the NRC
denied the request for license renewal, reactor operations would cease
and decommissioning would be required (sooner than if a renewed license
were issued) and the environmental effects of decommission would occur.
Decommissioning would be conducted in accordance with an NRC-approved
decommissioning plan, which would require a separate environmental
review under 10 CFR 51.21. Cessation of facility operations would
reduce or eliminate radioactive effluents and emissions associated with
operations. However, as previously discussed in this EA, radioactive
effluents and emissions from reactor operations constitute a small
fraction of the applicable regulatory limits. Therefore, the
environmental impacts of license renewal and the denial of the request
for license renewal would be similar. In addition, denying the request
for license renewal would eliminate the benefits of teaching, research,
and services provided by the MURR.
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed action does not involve the use of any different
resources or significant quantities of resources beyond those
previously considered in the issuance of Amendment No. 2 to Facility
Operating License No. R-103 for the MURR dated July 9, 1974, which
authorized the MURR to operate at a maximum steady-state power level of
10 MWt.
[[Page 86029]]
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with NRC policy, the staff consulted with the
Missouri State Liaison Officer on October 28, 2016, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action, explained the
environmental reviews and forwarded a draft of this environmental
assessment. On November 16, 2016, the Missouri State Liaison Officer
indicated, by electronic mail, that the State understood the NRC review
and had no comments regarding the proposed action (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16321A511).
The NRC staff also consulted with the State of Missouri, Department
of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office (Missouri
SHPO) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
by letter dated June 17, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML101730044). The
Missouri SHPO responded by letter dated July 2, 2010 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML101950104). The Missouri SHPO informed the NRC that the MURR in
Columbia is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. However, the SHPO stated that because the proposed license
renewal would not involve any new construction, excavation, demolition
or rehabilitation, the action should have no adverse effect.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC is considering issuance of a renewed Facility Operating
License No. R-103, held by the Curators of the University of Missouri
for the continued operation of the MURR for an additional 20 years.
On the basis of the EA included in Section II of this notice and
incorporated by reference in this finding, the NRC staff finds that the
proposed action will not have a significant impact on the quality of
the human environment. The NRC staff's evaluation considered
information provided in the licensee's application, as supplemented,
and the NRC staff's review of related environmental documents. Section
IV below lists the environmental documents related to the proposed
action and includes information on the availability of these documents.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental
impact statement for the proposed action.
IV. Availability of Documents
The following table identifies the environmental and other
documents cited in this document and related to the NRC's FONSI. These
documents are available for public inspection online through ADAMS at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or in person at the NRC's PDR
as described previously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document ADAMS Accession No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application for License Renewal for the ML062540114
University of Missouri-Columbia
Research Reactor as Per 10 CFR 2.109--
Cover Letter, August 31, 2006.
Safety Analysis Report for the ML092110573
University of Missouri-Columbia
Application for License Renewal,
Volume 1 of 2--August 31, 2006
(redacted version).
Safety Analysis Report for the ML092110597
University of Missouri-Columbia
Application for License Renewal,
Chapters 10-18, Volume 2 of 2, August
31, 2006 (redacted version).
University of Missouri Research Reactor ML062540121
(MURR) Environmental Report for
License Renewal, August 31, 2006.
Transmittal of University of Missouri- ML100220371
Columbia Research Reactor's Responses
to the NRC Request for Additional
Information Regarding Renewal for
Amendment Facility Operating License,
January 15, 2010.
Written Communication as Specified by ML100330073
10 CFR 50.4(b)(1) Regarding the
Response to the University of Missouri
at Columbia--Request for Additional
Information RE: License Renewal
Environmental Report, January 29, 2010.
University of Missouri-Columbia ML101440148
Research Reactor's Response to NRC RAI
dated April 20, 2010, May 18, 2010.
MO, Dept. of Natural Resources, Review ML101950104
of University of Missouri, Columbia
Research Reactor, 1513 Research Park
Drive is Eligible for Inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places
and Determination of Proposed License
Renewal have no adverse Effect, July
2, 2010.
University of Missouri, Columbia, ML12354A237
Response to NRC Request for Additional
Information, dated June 1, 2010, July
16, 2010 (redacted version).
University of Missouri, Columbia, ML120050315
Licensee Response to NRC Request for
Additional Information--Chapter 10,
August 31, 2010 (redacted version).
University of Missouri, Columbia, ML102500533
Response to Request for Additional
Information Regarding License Renewal,
September 3, 2010.
University of Missouri, Columbia, ML12355A019
Response to Request for Additional
Information Regarding License Renewal,
September 30, 2010.
University of Missouri, Columbia ML12355A023
Response to NRC Request for Additional
Information 45-Day Response Questions,
October 29, 2010 (redacted version).
Written Communication as Specified by ML103060018
10 CFR 50.4(b)(1) Regarding the
Response to the University of Missouri
at Columbia--Request for Additional
Information RE: License Renewal,
Safety Analysis Report, Complex
Questions, dated May 6, 2010, October
29, 2010.
University of Missouri, Columbia-- ML12355A026
Response to NRC Request for Additional
Information 45-Day Response Questions,
(TAC No. ME1580) November 30, 2010
(redacted version).
University of Missouri-Columbia ML110740249
Research Reactor Response to Request
for Additional Information Regarding
Renewal Request for Amendment Facility
Operating License R-103, March 11,
2011.
University of Missouri-Columbia ML11255A003
Research Reactor's Response to NRC
Request for Additional Information
Regarding Renewal Request for Amended
Facility Operating License R-103,
September 8, 2011.
University of Missouri--Columbia, ML12010A186
Written Communication as Specified by
10 CFR 50.4(b)(1) Regarding Responses
to the University of Missouri at
Columbia--Request for Additional
Information RE: License Renewal,
Safety Analysis Report, January 6,
2012.
University of Missouri, Columbia-- ML12346A004
Licensee Response to NRC Request for
Additional Information dated May 6,
2010 (Complex Questions) and June 1,
2012 (45-day Response Questions) RE:
License Renewal, June 28, 2012
(redacted version).
Written Communication as Specified by ML15034A474
10 CFR 50.4(b)(1) Regarding the
Response to the University of Missouri
at Columbia--Request for Additional
Information Regarding the Renewal of
Facility Operating License No. R-103
for the University of Missouri,
January 28, 2015.
University of Missouri-Columbia-- ML15216A122
Response to Request for Additional
Information Regarding Renewal Request
for Amended Facility Operating
License, July 31, 2015.
[[Page 86030]]
University of Missouri, Columbia-- ML15275A314
Responses to NRC Request for
Additional Information, Dated April
17, 2015, Regarding Renewal Request
for Amended Facility Operating
License, October 1, 2015.
University of Missouri-Columbia-- ML16041A221
Response to NRC Request for Additional
Information dated December 18, 2015,
Regarding Renewal Request for License
No. R-103, February 8, 2016.
University of Missouri at Columbia-- ML16103A536
Responses to NRC Request for
Additional Information dated February
8, 2016, Regarding Renewal Request
(Financial Review), April 8, 2016.
University of Missouri-Columbia ML16110A164
Research Reactor, Response to Request
for Additional Information on License
Renewal, April 15, 2016.
University of Missouri-Columbia ML16155A132
Research Reactor's Responses to the
NRC Request for Additional Information
dated October 28, 2015, Regarding Our
Renewal Request for Amended Facility
Operating License No. R-103, May 31,
2016.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ML16190A040
University of Missouri-Columbia
Research Reactor Proposed License
Renewal, IPaC Trust Resources Report,
July 8, 2016.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ML16120A505
Endangered Species Consultations
Frequently Asked Questions, July 15,
2013.
University of Missouri-Columbia ML16209A236
Research Reactor's Responses to the
NRC Request for Additional Information
Regarding the Proposed Technical
Specifications for License Renewal,
July 25, 2016.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of November 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alexander Adams, Jr.,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch, Division of Policy
and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-28711 Filed 11-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P