39346 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

These documents may also be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s PDR, O 1 F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. 

Dated at Region I, 475 Allendale Road, 

King of Prussia, PA this 28th day of July 

2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

James P. Dwyer, 

Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division 

of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. 

[FR Doc. E9–18819 Filed 8–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2008–0639; Docket Nos. 030–05224 

and 040–08478] 

Notice of Availability of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for License 

Amendments to Byproduct Materials 

License No. 29–00170–03 and Source 

Materials License No. SMB–1260, 

Incorporating the Decommissioning 

Plan for Bell Laboratories Murray Hill 

Facility in Murray Hill, NJ 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Issuance of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for License 

Amendment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Hammann, Health Physicist, 

Commercial and R&D Branch, Division 

of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, 

Pennsylvania; telephone 610–337–5399; 

fax number 610–337–5269; or by e-mail: 

stephen.hammann@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering the 

issuance of license amendments to 

Byproduct Materials License No. 29– 

00170–03 and Source Materials License 

No. SMB–1260. The licenses are held by 

Bell Laboratories (the Licensee), for its 

Murray Hill Facility, located at 600 

Mountain Avenue in Murray Hill, New 

Jersey (the Facility). Issuance of the 

amendments would incorporate the 

Decommissioning Plan (DP) into the 

licenses to allow completion of 

decommissioning activities at the site 

and subsequent release of the Facility, 

except one room in the Radiation Lab, 

for unrestricted use and the termination 

of its NRC materials licenses. The room 

which is not being released is covered 

by NRC License No. 29–00170–08. The 

NRC has evaluated and approved the 

Licensee’s DP. The findings of this 

evaluation are documented in a Safety 

Evaluation Report which will be issued 

along with the amendments. The 

Licensee requested these actions in a 

letter dated June 12, 2008. The 

Licensee’s amendment requests were 

noted in the Federal Register on 

December 8, 2008 (73 FR 74529). This 

Federal Register notice also provided an 

opportunity for a hearing on these 

licensing actions. No hearing requests 

were received. The NRC has prepared 

an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

support of the proposed actions in 

accordance with the requirements of 

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based 

on the EA, the NRC has concluded that 

a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) is appropriate with respect to 

the proposed actions. The amendments 

will be issued to the Licensee following 

the publication of this FONSI and EA in 

the Federal Register. 

II. Environmental Assessment 

Identification of Proposed Action 

The proposed actions would approve 

the Licensee’s June 12, 2008 license 

amendment requests to incorporate the 

DP into the licenses, resulting in 

decommissioning of the facility and 

subsequent release of the Facility, 

except one room in the Radiation Lab, 

for unrestricted use and the termination 

of its NRC materials licenses. The room 

which is not being released is covered 

by NRC License No. 29–00170–08. 

License No. 29–00170–03 was issued on 

January 25, 1957, pursuant to 10 CFR 

Part 30, and License No. SMB–1260 was 

issued on December 2, 1975, pursuant to 

10 CFR Part 40. Both licenses have been 

amended periodically since the issue 

dates. These licenses authorized the 

Licensee to use sealed and unsealed 

byproduct material and source material 

for the purpose of conducting research 

and development activities on 

laboratory bench tops and in hoods. 

The Facility is situated on 196 acres 

and encompasses fifteen buildings. The 

buildings in which licensed materials 

were used consist of office space and 

laboratories. The Facility is located in a 

mixed residential/commercial area. 

Within the Facility, use of licensed 

materials was confined to Buildings 

1,2,6,7 and 15. Notification that all 

licensed activities had ceased was 

received April 26, 2007. 

Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed actions are to approve 

the DP so that the Licensee may 

complete Facility decommissioning 

activities. Completion of the 

decommissioning activities will reduce 

residual radioactivity at the Facility. 

NRC regulations require licensees to 

begin timely decommissioning of their 

sites, or any separate buildings that 

contain residual radioactivity, upon 

cessation of licensed activities, in 

accordance with 10 CFR 30.36(d) and 10 

CFR 40.42(d). The proposed licensing 

actions will support such a goal. NRC is 

fulfilling its responsibilities under the 

Atomic Energy Act to make a decision 

on the proposed license amendments for 

decommissioning that ensures 

protection of the public health and 

safety. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The historical review of licensed 

activities conducted at the Facility 

shows that such activities involved 

research and development activities 

using sealed and unsealed byproduct 

material and source material. The 

licensed materials were always stored 

and used inside buildings with no 

releases. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

Licensee amendment requests for the 

Facility and examined the impacts of 

these license amendment requests. 

Potential impacts include water 

resource impact (e.g., water may be used 

for dust control), air quality impacts 

from dust emissions, temporary local 

traffic impacts resulting from 

transporting debris, human health 

impacts, noise impacts from equipment 

operation, scenic quality impacts, and 

waste management impacts. 

Based on its review, the staff has 

determined that no surface water or 

ground water impacts are expected from 

the decommissioning activities. 

Additionally, the staff has determined 

that significant air quality, noise, land 

use, and off-site radiation exposure 

impacts are also not expected. No 

significant air quality impacts are 

anticipated because of the limited 

amount of contamination and the 

controls that will be implemented by 

the Licensee during decommissioning 

activities. In addition, the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the decommissioning activities are 

bounded by impacts evaluated by 

NUREG–0586, ‘‘Final Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,’’ 

(GEIS). Generic impacts for this type of 

decommissioning process were 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 39347 

previously evaluated and described in 

the GEIS, which concludes that the 

environmental consequences are small. 

The risk to human health from the 

transportation of all radioactive material 

in the U.S. was evaluated in NUREG– 

0170, ‘‘Final Environmental Statement 

on the Transportation of Radioactive 

Materials by Air and Other Modes.’’ The 

principal radiological environmental 

impact during normal transportation is 

direct radiation exposure to nearby 

persons from radioactive material in the 

package. The average annual individual 

dose from all radioactive material 

transportation in the U.S. was 

calculated to be approximately 0.5 

millirem, well below the 10 CFR 

20.1301 limit of 100 millirem for a 

member of the public. These proposed 

actions will not significantly increase 

the probability or consequences of 

accidents, no changes are being made in 

the types of any effluents that may be 

released off site, and there is no 

significant increase in occupational or 

public radiation exposure. Thus, waste 

management and transportation impacts 

from the decommissioning will not be 

significant. 

Occupational health was also 

considered in the ‘‘Final Environmental 

Impact Statement on the Transportation 

of Radioactive Material by Air and 

Other Modes.’’ Shipment of these 

materials would not affect the 

assessment of environmental impacts or 

the conclusions in the ‘‘Final 

Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Transportation of Radioactive Material 

by Air and Other Modes.’’ 

The Staff also finds that the proposed 

license amendments will meet the 

radiological criteria for unrestricted 

release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. 

The Licensee demonstrated this through 

the development of derived 

concentration guideline limits (DCGLs) 

for its Facility. The Licensee conducted 

site-specific dose modeling using 

parameters specific to the Facility that 

adequately bounded the potential dose. 

The Licensee will maintain an 

appropriate level of radiation protection 

staff, procedures, and capabilities, and, 

through its Radiation Safety Officer, will 

implement an acceptable program to 

keep exposure to radioactive materials 

as low as reasonably achievable 

(ALARA). Work activities are not 

anticipated to result in radiation 

exposures to the public in excess of ten 

percent of the 10 CFR 20.1301 limits. 

The NRC also evaluated whether 

cumulative environmental impacts 

could result from an incremental impact 

of the proposed action when added to 

other past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in the area. 

The proposed NRC approval of the 

license amendment requests, when 

combined with known effects on 

resource areas at the site, including 

further site remediation, are not 

anticipated to result in any cumulative 

impacts at the site. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

The only alternative to the proposed 

action of decommissioning the Facility 

is the no-action alternative, under 

which the staff would leave things as 

they are by simply denying the 

amendment requests. This no-action 

alternative is not feasible because it 

conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d) and 10 

CFR 40.42(d), requiring that 

decommissioning of byproduct material 

and source material facilities be 

completed and approved by the NRC 

after licensed activities cease. 

Additionally, denying the amendment 

requests would result in no change in 

current environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the no-action alternative are 

therefore similar, and the no-action 

alternative is accordingly not further 

considered. 

Conclusion 

The NRC staff has concluded that the 

proposed action is consistent with the 

NRC’s unrestricted release criteria 

specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because 

the proposed action will not 

significantly impact the quality of the 

human environment, the NRC staff 

concludes that the proposed action is 

the preferred alternative. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

NRC provided a draft of this 

Environmental Assessment to the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection for review on June 3, 2009. 

On July 8, 2009, the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection 

responded by letter. The State agreed 

with the conclusions of the EA, and 

otherwise had no comments. 

The NRC staff has determined that the 

proposed action is of a procedural 

nature, and will not affect listed species 

or critical habitat. Therefore, no further 

consultation is required under Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act. The 

NRC staff has also determined that the 

proposed action is not the type of 

activity that has the potential to cause 

effects on historic properties. Therefore, 

no further consultation is required 

under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

III. Finding of No Significant Impact 

The NRC staff has prepared this EA in 

support of the proposed action. On the 

basis of this EA, the NRC finds that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts from the proposed action, and 

that preparation of an environmental 

impact statement is not warranted. 

Accordingly, the NRC has determined 

that a Finding of No Significant Impact 

is appropriate. 

IV. Further Information 

Documents related to this action, 

including the application for license 

amendments and supporting 

documentation, are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, 

you can access the NRC’s Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS), which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. The documents related to 

this action are listed below, along with 

their ADAMS accession numbers. 

1. NUREG–1757, ‘‘Consolidated 

NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;’’ 

2. Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, 

‘‘Radiological Criteria for License 

Termination;’’ 

3. Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 51, ‘‘Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic 

Licensing and Related Regulatory 

Functions;’’ and 

4. NUREG–1496, ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement in 

Support of Rulemaking on Radiological 

Criteria for License Termination of 

NRC–Licensed Nuclear Facilities.’’ 

5. Submittal Letter dated June 12, 

2008 (ML081910071). 

6. Decommissioning Plan, Volume 1 

(ML081910076). 

7. Decommissioning Plan, Volume 2 

(ML081910083). 

8. Review of Decommissioning Plan 

dated April 6, 2009 (ML090960301). 

9. Deficiency Response Letter dated 

May 21, 2009 (ML091470227). 

10. Federal Register Notice of 

Consideration (ML083360193). 

If you do not have access to ADAMS, 

or if there are problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

These documents may also be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s PDR, O 1 F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR 

reproduction contractor will copy 

documents for a fee. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
39348 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 

Dated at 475 Allendale Road, King of 

Prussia, PA, this 28th day of July 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

James P. Dwyer, 

Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division 

of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. 

[FR Doc. E9–18820 Filed 8–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0341] 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

Involvement With the Navy’s 

Remediation of the Hunters Point 

Shipyard Site in San Francisco, CA 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of jurisdiction and future 

involvement. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has decided that it 

will take a limited involvement 

approach to stay informed about the 

Navy’s ongoing remediation of the 

Hunters Point Shipyard (HPS) site in 

San Francisco, California. NRC will rely 

on the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) process and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Region 9 oversight. This notice 

discusses NRC’s jurisdiction and future 

limited involvement at the HPS site and 

how it plans on staying informed about 

the Navy’s remediation in the future. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert L. Johnson, Division of Waste 

Management and Environmental 

Protection, Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, Mail Stop T– 

8F5, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone: (301) 415–7282; e-mail: 

Robert.Johnson2@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In July 

2007 the Navy requested clarification 

about NRC‘s jurisdiction and potential 

involvement with the Navy’s ongoing 

remediation of radioactive material at 

the HPS site. In response to the Navy’s 

request, NRC reviewed key HPS site 

documents, met with the Navy, and 

conducted a site visit in October 2007. 

NRC also met with representatives from 

EPA Region 9, the State of California 

agencies involved with the HPS site, 

and the City of San Francisco. In 

addition to evaluating potential NRC 

involvement, these meetings were used 

to obtain an understanding of the site, 

the Navy’s remediation, and the 

oversight roles and issues of the key 

parties involved with the remediation. 

Based on this information, the NRC staff 

evaluated NRC’s jurisdiction for the 

materials at the HPS site and evaluated 

options for NRC involvement. These 

options and the staff’s recommendations 

were provided to the Commission in 

SECY–08–0077. This Commission paper 

also gives background about the HPS 

and the Navy’s ongoing remediation. 

The Commission provided its direction 

to the staff on June 26, 2008, in SRM– 

SECY–08–0077. The results of the staff’s 

evaluation and the Commission’s 

decision are summarized in the answers 

to the following questions: 

1. What is NRC’s regulatory jurisdiction 

for the Navy’s remediation of the HPS 

site? 

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) 

licenses for radioactive material used by 

the Navy in both the shipyard and the 

Navy Radiological Defense Laboratory 

(NRDL) at the HPS site were terminated 

in the 1970s after extensive radiological 

surveys of the facilities confirmed that 

the facilities met the radiological 

standards at that time. Therefore, after 

termination of the AEC licenses, neither 

the NRC nor its predecessor, AEC, 

exercised direct regulatory authority 

over the residual contamination at the 

HPS site. Subsequently, the Navy 

conducted radiological surveys and 

completed a Historical Radiological 

Assessment of the site in 2004. These 

studies provided new information about 

the suspected and confirmed 

radiological contamination for the entire 

HPS site. Based on this new 

information, the Navy and NRC assume 

that any remaining licensable material is 

likely commingled with atomic 

weapons testing material. Both types of 

radioactive material were used at the 

NRDL. NRC has jurisdiction for the 

licensable material. However, under 

Section 91(b) of the AEA, the atomic 

weapons testing material is outside of 

NRC’s jurisdiction. 

2. What is NRC’s future involvement 

with the Navy’s ongoing remediation of 

the HPS site? 

NRC will rely on the ongoing Navy 

remediation under the CERCLA process 

and EPA regulatory oversight for the 

licensable radioactive material assumed 

to be present at the HPS site. NRC 

would not exercise its regulatory 

authority and would not require 

compliance with its decommissioning 

regulations. NRC would not conduct 

any formal regulatory reviews or 

participate in the ongoing CERCLA 

comment process for the Navy’s 

remediation. The NRC staff would have 

a limited involvement to stay informed 

about the Navy’s remediation of the 

remaining parcels, which is expected to 

take about 10 years. 

The basis for this approach is that 

NRC can reasonably rely on the 

CERCLA process and EPA oversight of 

this Superfund site because the process 

should result in a level of protection of 

public health and safety and the 

environment that is generally equivalent 

to what would be provided if the NRC’s 

decommissioning process was used. 

NRC believes that this is a reasonable 

approach because: (1) The licensable 

materials are inextricably commingled 

with the atomic weapons testing 

material over which NRC has no 

jurisdiction; (2) over-laying NRC 

requirements and oversight on the 

CERCLA process overseen by EPA 

provides no clear public health and 

safety benefit; (3) dual NRC–EPA 

regulation is avoided; (4) remediation 

can proceed under CERCLA; and (5) 

NRC would be in a position to respond 

to stakeholder questions in a timely and 

effective manner. NRC considered, but 

did not select the option of regulating 

the remediation through the Navy’s 

Masters Material License with NRC. 

This option would have resulted in dual 

regulation, unnecessary expenditure of 

resources, and no benefit to public 

health and safety. 

3. How will NRC stay informed about 

the Navy’s remediation of the HPS site? 

NRC anticipates that it would stay 

informed throughout the remediation 

process using existing mechanisms, 

such as documents received through 

standard distributions or that are 

available on the Administrative Record 

(e.g., records of decision and completion 

documents such as the finding of 

suitability to transfer). If necessary, NRC 

would request access to documents. 

Staff would read selected documents 

and conduct an annual site visit and 

progress meeting with the Navy, EPA, 

State agencies, and the City of San 

Francisco. The staff would use a riskinformed approach to focus on those 

elements of the Navy’s remediation that 

are most important to the protection of 

public health and safety. The staff 

would also focus on those elements that 

are currently being planned but not yet 

implemented such as formal 

establishment of the institutional 

controls and engineered controls. 

Finally, NRC would also reserve the 

option of commenting to EPA if 

necessary to justify our continued 

reliance on the CERCLA process. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES