61220 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 

repair and corrective action function is 

currently filled by I&C technicians, 

additional actions will be taken to 

ensure basic electrical/l&C tasks can be 

performed by Mechanical Maintenance 

personnel. Mechanical Maintenance 

personnel will receive training in basic 

electrical and I&C tasks to ensure that 

tasks related to these disciplines can be 

performed if needed in the first 90 

minutes of an event. The proposed 

change will reduce the burden related to 

scheduling of only selected 

maintenance technicians on shift. 

The NRC staff has concluded that the 

proposed change will provide greater 

initial coverage than the NUREG–0654/ 

FEMA–REP–1, Table B–1 requirement 

and will continue to provide 

maintenance support capability in the 

early stages of an event. Based on the 

on-shift staffing complement designated 

in the proposed E-Plan change for 

Repair and Corrective Actions (which is 

in excess of Table B–1 of NUREG–0654/ 

FEME–REP–1) and the training that will 

be provided to the Mechanical 

Maintenance personnel in basic 

electrical and I&C tasks, the NRC staff 

believes that adequate on-shift resources 

exist to support Repair and Corrective 

Actions within 90 minutes of an event, 

prior to being relieved by the 

augmenting Emergency Response 

Organization. 

In addition, the proposed changes to 

the on-shift and 90-minute augmented 

I&C Maintenance staffing result in a 

total of nine personnel designated for 

Repair and Corrective actions which is 

in excess of NUREG–0654/FEMA–REP– 

1, Table B–1’s minimum staffing 

guidance. This will increase the 

licensee’s capability to perform the 

Repair and Corrective actions during an 

event. 

Based on the above, the NRC staff 

concludes that the proposed changes to 

the E-Plan meet the standards of 10 CFR 

50.47(b) and the requirements of 

Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 and 

provide reasonable assurance that the 

licensee will take adequate protective 

measures in a radiological emergency. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed changes to the RBS E-Plan. 

The staff has concluded that the changes 

would not significantly affect plant 

safety and would not have a significant 

adverse effect on the probability of an 

accident occurring. The proposed action 

would not result in an increased 

radiological hazard beyond those 

previously analyzed in the Updated 

Safety Analysis Report. There will be no 

change to radioactive effluents that 

affect radiation exposures to plant 

workers and members of the public. No 

changes will be made to plant buildings 

or the site property. Therefore, no 

changes or different types of 

radiological impacts are expected as a 

result of the proposed changes. 

The proposed action does not result 

in changes to land use or water use, or 

result in changes to the quality or 

quantity of non-radiological effluents. 

No changes to the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System permit 

are needed. No effects on the aquatic or 

terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the 

plant, or to threatened, endangered, or 

protected species under the Endangered 

Species Act, or impacts to essential fish 

habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no 

impacts to the air or ambient air quality. 

There are no impacts to historical and 

cultural resources. There would be no 

noticeable effect on socioeconomic 

conditions in the region. Therefore, no 

changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are 

expected as a result of the proposed 

action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes 

that there are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

The details of the NRC staff’s safety 

evaluation will be provided with the 

license amendment that will be issued 

to the licensee approving the E-Plan 

changes. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the staff considered denial of the 

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’ 

alternative). Denial of the application 

would result in no change in current 

environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for the RBS, 

dated January 1985. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on September 21, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the Louisiana State 

official, Ms. Ji Wiley, of the Louisiana 

Emergency and Radiological Services 

Division, Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality, regarding the 

environmental impact of the proposed 

action. The State official had no 

comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter 

dated January 28, 2010. Documents may 

be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at 

the NRC’s Public Document Room 

(PDR), located at One White Flint North, 

Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible electronically from 

the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 

Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 

site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. Persons who do not have 

access to ADAMS or who encounter 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS should contact the 

NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone 

at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or 

send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day 

of September 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Alan B. Wang, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, 

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24808 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–020; NRC–2010–0313] 

Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology: Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology Research Reactor 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC, the Commission) is 

considering issuance of a renewed 

Facility Operating License No. R–37, to 

be held by the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology (MIT, the licensee), which 

would authorize continued operation of 

the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology Research Reactor (MITR–II, 

the facility), located in Cambridge, 

Middlesex County, Massachusetts. 

Therefore, as required by Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 

51.21, the NRC is issuing this 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and 

Finding of No Significant Impact. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61221 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would renew 

Facility Operating License No. R–37 for 

a period of twenty years from the date 

of issuance of the renewed license and 

increase the maximum licensed power 

level from 5 megawatts thermal (MW(t)) 

to 6 MW(t). The proposed action is in 

accordance with the licensee’s 

application dated July 8, 1999, as 

supplemented by letters dated February 

10 and May 8, 2000, January 29, 2004, 

July 5 and October 11, 2006, January 26, 

2007, February 22, May 29, August 15, 

August 21, August 26, October 6, 

October 7 and December 1, 2008, May 

26, August 27, October 5, October 9 and 

November 19, 2009, and March 30, 

August 6 and August 26, 2010. In 

accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, 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 

MITR–II to routinely provide teaching, 

research, and services to numerous 

institutions for a period of twenty years. 

The proposed action is also needed to 

enhance the facility’s experiment 

capabilities by increasing the maximum 

neutron flux in the experiment facilities. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC staff has completed its safety 

evaluation of the proposed action to 

issue a renewed Facility Operating 

License No. R–37 to allow continued 

operation of the MITR for a period of 

twenty years at an increased power level 

of 6 MW(t) and concludes there is 

reasonable assurance that the MITR–II 

will continue to operate safely for the 

additional period of time at the 

increased licensed power level. The 

details of the NRC staff’s safety 

evaluation will be provided with the 

renewed license that will be issued as 

part of the letter to the licensee 

approving the license renewal 

application. This document contains the 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed action. 

The MITR–II is located on the MIT 

campus and is a part of the MIT Nuclear 

Reactor Laboratory. The reactor is 

housed in a dedicated building 

constructed primarily of reinforced 

concrete and steel which serves as a 

containment. The reactor site comprises 

the reactor building and a small area 

immediately surrounding it, bounded by 

a chain-link fence, and a portion of an 

attached multipurpose academic 

building. Adjacent to the site are an 

industrial building to the north, a 

parking lot and warehouse building to 

the east, a warehouse building to the 

south, and academic and dormitory 

buildings to the west. According to the 

licensee, the nearest point of normal 

public occupancy is on Albany Street, 

approximately 21 meters (68 feet) 

northwest of the reactor building, the 

nearest dormitories are located 

approximately 100 meters (330 feet) 

west of the reactor, and the nearest nonMIT residence is approximately 250 

meters (820 feet) from the reactor 

building. 

The MITR–II is a tank-type, lightwater-cooled and heavy-watermoderated research reactor that will be 

licensed to operate at a maximum 

steady-state power level of 6 MW(t). The 

core is located at the bottom of an 

aluminum tank surrounded by a heavy 

water reflector tank and a concrete 

biological shield. The reactor is fueled 

with plate-type, aluminum-clad fuel 

arranged in a compact core. A detailed 

description of the reactor can be found 

in the MITR–II Safety Analysis Report 

(SAR). 

There have been no major 

modifications to the Facility Operating 

License since Amendment No. 10, dated 

July 23, 1975, which approved 

operation of a modified reactor core at 

a maximum power level of 5 MW(t). In 

connection with Amendment No. 10, 

the NRC staff evaluated the potential for 

environmental impacts associated with 

operation of the MITR–II. Based on that 

evaluation, the NRC staff concluded that 

there would be no significant 

environmental impact associated with 

licensing the MITR–II to operate at a 

maximum power level of 5 MW(t). 

The licensee requested a change in 

the facility operating conditions as part 

of the renewal request. Specifically, the 

licensee requested an increase in the 

licensed maximum steady-state power 

level. This change should not affect the 

types of effluents released off site. There 

may be an increase in the quantity of 

gaseous effluents released offsite due to 

the increase in maximum power level. 

As discussed in this EA, off site 

concentrations of airborne radioactive 

material and potential radiation doses 

should continue to be a small fraction 

of the limits established in 10 CFR Part 

20. 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. As discussed in 

the NRC staff’s safety evaluation, 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 at the increased power level. 

Accordingly, there should be no 

significant increase in routine 

occupational or public radiation 

exposure as a result of license renewal 

or the increase in maximum power 

level. As discussed in the NRC staff’s 

safety evaluation, the proposed action 

will not significantly increase the 

probability of accidents. The proposed 

action may increase the consequences of 

accidents. Specifically, the increase in 

maximum steady-state power level may 

increase the fission product source term 

and potential occupational and public 

accident doses for the maximum 

hypothetical accident. As discussed in 

the NRC staff’s safety evaluation, the 

worst case fission product source term 

will not result in occupational doses or 

doses to members of the general public 

in excess of the limits specified by 10 

CFR part 20. Therefore, the proposed 

action should not significantly change 

the environmental impact of facility 

operation. The NRC staff evaluated 

information contained in the licensee’s 

application and data reported to the 

NRC by the licensee for the last five 

years of operation to determine the 

projected radiological impact of the 

facility on the environment during the 

period of the renewed license at the 

increased power level. The NRC staff 

found that releases of radioactive 

material and personnel exposures were 

all well within applicable regulatory 

limits. Based on this evaluation, the 

NRC staff concluded that continued 

operation of the reactor and the increase 

in the licensed maximum steady-state 

power level should not have a 

significant environmental impact. 

I. Radiological Impact 

Environmental Effects of Reactor 

Operations 

Gaseous radioactive effluents are 

discharged by the facility exhaust 

system via a stack adjacent to the reactor 

building, at a volumetric flow rate of 

approximately 3.5 cubic meters per 

second (7,500 cubic feet per second). 

The only significant nuclide found in 

the gaseous effluent stream is Argon-41. 

The licensee performs continuous 

measurements of Argon-41 at the point 

of release. Argon-41 releases reported in 

the licensee’s annual reports average 

approximately 1445 Curies (Ci) for a 

typical year. According to the licensee’s 

annual reports, these releases resulted 

in an annual average effluent 

concentration of 0.386E–8 microCuries 

per milliliter (mCi/ml). The NRC staff 

performed check calculations of ArgonVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:23 Oct 01, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM 04OCN1

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
61222 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 

41 releases and found the licensee’s 

calculations to be reasonable. The 

calculated value is based on a dilution 

factor of 3,000 for gaseous effluents 

released from the facility exhaust stack. 

The licensee’s application for license 

renewal contains a more realistic, and 

still conservative, dilution factor of 

50,000. Based on this dilution factor, the 

annual average effluent concentration of 

Argon-41 would be 0.023E–8 ûCi/ml. 

This concentration is less than three 

percent of the air effluent concentration 

limit of 1E–8 ûCi/ml set by 10 CFR part 

20, appendix B, Table 2. The potential 

annual radiation dose to a member of 

the general public resulting from this 

concentration is approximately 0.012 

milliSieverts (mSv) (1.2 millirems 

(mrem)). As discussed later in this EA, 

the licensee’s off-site dose 

measurements show a potential annual 

radiation dose from gaseous effluents of 

less than 0.01 mSv (1 mrem). These 

potential radiation doses demonstrate 

compliance with the dose limit of 1 mSv 

(100 mrem) set by 10 CFR 20.1301, and 

the air emissions dose constraint of 0.1 

mSv (10 mrem) specified in 10 CFR 

20.1101(d). The increase in maximum 

steady-state power level may increase 

the production of Argon-41 by 20 

percent. Calculations by the licensee 

predict a maximum potential annual 

radiation dose to a member of the public 

of less than 0.02 mSv (2 mrem) given a 

20 percent increase in Argon-41 

production. The NRC staff performed 

check calculations of the maximum 

potential dose and found the licensee’s 

calculations to be reasonable. The 

calculated potential dose is a small 

fraction of the regulatory limits 

discussed above. Because the licensee 

performs continuous monitoring of all 

airborne releases, the effluent 

concentrations at the increased power 

level will be measured to ensure that 

releases remain below the regulatory 

limits and as low as is reasonably 

achievable (ALARA). 

Liquid wastes are generated at the 

MITR–II primarily as a result of 

sampling of the coolant, 

decontamination activities, and routine 

cleaning of the facility. Liquid wastes 

are stored in two above-ground tanks 

located in a dedicated structure 

equipped with leak detection and leak 

containment capabilities. The licensee 

disposes of liquid radioactive wastes 

primarily by discharge to the sanitary 

sewer. Liquid wastes may also be 

disposed of by use of ion exchangers, 

decay in storage, solidification, or 

transfer to an appropriate waste 

management facility. Discharge of liquid 

waste to the sanitary sewer requires the 

approval of the Reactor Radiation 

Protection Office (RRPO) to ensure that 

discharges meet the requirements of 10 

CFR 2.2003. Prior to discharge, a waste 

sample is analyzed for gross alpha-beta, 

tritium, and isotopic content to ensure 

the concentrations of radionuclides in 

the liquid meet the limits in 10 CFR Part 

20, Appendix B, Table 3 for releases to 

sewers. A sewer discharge pump is 

located within the restricted area for the 

discharge of liquid waste to the sewer 

system. The discharge path is from the 

liquid waste storage tanks into a 

filtration system, through a radiation 

monitor for continuous monitoring, and 

then to the sewer. Discharges reported 

in the licensee’s annual reports indicate 

an annual average release of 0.08 

milliCuries (mCi) of radionuclides other 

than tritium. Reported annual releases 

have not exceeded 0.21 mCi. This 

demonstrates compliance with the 

annual release limit of 1 Ci specified in 

10 CFR 20.2003(a)(4) for radionuclides 

other than tritium. These radionuclides 

were discharged at an annual average 

concentration of 0.54E-8 ûCi/ml, with 

no monthly average concentration 

exceeding 9.3E-8 ûCi/ml. As mentioned 

above, the licensee performs appropriate 

sampling to ensure releases of liquid 

mixtures of radionuclides meet the 

release criteria in 10 CFR 20.2003. 

Tritium discharges reported in the 

licensee’s annual reports indicate an 

annual average release of 240 

milliCuries (mCi) at an average 

concentration of 1.91E-5 ûCi/ml. The 

maximum monthly concentration 

released during the past 5 years was 

2.19E-4 ûCi/ml. These releases 

demonstrate compliance with the 

annual limit of 5 Ci specified in 10 CFR 

20.2003(a)(4) and the monthly average 

concentration limit of 1.0E-2 ûCi/ml for 

disposal of tritium by releases to sewers 

specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, 

Table 3. Due to the nature of the liquid 

waste sources, quantities of liquid 

wastes should not increase significantly 

as a result of the increase in maximum 

steady-state power level. Because the 

licensee samples all liquid wastes prior 

to discharge and continuously monitors 

the wastes during discharge, the 

licensee’s liquid waste discharge 

program is adequate to ensure that all 

releases will remain within the 

applicable regulatory limits. 

The licensee classifies solid low-level 

radioactive wastes generated at the 

MITR–II as either wet or dry waste. Wet 

waste includes filters and ion exchange 

resins. Dry waste includes ventilation 

filters and contaminated materials such 

as paper, cloth, metals, and other items 

used for routine facility operations. 

Solid waste may also include reactor 

components and experiment materials. 

Solid waste management is divided into 

four processes: Collection, pretreatment, 

solidification, and packing. According 

to the licensee, volume reduction 

methodologies are applied to all 

processes and solid wastes are stored 

onsite for decay. After solid waste is 

processed, it is sent to a designated 

waste facility in accordance with all 

applicable regulations. Solid radioactive 

releases reported in the licensee’s 

annual reports for the last 5 years 

totaled 1127 mCi. 

The reactor fuel and heavy-water are 

supplied by the Department of Energy 

(DOE). The DOE is responsible for 

disposing of the spent fuel and the 

heavy-water. To comply with the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, MIT 

has entered into a contract with DOE 

that provides that DOE retain title to the 

fuel utilized at the MITR–II and that 

DOE is obligated to take the fuel from 

the site for final disposition. The 

licensee prepares the spent fuel for 

shipment in accordance with the 

applicable regulations in 10 CFR parts 

71 and 73, and U.S. Department of 

Transportation regulations. Heavy-water 

is likewise treated and stored in the 

facility until DOE transfers it to a DOE 

storage facility or to a processing 

facility. 

Personnel exposures at the facility are 

well within the limits set by 10 CFR 

20.1201, and ALARA. Doses to 

personnel are monitored under a 

program that meets the requirements of 

10 CFR 20.1501. The RRPO records and 

tracks all personnel radiation exposures. 

Data reported in the licensee’s annual 

reports indicates that most personnel 

receive an annual dose of less than 1 

mSv (100 mrem), with many of the 

personnel doses being below the 

detectable level. Data reported in the 

licensee’s annual reports indicates that 

the maximum personnel dose is 

typically less than 7.5 mSv (750 mrem) 

per year, and no personnel have 

received a dose greater than half the 

occupational limit of 50 mSv (5,000 

mrem) specified in 10 CFR 20.1201. The 

licensee maintains air sampling, area 

radiation monitoring, and bioassay 

programs to further monitor potential 

radiation hazards and exposures to 

personnel. The licensee does not expect 

the increase in reactor power level to 

cause a proportional increase in 

personnel doses. However, even with a 

20 percent increase, personnel doses 

will remain well below the regulatory 

limit and the licensee’s radiation 

protection program should continue to 

keep personnel doses ALARA. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61223 

The licensee conducts an 

environmental monitoring program to 

record and track the potential 

radiological impact of MITR–II 

operation on the surrounding 

environment. The RRPO administers the 

program and maintains the appropriate 

records in accordance with 10 CFR 

20.2103. The program includes monthly 

exposure measurements at locations on 

the restricted area boundary and control 

locations. The program also includes 

quarterly exposure measurements and 

continuous monitoring using GeigerMueller tube detectors at five locations 

approximately 0.40 kilometers (0.25 

miles) from the site boundary. The 

measurements are representative of 

potential public radiation doses from 

the release of gaseous effluents from the 

facility. Over the past five years, the 

environmental monitoring program 

indicated that radiation exposures at the 

monitoring locations were less than 0.01 

mSv (1 mrem) per year. Based on the 

NRC staff’s review of the past five years 

of data, the NRC staff concludes that the 

potential radiological impact of 

operation of the MITR–II on the 

surrounding environment is a small 

fraction of the regulatory limits. Any 

changes in radiological impact due to 

the increase in reactor power are 

expected to be minimal, and the 

potential radiological impact will 

remain a small fraction of the regulatory 

limits. 

Environmental Effects of Accidents 

Accident scenarios are discussed in 

Chapter 13 of the MITR–II SAR. The 

maximum hypothetical accident is the 

release of the fission products contained 

in four fuel plates to the reactor coolant, 

the containment building, and 

ultimately the uncontrolled 

environment. The licensee 

conservatively calculated doses to 

facility personnel and the maximum 

potential dose to a member of the 

public. NRC staff performed 

independent calculations to verify that 

the doses represent conservative 

estimates for the MHA. As discussed in 

the NRC staff’s safety evaluation, the 

worst case fission product source term 

will not result in occupational doses or 

doses to members of the general public 

in excess of the limits specified by 10 

CFR part 20. 

II. Non-Radiological Impacts 

The MITR–II core is cooled by a light 

water primary system consisting of the 

reactor tank, a heat removal system, and 

a coolant cleanup system. Cooling 

occurs by forced or natural convection, 

with the heated coolant rising out of the 

core and into the bulk tank water. The 

primary system transfers heat to the 

secondary system via heat exchangers. 

The secondary system also contains heat 

exchangers to remove heat from other 

reactor systems at the MITR–II. The 

secondary system coolant is 

continuously monitored for 

radioactivity using redundant radiation 

detectors, and the coolant is sampled for 

radioactivity daily during reactor 

operation. 

Losses of secondary coolant due to 

evaporation and system discharge to the 

sewer (blowdown) are replaced using 

water from the local city water supply. 

According to the licensee, daily 

secondary coolant losses are 

approximately 7,000 gallons due to 

system blowdown and an average of 

30,000 gallons due to evaporation 

during reactor operation. This is a small 

percentage of the approximate 2.7 

million gallons used campus-wide by 

MIT per day. The increase in licensed 

power level may proportionally increase 

the facility water usage, but the total 

facility water usage will remain a small 

percentage of the campus-wide water 

usage. Given that the proposed action 

does not involve a significant increase 

in water usage, the NRC staff concludes 

that the proposed action will not have 

a significant impact on the local water 

supply. 

Heat is transferred from the secondary 

system to the atmosphere via cooling 

towers rated at 10 MW(t) total heat 

dissipation capacity. During reactor 

operation at 6 MW(t), the heat 

dissipation would be comparable to that 

at local factories and other MIT 

laboratories. Neither extensive heat drift 

nor fog will occur at this heat 

dissipation rate. A small amount of heat 

may be discharged to the sewer during 

blowdown of the cooling towers. 

However, the small amount of heat 

dissipated in this manner is insufficient 

to raise average water temperatures in 

the surrounding environment. Based on 

the above considerations, the NRC staff 

concludes that the proposed action will 

not have a significant thermal impact on 

the surrounding environment. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Considerations 

NRC has responsibilities that are 

derived from NEPA and from other 

environmental laws, which include the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), Coastal 

Zone Management Act (CZMA), 

National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act (FWCA), and Executive Order 12898 

Environmental Justice. The following 

presents a brief discussion of impacts 

associated with these laws and other 

requirements. 

I. Endangered Species Act 

Federally- or State-protected species 

have not been found in the vicinity of 

the MITR–II. Effluents and emissions 

from the MITR–II have not had an 

impact on critical habitat. 

II. Coastal Zone Management Act 

The MITR–II is not located within any 

managed coastal zones, nor would the 

MITR–II effluents and emissions impact 

any managed coastal zones. 

III. National Historic Preservation Act 

The NHPA requires Federal agencies 

to consider the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties. The 

National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) lists two historical sites located 

near the MIT campus, the North Avenue 

Congregational Church and the New 

England Confectionery Company 

Factory. According to the NRHP, the 

locations of these sites are 

approximately 100 meters (300 feet) 

from the MITR–II. Given the distance to 

these sites and that the proposed action 

does not involve any demolition, 

rehabilitation, construction, changes in 

land use, or significant changes in 

effluents from the facility, continued 

operation of the MITR–II will not 

impact any historic sites. Based on this 

information, the NRC finds that the 

potential impacts of license renewal 

would have no adverse effect on historic 

properties. The NRC staff informed the 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) of this finding, and the SHPO 

concurred with the NRC finding. 

IV. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

The licensee is not planning any 

water resource development projects, 

including any of the 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. 

V. Executive Order 12898— 

Environmental Justice 

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 MITR–II. Such effects may 

include human health, biological, 

cultural, economic, or social impacts. 

Minority and low-income populations 

are subsets of the general public 

residing in the vicinity of the research 

reactor, and all are exposed to the same 

health and environmental effects 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
61224 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 

generated from activities at the MITR– 

II. 

Minority Populations in the Vicinity 

of the MITR–II—According to 2000 

census data, 18.1 percent of the 

population (approximately 6,472,000 

individuals) residing within a 50-mile 

radius of the MITR–II identified 

themselves as minority individuals. The 

largest minority group was Hispanic or 

Latino (approximately 438,000 persons 

or 6.8 percent), followed by Black or 

African American (approximately 

397,000 persons or about 6.1 percent). 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 

about 16.4 percent of the Middlesex 

County population identified 

themselves as minorities, with persons 

of Asian origin comprising the largest 

minority group (6.9 percent). According 

to census data 3-year average estimates 

for 2006–2008, the minority population 

of Middlesex County, as a percent of 

total population, had increased to 20.1 

percent. 

Low-Income Populations in the 

Vicinity of the MITR–II—According to 

2000 census data, approximately 

106,300 families and 575,000 

individuals (6.6 and 8.9 percent, 

respectively) residing within a 50-mile 

radius of the MITR–II were identified as 

living below the Federal poverty 

threshold in 1999. The 1999 Federal 

poverty threshold was $17,029 for a 

family of four. 

According to Census data in the 

2006–2008 American Community 

Survey 3-Year Estimates, the median 

household income for Massachusetts 

was $64,684, while 10.0 percent of the 

state population and 7.1 percent of 

families were determined to be living 

below the Federal poverty threshold. 

Middlesex County had a higher median 

household income average ($77,373) 

and lower percentages (7.4 percent) of 

individuals and families (4.9 percent) 

living below the poverty level, 

respectively. 

Impact Analysis—Potential impacts to 

minority and low-income populations 

would mostly consist of radiological 

effects, however radiation doses from 

continued operations associated with 

the license renewal are expected to 

continue at near current levels, and 

would be well below regulatory limits. 

Based on this information and the 

analysis of human health and 

environmental impacts presented in this 

EA, the proposed relicensing would not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health and 

environmental effects on minority and 

low-income populations residing in the 

vicinity of the MITR–II. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to license renewal, 

the NRC staff considered denial of the 

proposed action. If the Commission 

denied the application for license 

renewal, facility operations would end 

and decommissioning would be 

required. The NRC staff notes that, even 

with a renewed license, the MITR–II 

will eventually be decommissioning, at 

which time the environmental effects of 

decommissioning will 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 reactor 

operations would reduce or eliminate 

radioactive effluents and emissions. 

However, as previously discussed in 

this environmental assessment, 

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 

MITR–II. If the Commission denied the 

request for an increase in the licensed 

maximum steady-state power level, 

effluent releases and emissions would 

remain at the current levels. As 

discussed in this EA, the increase in 

power level should not result in a 

significant increase in effluent releases, 

and all releases will remain a small 

fraction of the applicable regulatory 

limits. Therefore, the environmental 

impacts of the increase in the licensed 

maximum steady-state power level and 

denial of the request are similar. 

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. 10 to 

Facility Operating License No. R–37 for 

the MITR–II dated July 23, 1975, which 

approved operation of a modified 

reactor core at a maximum power level 

of 5 MW(t). 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with the agency’s stated 

policy, on July 22, 2010, the NRC staff 

consulted with the State Liaison Officer 

regarding the environmental impact of 

the proposed action. The consultation 

involved a thorough explanation of the 

environmental review, the details of this 

environmental assessment, and the NRC 

staff’s findings. The State official stated 

the he understood the NRC review and 

had no comments regarding the 

proposed action. The NRC staff also 

informed the SHPO of the potential 

impact of the proposed action on 

historic resources. As previously 

mentioned, the SHPO concurred with 

the NRC determination that license 

renewal and the increase in licensed 

power level would have no adverse 

effect on historic properties in the 

vicinity of the MITR–II. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter 

dated July 8, 1999 (ML080950435), as 

supplemented by letters dated February 

10 (ML003683419, ML052900533, 

ML053190234, and ML053190384), and 

May 8, 2000 (ML081000625), January 

29, 2004 (ML081000626), July 5 

(ML061930319) and October 11, 2006 

(ML063340716), January 26, 2007 

(ML070320555), February 22 

(ML081000627), May 29 

(ML081560246), August 15 

(ML082350069), August 21 

(ML082401050), August 26 

(ML082470562), October 6 

(ML082900488), October 7 

(ML082910241), and December 1, 2008 

(ML083430006), May 26 

(ML091540202), August 27 

(ML092450427), October 5 

(ML092930273), October 9 

(ML092930278), and November 19, 2009 

(ML093290155), and March 30 

(ML100970368), August 6 

(ML102310032), and August 26, 2010 

(ML102440122). Documents may be 

examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the 

NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), 

located at One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. Publicly available records 

will be accessible electronically from 

the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the NRC 

Web site http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. Persons who do not 

have access to ADAMS or who 

encounter problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS should 

contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, or 301–415–4737, or 

send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices 61225 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day 

of September 2010. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Jessie Quichocho, 

Chief, Research and Test Reactors Licensing 

Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24809 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–397; NRC–2010–0029] 

Energy Northwest; Columbia 

Generating Station Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

changes to the Emergency Plan, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54, ‘‘Conditions 

of licenses,’’ paragraph (q), for Facility 

Operating License No. NPF–21, issued 

to Energy Northwest (EN, the licensee) 

for operation of the Columbia 

Generating Station (CGS), located in 

Benton County, Washington. Therefore, 

as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC 

performed an environmental 

assessment. Based on the results of the 

environmental assessment, the NRC is 

issuing a finding of no significant 

impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would revise the 

Emergency Plan to support U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) nonintrusive surveillance and 

characterization activities within the 

618–11 High-Level Waste Burial Ground 

(618–11). The 618–11 site is an 8-acre 

parcel located on DOE property that is 

directly adjacent to land leased by EN 

from the DOE, and is located wholly 

within CGS’s Exclusion Area Boundary. 

The site was used from 1962 through 

1967 and contains low- to high-activity 

waste, fission products, some 

plutonium-contaminated waste, and 

toxicological waste. The DOE intends to 

remediate 618–11 and other waste 

burial ground locations on the Hanford 

Site. The licensee proposes to modify 

the Emergency Plan to address interagency coordination, cooperation, and 

responsibilities for potential 618–11 site 

events and to add specific emergency 

action level criteria and actions 

associated with any potential toxic, 

flammable, or radioactive material 

release from an abnormal event at the 

618–11 site that could pose a threat to 

the health and safety of licensee staff or 

visitors within the CGS exclusion area. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

April 28, 2010 (Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS) Accession No. 

ML101250340), as supplemented by 

letter dated August 9, 2010 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML102300537). 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The 618–11 site is an 8-acre parcel 

located on DOE property that is directly 

adjacent to land leased by EN from the 

DOE, and is located wholly within 

CGS’s Exclusion Area Boundary. The 

site was used from 1962 through 1967 

and contains low- to high-activity waste, 

fission products, some plutoniumcontaminated waste, and toxicological 

waste. The Hanford Federal Facility 

Agreement and Consent Order between 

the DOE, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, and the State of 

Washington, is the legal document that 

binds DOE to milestones to remediate 

the 618–11 site, among other waste 

burial ground locations, on the Hanford 

Site. The non-intrusive surveillance and 

characterization activities will obtain 

data and information necessary for 

planning future intrusive activities and 

remediation strategies. The licensee 

proposes to modify the Emergency Plan 

to address inter-agency coordination, 

cooperation, and responsibilities for 

potential 618–11 site events during the 

DOE’s non-intrusive surveillance and 

characterization activities and to add 

specific emergency action level criteria 

and actions associated with any 

potential toxic, flammable, or 

radioactive material release from an 

abnormal event at the 618–11 site that 

could pose a threat to the health and 

safety of licensee staff or visitors within 

the CGS exclusion area. 

The NRC has completed its evaluation 

of the proposed action and concludes 

that the proposed changes to the CGS 

Emergency Plan meet the standards of 

10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of 

Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 and 

provide reasonable assurance that the 

licensee will take adequate protective 

measures in a radiological emergency. 

The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be 

provided with the license amendment 

that will be issued to the licensee 

approving the changes to the Emergency 

Plan. 

In its application, the licensee also 

requested changes to the CGS Final 

Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The 

NRC staff’s determination regarding the 

proposed changes to the FSAR will be 

provided by separate correspondence. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its 

environmental assessment of the 

proposed Emergency Plan changes to 

CGS. The staff has concluded that the 

changes would not significantly affect 

plant safety and would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the 

probability of an accident occurring. 

The proposed action would not result in 

an increased radiological hazard beyond 

those previously analyzed in the Final 

Safety Analysis Report. There will be no 

change to radioactive effluents that 

affect radiation exposures to plant 

workers and members of the public. No 

changes will be made to plant buildings 

or the site property. Therefore, no 

changes or different types of 

radiological impacts are expected as a 

result of the proposed changes. 

The proposed action does not result 

in changes to land use or water use, or 

result in changes to the quality or 

quantity of non-radiological effluents. 

No changes to the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System permit 

are needed. No effects on the aquatic or 

terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the 

plant, or to threatened, endangered, or 

protected species under the Endangered 

Species Act, or impacts to essential fish 

habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no 

impacts to the air or ambient air quality. 

There are no impacts to historical and 

cultural resources. There would be no 

noticeable effect on socioeconomic 

conditions in the region. Therefore, no 

changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are 

expected as a result of the proposed 

action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes 

that there are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the staff considered denial of the 

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’ 

alternative). Denial of the application 

would result in no change in current 

environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for CGS dated 

December 1981. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES