There is no reasonable alternative to the full decommissioning and disassembly of the retired SM-1 nuclear power reactor at Fort Belvoir, Va., according to the Army Corps of Engineers.
The Army Corps on Monday announced the release of the final environmental assessment, finding of no significant impact, and finding of no practicable alternative for the upcoming job.
“The Proposed Action has been thoroughly reviewed by USACE and it has been determined that it will have no significant adverse effects on the local environment or quality of life that would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement” under federal regulations, according to the document.
The Army Corps remains on track to issue the contract for the decommissioning in September, with the vendor mobilizing to the site in early 2021, Brenda Barber, project manager at the Environmental and Munitions Design Center in the Army Corps’ Baltimore District, wrote in a Monday morning update.
Decommissioning is scheduled for completion in 2025. The work will involve decontamination of facilities, dismantlement of the reactor facility and other structures, packaging and removal of waste, and remediation of the area.
The SM-1 reactor was active from 1957 to 1973. It was the first pressurized water reactor to be connected to the power grid in the United States, but was used primarily for training. Following deactivation, it has been in safe-storage mode (SAFSTOR) since 1974.
The reactor must be decommissioned within six decades of permanent closure, per the Army Corps’ Deactivated Nuclear Power Plant Program.
The only other decommissioning alternative considered was no action, with the Army Corps continuing to maintain the reactor.
“Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts were evaluated for water resources; air quality; biological resources; radiological safety and health; occupational safety and health; cultural resources; transportation and traffic; non‐radiological hazardous materials and non‐hazardous solid waste; and geology, topography, and soils,” the assessment says. “Neither Alternative would have significant adverse impacts on these resources.”
