46780 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 1997 / Notices

regarding the proposed transactions to

the extent they effect an indirect transfer

of control of the DAEC license. On

February 26, 1997, a notice of

consideration of approval of application

regarding corporate restructuring was

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 8783). An Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact was published in the

Federal Register on May 5, 1997 (62 FR

24515).

Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license shall

be transferred, directly or indirectly,

through transfer of control of the

license, unless the Commission gives its

consent in writing. Upon review of the

information submitted in the letter of

September 27, 1996, and other

information before the Commission, the

NRC staff has determined that the

proposed merger will not affect the

qualifications of IESU as a holder of the

license, and that the transfer of control

of the license, to the extent effected by

the proposed merger, is otherwise

consistent with applicable provisions of

law, regulations, and orders issued by

the Commission, subject to the

conditions set forth herein. These

findings are supported by a Safety

Evaluation dated August 28, 1997.

III

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42

U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and

2234, and 10 CFR 50.80, it is hereby

ordered that the Commission approves

the application regarding the merger

agreement between IESI, WPLH, and

IPC subject to the following: (1) IESU

shall provide the Director of the Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a copy of

any application, at the time it is filed,

to transfer (excluding grants of security

interests or liens) from IESU to its

parent or to any other affiliated

company, facilities for the production,

transmission, or distribution of electric

energy having a depreciated book value

exceeding 10 percent of IESU’s

consolidated net utility plant, as

recorded on IESU’s books of account;

and (2) should the merger not be

completed by June 30, 1998, this Order

shall become null and void unless, upon

application and for good cause shown,

this date is extended.

This Order is effective upon issuance.

IV

By October 6, 1997, any person

adversely affected by this Order may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the Order. Any person

requesting a hearing shall set forth with

particularity how such person’s interest

is adversely affected by this Order and

shall address the criteria set forth in 10

CFR 2.714(d).

If a hearing is to be held, the

Commission will issue an order

designating the time and place of such

hearing.

The issue to be considered at any

such hearing shall be whether this

Order should be sustained.

Any request for a hearing must be

filed with the Secretary of the

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered

to the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the

above date. Copies also should be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel and

to the Director, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, and to Alvin H.

Gutterman, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius

LLP, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington,

DC 20036–5869, attorney for IESU.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application dated

September 27, 1996, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the

Cedar Rapids Public Library, 500 First

Street, SE, Cedar Rapids, IA 52401.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of August, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–23472 Filed 9–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70–3085]

Draft Environmental Impact

Statement—Decommissioning of the

Babcock & Wilcox Shallow Land

Disposal Area in Parks Township,

Pennsylvania

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has published a

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) regarding the proposed

decommissioning of the Babcock &

Wilcox (B&W) Shallow Land Disposal

Area (SLDA) in Parks Township,

Pennsylvania. This DEIS describes and

evaluates the potential environmental

impacts of B&W’s proposed approach to

decommissioning the radiologically

contaminated waste. The B&W preferred

approach would allow radioactive

material to remain on-site. The wastes

would be stabilized by installing an

engineered cover system and a system of

hydrologic barriers and controls

surrounding the trench areas to provide

groundwater protection. The coal mine

underlying the SLDA would be

stabilized by injecting grout into the

voids under the trenches to prevent

subsidence. Institutional controls would

be required in perpetuity to prevent

inadvertent intrusion into the waste.

The DEIS evaluates the radiological and

nonradiological impacts associated with

the B&W proposed action and four

alternative actions, including no action.

Based on the evaluations in this DEIS,

the staff’s preliminary conclusion is that

another alternative, modified

stabilization in-place, would protect

public health and the environment and

would be less costly than the other

alternatives. This alternative would

include institutional controls and

backfilling of the coal mine, but the

engineered barriers and cap would not

be implemented. For any of the

alternatives, off-site impacts would be

low and no off-site dose is expected.

The DEIS is a preliminary analysis of

the environmental impacts of B&W’s

proposed approach and alternative

actions. The issuance of a final EIS, and

any NRC decisionmaking based on a

final EIS, will not be made until public

comments on the DEIS are received and

evaluated.

DATES: Written comments on the DEIS

should be received at the address listed

below by December 15, 1997. Comments

received after this date will be

considered if it is practical to do so, but

NRC is able to assure consideration only

for comments received on or before this

date.

To the extent practicable, NRC staff

will grant reasonable requests for

extensions of time for comment up to

fifteen (15) days.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to

David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Mail Stop T–6D59,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001. Deliver

comments to 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am

and 4:15 pm, Federal workdays.

Copies of comments received may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington,

DC 20555. A single copy of the DEIS
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 1997 / Notices 46781

(NUREG–1613) may be requested by

those considering public comment by

writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Printing and Graphics

Branch, Washington, DC 20555–0001. A

copy of the DEIS is available for

inspection and/or copying in the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L St. NW.,

Washington, DC 20555–0001. A copy is

being made available for public

inspection at the local Public Document

Room in the Apollo Memorial Library,

219 North Pennsylvania Avevue,

Apollo, Pennsylvania 15613; telephone

number (412) 478–4214.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Phyllis Sobel, Low-Level Waste and

Decommissioning Projects Branch, Mail

Stop T7F–27, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20555–0001. Telephone 301–415–

6714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC has

prepared a DEIS that evaluates the

environmental impacts and alternatives

associated with B&W’s proposed action

to decommission radiologically

contaminated wastes in trenches at the

SLDA. NRC noticed its intent to prepare

an EIS on the decommissioning of the

SLDA facility in Parks Township,

Pennsylvania (59 FR 67344) on

December 29, 1994, and conducted a

public meeting to obtain comments on

the intended scope of the EIS in

Leechburg, Pennsylvania, on January 26,

1995.

Until 1970, the SLDA at Parks

Township, Pennsylvania, was used for

the disposal of hazardous and low-level

wastes from a nuclear fuel fabrication

facility in nearby Apollo, Pennsylvania.

The materials placed in the trenches

consisted of wastes, scrap and trash.

These disposals were made pursuant to

the requirements of 10 CFR 20.304,

which was in effect at the time. The

radioactive materials in the SLDA

include natural uranium, enriched and

depleted uranium, and lesser quantities

of thorium, americium, and plutonium.

The SLDA is currently owned by

B&W, which maintains the site under an

active NRC license no. SNM–2001 for

use in possession, storage, monitoring,

and characterization of the SLDA. B&W

intends to decommission the site as part

of license termination activities. The

site requires decommissioning because

it contains activities higher than NRC

regulations allow for release of the

property for unrestricted use and

termination of the license. The site is

listed in NRC’s Site Decommissioning

Management Plan because it warrants

special NRC oversight to ensure safe and

timely decommissioning.

B&W’s preferred approach to

decommissioning would allow

radioactive material to remain on-site.

The wastes would be stabilized by

installing an engineered cover system

and a system of hydrologic barriers and

controls surrounding the trench areas to

provide groundwater protection. The

coal mine underlying the SLDA would

be stabilized by injecting grout into the

voids under the trenches to prevent

subsidence. Institutional controls would

be required in perpetuity to prevent

inadvertent intrusion into the waste.

Because the licensee’s proposed

decommissioning alternative would

allow radioactive material to remain onsite and the quantities of materials in

some areas would exceed existing

radiological criteria for

decommissioning for unrestricted

release, approval of the licensee’s

proposal requires the preparation of an

EIS in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act and NRC’s

implementing requirements in 10 CFR

part 51.

The DEIS evaluates the radiological

and nonradiological impacts associated

with the B&W proposed action

(stabilization in-place) and four

alternative actions (no action, disposal

off-site, stabilization on-site, and

modified stabilization in-place). Under

the no action alternative, wastes in the

SLDA would be retained in their current

configuration within the trenches

without any additional processing,

stabilization, or controls. This

alternative is analyzed in the EIS to

provide a baseline for comparison with

the other alternatives; however, the no

action alternative cannot be considered

because the on-site doses exceed NRC’s

criteria for unrestricted use and thereby

require institutional controls. Disposal

off-site would involve excavating all

wastes, treating the waste, as necessary,

to meet disposal facility acceptance

criteria, and shipping the waste to an

off-site facility licensed for disposal. No

wastes would remain in the trenches at

the site after remediation, but

contaminated soil and rock that are

below NRC and EPA cleanup limits

would remain on-site. Under the

stabilization on-site alternative, all

wastes would be excavated, treated, and

stored in a newly constructed on-site

disposal cell. Under NRC’s staffdeveloped alternative, modified

stabilization in-place, institutional

controls and backfilling of the coal mine

would be used, but the engineered

barriers and cap would not be

implemented.

The DEIS assesses the impacts of the

B&W proposed action and the four

alternative actions for socioeconomics,

land use, cultural resources, geology, air

quality, water quality, human health,

biological resources, and wetlands.

Additionally an analysis and

comparison of the costs and benefits of

each alternative has been performed.

The analyses indicate that the

radioactive and chemical contaminants

at the SLDA, in their current condition

(i.e., no action alternative) would leach

extremely slowly from the trenches and

would be heavily diluted to near

background levels both by groundwater

and by surface water. For any of the

alternatives, off-site impacts would be

low and no off-site dose is expected.

Based on the evaluations in this DEIS,

the staff’s preliminary conclusion is that

modified stabilization in-place would

protect public health and the

environment and would be less costly

than the other alternatives. Since the

uranium is highly immobile, the barriers

proposed in the stabilization in-place

alternative are not needed to prevent

migration. The air quality and noise

impacts of the modified stabilization inplace alternative would be similar but

not as large as those for the stabilization

in-place alternative in that there will be

some construction on-site for the mine

stabilization and erosion controls

around Dry Run. However, the air

quality and noise impacts would be less

because the cap, slurry wall, and grout

curtain would not be built and

construction times would be much

shorter than for stabilization in-place.

Human health impacts of the modified

stabilization in-place alternative would

be similar to those for stabilization inplace. The costs for modified

stabilization in-place would be about 31

percent of the cost for stabilization inplace, but slightly greater

(approximately $7 million) than no

action because of costs associated with

mine stabilization and institutional

controls. The stabilization on-site

alternative would offer no advantages.

The disposal off-site alternative would

allow the SLDA property to be released

for unrestricted use, but there would be

increased risks associated with the

removal and processing of the material

from the trenches.

The principal health concern related

to leaving wastes on-site would be the

effects of possible future human

intrusion directly into the waste. Direct

intrusion into the waste could be

prevented by continuing institutional

controls on the site in perpetuity. Under

the modified stabilization in-place

alternative, institutional controls would

be used to: (1) Prevent people from
46782 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 171 / Thursday, September 4, 1997 / Notices

intruding into the trenches or living on

the site; (2) provide for a maintenance

program to maintain the soil cap in its

present condition and to prevent any

erosion of the cap caused by runoff or

headward erosion of Dry Run; and (3)

provide for a monitoring program to

continue monitoring the wells on-site to

ensure off-site doses continue to be

negligible.

NRC is offering an opportunity for

public review and comment on the DEIS

in accordance with NRC requirements

in 10 CFR 51.73, 51.74, and 51.117. Any

comments of Federal, State, and local

agencies, Indian tribes, or other

interested parties will be made available

for public inspection when received.

The DEIS is a preliminary analysis of

the environmental impacts of B&W’s

proposed approach. The issuance of a

final EIS, and any NRC decisionmaking

based on a final EIS, will not be made

until public comments on the DEIS are

received and evaluated. NRC staff will

review the comments, conduct any

necessary analyses, and make

appropriate revisions in developing the

final EIS on the decommissioning of the

SLDA facility in Parks Township,

Pennsylvania. NRC anticipates

completing the EIS on this facility in

1998; however, this schedule may need

to be adjusted during the review of

public comments.

NRC is also arranging a public

meeting on the DEIS to be held in the

vicinity of Parks Township,

Pennsylvania, during the public

comment period in the fall of 1997. The

meeting will consist of an overview of

the DEIS and an opportunity for the

NRC to hear any public comments on

the DEIS. NRC will announce the date

and location for this meeting in a

subsequent Federal Register notice in

advance of the public meeting.

Opportunity for a Hearing

Pursuant to the Commission’s rules in

10 CFR part 2, subpart L, an opportunity

for a hearing is hereby offered with

respect to the licensee’s proposed

action, stabilization in place, or any

alternative described in the DEIS that

the licensee may include in a request to

amend its license to incorporate a

decommissioning plan. Pursuant to

§ 2.1205(a), any person whose interest

may be affected by the licensee’s

decommissioning actions (the

‘‘proceeding’’) may file a request for a

hearing in accordance with § 2.1205(c).

A request for a hearing must be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of

publication of this Federal Register

notice.

The request for a hearing must be

filed with the Office of the Secretary

either:

1. By delivery to the Rulemakings and

Adjudications staff, Office of the

Secretary at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD

20852–2738; or

2. By mail or telegram addressed to

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications staff.

In addition to meeting other

applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part

2 of the NRC’s regulations, a request for

a hearing filed by a person other than

an applicant must describe in detail:

1. The interest of the requester in the

proceeding;

2. How that interest may be affected

by the results of the proceeding,

including the reasons why the requester

should be permitted a hearing, with

particular reference to the factors set out

in § 2.1205(g);

3. The requester’s areas of concern

about the proposed activity that is the

subject matter of the proceeding; and

4. The circumstances establishing that

the request for a hearing is timely in

accordance with § 2.1205(c).

In accordance with 10 CFR

§ 2.1205(e), each request for a hearing

must also be served, by delivering it

personally or by mail, to:

1. The licensee, B & W Nuclear

Environmental Services, Inc., 2220

Langhorne Road, P.O. Box 10548,

Lynchburg, VA 24506–0548 Attention:

Mr. Philip R. Rosenthal; and

2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the

Executive Director for Operations, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail,

addressed to the Executive Director for

Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of August 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John W. N. Hickey,

Chief, Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning

Projects Branch, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–23475 Filed 9–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards; Procedures for Meetings

Background

This notice describes procedures to be

followed with respect to meetings

conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’s (NRC’s) Advisory

Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS) pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act. These

procedures are set forth so that they may

be incorporated by reference in future

notices for individual meetings.

The ACRS is a statutory group

established by Congress to review and

report on applications for the licensing

of nuclear power reactor facilities and

on certain other nuclear safety matters.

The Committee’s reports become a part

of the public record.

The ACRS meetings are conducted in

accordance with the Federal Advisory

Committee Act; they are normally open

to the public and provide opportunities

for oral or written statements from

members of the public to be considered

as part of the Committee’s information

gathering process. ACRS reviews do not

normally encompass matters pertaining

to environmental impacts other than

those related to radiological safety.

The ACRS meetings are not

adjudicatory hearings such as those

conducted by the NRC’s Atomic Safety

and Licensing Board Panel as part of the

Commission’s licensing process.

General Rules Regarding ACRS

Meetings

An agenda is published in the Federal

Register for each full Committee

meeting. There may be a need to make

changes to the agenda to facilitate the

conduct of the meeting. The Chairman

of the Committee is empowered to

conduct the meeting in a manner that,

in his/her judgment, will facilitate the

orderly conduct of business, including

making provisions to continue the

discussion of matters not completed on

the scheduled day on another meeting

day. Persons planning to attend the

meeting may contact the Chief of the

Nuclear Reactors Branch, ACRS, prior to

the meeting to be advised of any

changes to the agenda that may have

occurred. This individual can be

contacted (telephone: 301/415–7364)

between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.,

Eastern Time.

The following requirements shall

apply to public participation in ACRS

full Committee meetings:

(a) Persons wishing to submit written

comments regarding the agenda items