20548 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 1996 / Notices

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert A. Nelson,

Acting Chief, Low-Level Waste and

Decommissioning Projects Branch, Division

of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 96–11293 Filed 5–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Environmental Assessment Finding of

No Significant Impact Related to

Amendment to Materials License No.

SUB–908 BP Chemicals, Inc., Lima, OH

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is considering issuing an

amendment to Materials License No.

SUB–908, held by BP Chemicals, Inc.

(BPC), to authorize the remediation,

decommissioning and construction of

the mixed waste pond closure project at

its facility in Lima, Ohio.

On November 19, 1991, NRC

published a notice of Consideration of

Amendment to BPC’s License and

Opportunity for Hearing (56 FR 58406).

There was no response to that notice.

Environmental Assessment Summary

Proposed Action

The proposed action is as proposed by

the licensee in a second revised

application dated February 7, 1994,

which supplemented the initial

application dated August 15, 1991, and

the first revision dated February 28,

1992. In this action, BPC is proposing to

use onsite disposal, under 10 CFR Part

20.2002, at its facility in Lima, Ohio, to

dispose of the mixed waste with

concentrations up to the Option 2 limit

in NRC’s 1981 Branch Technical

Position (1981 BTP) on ‘‘Disposal or

Onsite Storage of Thorium or Uranium

Wastes from Past Operations’’ (46 FR

52061). Materials to be disposed of are

currently located in surface

impoundments, hereinafter called

ponds, that contain sludges

contaminated with mixed wastes. The

disposal will be in up to three lined

closure cells designed and constructed

according to the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA) criteria.

Need for Proposed Action:

The proposed action is necessary to

remediate the existing depleted uranium

contamination and to decommission the

ponds containing the radioactive

wastes. Onsite disposal is proposed to

accomplish the objectives of the

remediation and decommissioning.

Based on the advantages and

disadvantages of the five other

alternatives investigated, BPC

concluded that the 10 CFR Part 20.2002

disposal option is the preferred choice.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action:

The NRC staff reviewed the levels of

contamination, the proposed

remediation and decommissioning

methods, BPC’s preferred disposal

option, and the radiological and

environmental controls that will be used

during the remediation and

decommissioning. These controls

include the as low as is reasonably

achievable (ALARA) program, worker

dosimetry, a bioassay program for

workers, air monitoring, routine

surveys, and routine monitoring of both

airborne and liquid effluent releases to

meet 10 CFR Part 20 radiation

protection requirements. Worker and

public doses will be limited so that

exposures will not exceed 10 CFR Part

20 requirements.

BPC proposed to remediate the

contaminated sludge ponds in

accordance with ‘‘Guidelines for

Decontamination of Facilities and

Equipment Prior to Release for

Unrestricted Use or Termination of

Licenses for Byproduct, Source, and

Special Nuclear Materials,’’ dated

August 1987. BPC also proposed to

dispose of the depleted uraniumcontaminated mixed wastes in the

RCRA-designed onsite closure cells, in

accordance with the 1981 BTP. Based

on uranium solubility testing of the

mixed wastes, the maximum depleted

uranium concentration that is

acceptable for disposal in the closure

cells is 11.1 Bq/gm (300 pCi/gm) total

depleted uranium.

The staff also analyzed the

radiological impacts to the public from

the disposal of depleted uraniumcontaminated sludges and soils in the

proposed on-site closure cells.

Radiological impacts on members of the

public could result from inhalation and

ingestion of releases of radioactivity in

air and in water during the remediation

operations, and direct exposure to

radiation from radioactive materials at

the site during remediation operations.

The public will also be exposed to

radiation as a result of the on-site

disposals in the closure cells.

Decommissioning workers will receive

doses primarily by ingestion, inhalation

and direct exposure during the

remediation activities. In addition to

impacts from routine operations, the

potential radiological consequences of

accidents were considered.

The BPC provided an estimate of the

dose to the public from airborne

effluents to be generated during the

remediation activities associated with

the pond closure project. During normal

operations, the licensee expects airborne

concentrations to be minimal, because

the sludges and soils will be handled in

a wet state. NRC staff agrees with this

assessment.

Liquids discharged to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

permitted deep well injection system

will have concentrations less than the

EPA proposed drinking water limits for

uranium, and will result in doses less

than 0.057 mSv/yr (5.7 mrem/yr) to

individuals hypothetically, consuming

this water.

The BPC performed dose assessments

for two of the three closure cells using

RESRAD computer code, Version 5.05.

The RESRAD computer code estimates

radiation dose impacts assuming a

resident-farmer scenario, where an

individual would live in a residence on

the site, grow food, and consume all

drinking water from a water well. The

NRC staff verified BPC’s analyses and

obtained similar results to BPC’s. These

dose assessments include the worst-case

scenarios, with the proposed cover over

the closure cells assumed to have been

removed. The predicted doses are less

than NRC’s limit of 1 mSv/yr (100

mrem/yr) for radiation doses to the

public in 10 CFR Part 20. NRC staff

considers that, if a third closure cell is

constructed, the dose assessment results

of the two closure cells will envelope

the dose impacts of the third closure

cell.

During the remediation of the waste

from the ponds and placement of the

waste into the closure cells, workers

will receive doses from direct exposure

and from the inhalation of airborne

depleted uranium. The maximum

estimated direct exposure is for workers

standing on the contaminated soil from

the ponds. The estimated exposure is

4.0E–05 mSv/hr (4.0E–03 mrem/hr).

Assuming a 2000-hour work year, the

maximally exposed worker would

receive an annual dose of 0.08 mSv/yr

(8 mrem/yr). The resulting dose is a

small fraction of the 50 mSv/yr (5000

mrem/yr) limit for workers (routine

occupational exposure) in 10 CFR Part

20.

Based on the above evaluations,

radiation exposures, of persons living or

traveling near the site, caused by onsite

operations, will be well within limits

contained in NRC’s regulations and will

be small in comparison to natural

background radiation. The licensee has

a radiation protection program that will

maintain radiation exposures and

effluent releases within the limits of 10

CFR Part 20, and will maintain

exposures ALARA.

BPC and the NRC staff also evaluated

the radiological impacts from potential

accidents. The predicted maximum
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 1996 / Notices 20549

exposure to a member of the public

(BPC employee not involved in the

remediation project) from an accident

scenario would be 0.07 mSv (7 mrem)

internal exposure. This potential

exposure would result when a truck,

transporting contaminated soil, tipped

over, spread fuel over the spilled soil,

and caught fire. The exposed individual

was assumed to be standing downwind

of the accident at the controlled access

area boundary. The calculated dose is a

small fraction of the annual dose limit

to the public of 1.0 mSv/yr (100 mrem/

yr) in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff

verified these calculations used by the

licensee.

The predicted maximum exposure to

a worker from an accident scenario,

other than the above truck accident,

would be 7.7E–04 mSv (7.7E–02 mrem).

This is based on an explosion of the pug

mill mixer, where the worker was

immersed in a ‘‘contaminated’’ cloud of

suspended sludge for 10 seconds while

leaving the immediate area of the

explosion. This resultant exposure is a

small fraction of the 50 mSv/yr (5000

mrem/yr) annual exposure limit for

radiation workers and would not

significantly add to the worker’s annual

exposure. The NRC staff verified

calculations used by the licensee.

Because no wastes are expected to be

shipped offsite to a licensed low-level

waste disposal site, there are no

expected impacts from the

transportation or offsite disposal of

radioactive materials.

The NRC staff also considered

nonradiological impacts and concluded

that all such impacts are negligible.

The NRC staff examined the

distribution of minority and low-income

communities near the BPC site. Based

on the data, there is no potential for

environmental justice issues because of

race, because no minority exceeds 20

percent of the total population. Because

the site represents an insignificant risk

to the public health and safety, and the

human environment, any residual

radioactivity left at the site is not

expected to disproportionately impact

minority or low income populations

near the BPC site. The staff concludes

that no environmental justice potential

occurs at the BPC site.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Six alternatives were investigated that

resulted in the selection of onsite

disposal as the recommended and

preferred option by BPC. They are:

• No action;

• Pond water treatment only;

• Disposal at an existing commercial

low-level radioactive waste disposal

site;

• On-site temporary storage followed

by off-site permanent disposal at a

future, commercial low-level radioactive

waste disposal site;

• Treatment of the mixed waste to

remove the hazardous constituents and

disposal of the remaining low-level

radioactive waste at a commercial lowlevel radioactive waste disposal site;

• On-site disposal under 10 CFR Part

20.2002 (BPC’s preferred option).

The advantages and disadvantages of

these alternatives, are described in the

EA.

Conclusions

The onsite permanent disposal under

10 CFR Part 20.2002 (the BPC’s

preferred option) consists of removing

and stabilizing the contaminated

material, and disposing of the wastes in

up to three closure cells designed and

constructed according to the RCRA

criteria. This disposal option complies

with the provisions of 10 CFR Part

20.2002.

The environmental and public health

impacts would be minimized to ALARA

standards. No additional lands are

required. There will be no adverse

impacts caused by off-site waste

transportation because no off-site waste

transport is involved. Also,

occupational exposures will be

minimized. The estimated cost for the

mixed waste pond closure project is $6

million, plus a contingency factor of 25

percent.

The NRC staff concludes that there are

no reasonably available alternatives, to

the BPC’s preferred action, that are

obviously superior.

Agencies and Persons Consulted, and

Sources Used

This EA was prepared entirely by

NRC’s Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards staff in Rockville,

Maryland, and Region III staff in Lisle,

Illinois. Review comments were

solicited on the draft EA from the Ohio

Department of Health, the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency, and

the Allen County Combined Health

District, Lima, Ohio.

Finding of No Siginficant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant impact on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

Additional Information

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see: (1) BPC’s license

amendment application submittals

dated August 15, 1991, February 28,

1992, and February 7, 1994; and (2) the

complete Environmental Assessment.

The documents are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

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

Washington, DC 20555.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day

of May 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert A. Nelson,

Acting Chief, Low-Level Waste and

Decommissioning Projects Branch, Division

of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 96–11291 Filed 5–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Weeks of May 6, 13, 20, and 27,

1996.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of May 6

Friday, May 10

10:00 a.m.

Briefing on Severe Accident Master

Integration Plan (Public Meeting)

(Contact: Themis Speis, 301–415–6802)

11:30 a.m.

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (if

needed)

Week of May 13—Tentative

Monday, May 13

2:00 p.m.

Briefing by Commonwealth Edison (Public

Meeting)

Wednesday, May 15

2:00 p.m.

Briefing on Performance Assessment

Program in HLW, LLW, and SDMP

(Public Meeting)

(Contact: Norman Eisenberg, 301–415–

7285)

3:30 p.m.

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (if

needed)

Week of May 20—Tentative

Wednesday, May 22

10:00 a.m.

Briefing on Status of NRC Operator

Licensing Initial Examination Pilot

Process (Public Meeting)

(Contact: Stuart Richards, 301–415–1031)

11:30 a.m.

Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (if

needed)

2:00 p.m.