[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18155-18159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8704]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Decommissioning of the Depleted Uranium Impact Area of the 
Jefferson Proving Ground, Madison, IN; Notice of Intent To Prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement and To Conduct a Scoping Process

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS), conduct a scoping process for the EIS, and conduct a scoping 
meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The NRC intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
for the decommissioning of the depleted uranium (DU) impact area (the 
Delta Impact Area) of the Jefferson Proving Ground (JPG), Madison, 
Indiana. The DU impact area was used by the U.S. Army, during the 
period of 1983-1994, to perform testing of DU projectiles and munitions 
in accordance with NRC License No. SUB-1435. The U.S. Army has 
requested an exemption (under 10 CFR 40.14) from NRC requirements in 10 
CFR 40.4 to allow termination of the license with land use restrictions 
on the Delta Impact Area. This notice is to inform the public and any 
concerned parties of NRC's intent to prepare an EIS in conjunction with 
this proposed action and to conduct a scoping process that will include 
a public scoping meeting.

DATES: Written comments on matters covered by this notice received by 
June 9, 1995 will be considered in developing the scope of the EIS. 
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical 
to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments 
received on or before this date. A public scoping meeting will be held 
at the Madison Junior High School cafetorium located on 701 Eighth 
Street, Madison, Indiana. The scoping meeting will be held on April 26, 
1995, from 7 to 10 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the matters covered by this notice or 
the scoping meeting should be sent to: Rules Review and Directives 
Branch, [[Page 18156]] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555. Hand deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., on Federal workdays.
    The scoping meeting will be held on April 26, 1995, at 7 p.m., in 
the cafetorium of the Madison Junior High School, 701 Eighth Street, 
Madison, Indiana, 47250.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Boby Eid, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, 
DC 20555, Telephone: (301) 415-5811.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the statutory 
responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, for 
protection of public health and safety and the environment related to 
the use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material. Part of 
this responsibility is to ensure safe and timely decommissioning of the 
nuclear facilities which NRC licenses. This responsibility includes 
providing guidance to licensees on how to plan for and prepare their 
sites for decommissioning.
    Decommissioning, as defined in the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 
40.4, for example, means to remove nuclear facilities safely from 
service and to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits 
release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the 
license. Once licensed activities have ceased, licensees are required, 
in existing NRC regulations, to decommission their facilities so that 
their licenses can be terminated and the property can be released in 
accordance with NRC requirements. Radioactive materials in buildings, 
equipment, soil, groundwater, and surface water resulting from the 
licensed operation need to be reduced to acceptably low levels that 
allow the property to be released. Licensees must then demonstrate by a 
site radiological survey that residual radioactive material in all 
facilities and environmental media has been properly reduced or 
eliminated and that, except for any residual radioactive material found 
to be acceptable to remain at the site, radioactive material has been 
transferred to authorized recipients. Confirmatory surveys are 
conducted by NRC, where appropriate, to verify that sites meet NRC 
radiological criteria for decommissioning.

Need for Proposed Action

    The Jefferson Proving Ground (JPG) is currently listed in the NRC's 
Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) because it contains a 
relatively extensive amount of soil contaminated with DU. In addition, 
the residual DU contamination could potentially cause contamination of 
groundwater and surface water onsite. The JPG site covers 55,264 acres 
that were used to evaluate and test ammunition and components from 1941 
to 1994. An extensive portion of the site contains unexploded ordnance 
(UXO) from testing. A portion of the site was used, from 1983 to 1994, 
for testing of depleted uranium (DU) penetrators and DU munitions in 
accordance with the NRC license granted to the U.S. Department of the 
Army, Jefferson Proving Ground, on December 16, 1983. The Army 
received, stored, and fired DU munitions at the site. Approximately 
100,000 kg of DU penetrators were fired from three positions designated 
J, 500 center, and K5. The majority of DU penetrators (89,000 kg) were 
fired from the 500 center position.
    The DU impact area (Delta Impact Area) is the area where DU 
penetrators, or their fragments, eventually stopped after being fired 
from one of the three positions several miles down range. This area 
constitutes approximately 3,000 acres located in the south-central 
portion of JPG. In addition to the penetrators, the area also contains 
abundant UXOs from testing ordnance that did not contain uranium. The 
DU penetrators were fired at ``soft'' targets (e.g., cloth) and 
eventually came to rest on top of or in the soil. Some of the 
penetrators are embedded in trees or were deposited in streams on the 
site. Many of the penetrators remained intact and appear as straight or 
bent metal rods. Some fraction of the penetrators probably fragmented 
upon impact into rocks, soil, and trees. The Army was able to recover 
around 30,000 kg of the fired DU. DU penetrators (un-fired and 
recovered) were stored in buildings and facilities at the site located 
south of JPG firing line.
    The Army is currently the owner of the JPG site. However, in 
accordance with the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base 
Realignment and Closure Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-526), the Army is 
required to close JPG no later than September 30, 1995.
    As part of the mandatory closure of JPG, the Army informed the NRC, 
in a letter dated February 16, 1995, of its intent to terminate that 
portion of the license for all areas located south of JPG firing line 
in a manner consistent with the unrestricted reuse criteria in 
accordance with 10 CFR 40.42. The Army has performed remediation and 
decontamination activities in buildings and facilities south of the 
firing line and has recently submitted a final radiological survey 
report, which is currently under review by NRC staff. NRC intends to 
conduct a confirmatory survey of that portion of the site prior to 
removing it from the license and releasing it for unrestricted use.
    The Army also requested an exemption (under 10 CFR 40.14) from the 
requirements to allow termination of the license and release of the DU 
impact area with restrictions on future land use. This request was 
based upon a potential high risk due to the presence of high 
concentrations of UXOs in the DU impact area, the risks associated with 
accidental detonation of the UXOs in any remediation activity to 
recover the DU penetrators, the high cost of remediation, and the 
potential for environmental damage. The Army and the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) are currently discussing potential inclusion 
of approximately 47,000 acres of JPG site into the National Wildlife 
Refuge System, which would encompass the Delta Impact Area containing 
the DU penetrators. The Army has indicated its belief that the 
restricted termination of the Delta Impact Area would be compatible 
with the future use of the land as a wildlife refuge.
    The Army has performed environmental monitoring of soil, surface 
water, and groundwater in and around the Delta Impact Area. 
Environmental samples were collected semi-annually or quarterly from 
such environmental media. More recently, the Army conducted a scoping 
survey of the Delta Impact Area. The Army removed DU penetrators that 
could be safely detected and collected during the scoping survey. 
Detailed characterization (e.g., sampling and radiological analysis) of 
subsurface soil of the DU Impact Area was not conducted due to a 
possible risk from the UXOs.
    The NRC has determined that approval of the Army's request would 
constitute a major federal action and, therefore, warrants preparation 
of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the NRC's implementing 
requirements in 10 CFR part 51. The Army's request for an exemption 
without any further remediation or cleanup, may involve radiological 
and non-radiological risks to humans and the environment resulting from 
direct exposure to DU [[Page 18157]] material on site or from 
subsequent migration of DU via groundwater or surface water. In 
addition, this action may constitute an irretrievable commitment of 
land resources dedicated for specific use due to the presence of DU 
contamination onsite.
    An estimated 70,000 kg of DU is currently present in the impact 
area. The DU exists in and on the soil as uranium metal or as 
contaminated soil. The DU may also be leaching to some extent from the 
penetrators and migrating into soil around the penetrators. The 
concentration of DU in the soil is expected to exceed NRC's current 
criteria for allowing release of sites for unrestricted use. These 
criteria are listed in NRC's SDMP Action Plan (57 FR 13389; April 16, 
1992). As described in the 1992 Action Plan, the criteria are applied 
on a site-specific basis with emphasis on attaining residual 
contamination levels that are as low as is reasonably achievable 
(ALARA). Further, potential contamination of surface water and 
groundwater cannot be excluded at this stage. In order for the NRC to 
approve termination of the license with land use restrictions or other 
institutional controls, the NRC must ensure that the public and 
environment will be suitably protected both now and in the future.
    In addition to the issues discussed above that fall under NRC's 
jurisdiction, there are other environmental issues associated with the 
decommissioning of JPG that are regulated by other agencies (e.g., the 
Indiana State Department of Environmental Management, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)). EPA and the State of Indiana 
are involved, for example, in overseeing the investigation and 
potential remediation of hazardous and non-radiological contamination 
on site. The scoping process and EIS will not only aid NRC in reaching 
decisions about the decommissioning of JPG, but should also be useful 
to other agencies and stakeholders involved or affected by NRC 
decommissioning decisions.

Description of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would involve termination of the license and 
releasing the Delta Impact Area with land use restrictions, without 
performing any additional remediation of contaminated media. The impact 
area would be used, at least for the foreseeable future, as a wildlife 
refuge. Appropriate institutional controls would be imposed to ensure 
the durability of the land use restrictions. These may involve a 
variety of measures, such as environmental monitoring, fencing, 
patrolling, and posting the area.

Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement

    Under the NEPA, Federal agencies must consider the effect of their 
actions on the environment. Section 102(1) of NEPA requires that the 
policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States be 
interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth 
in NEPA. It is the intent of NEPA to have Federal agencies incorporate 
consideration of environmental issues into their decisionmaking 
processes. NRC regulations implementing NEPA are contained in 10 CFR 
part 51. To fulfill NRC's responsibilities under NEPA, the NRC intends 
to prepare an EIS that will analyze the environmental impacts of the 
proposed action, as well as environmental impacts of alternatives to 
the proposed action and the costs associated with both the proposed 
action and the alternatives. All reasonable alternatives to the 
proposed action will be analyzed. The planned scope of the EIS includes 
consideration of radiological and non-radiological (e.g., UXOs) impacts 
associated with the alternative actions.
    This notice announces the NRC's intent to prepare an EIS. The 
principal intent of the EIS is to provide a document describing 
environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives. The 
document will inform the Agency's decisionmakers in reviewing the 
licensee's remediation proposal and request for an exemption for the 
restricted release of the DU impact area at JPG.

The Scoping Process

    The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR part 51 contain requirements 
for conducting a scoping process prior to preparation of an EIS. In 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, whenever the NRC determines that an EIS 
will be prepared in connection with a proposed action, NRC will publish 
a notice of intent in the Fedeal Register stating that an EIS will be 
prepared and will conduct an appropriate scoping process. In addition, 
this scoping process may include a public scoping meeting. NRC also 
describes, in 10 CFR 51.27, the content of the notice of intent and 
requires that the notice describes the proposed action and also, to the 
extent that sufficient information is available, the possible 
alternatives. The notice of intent should also describe the proposed 
scoping process, including the role of participants, whether written 
comments will be accepted, and whether a public scoping meeting will be 
held.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 51.26 and 51.27, the proposed action and 
possible alternative approaches are discussed below. The role of 
participants in the scoping process for this EIS includes the 
following:
    (1) Participants may attend and provide oral or written comments on 
the proposed action and possible alternatives at the public scoping 
meeting at the Madison Junior High School cafetorium, 701 Eighth 
Street, Madison, IN, on April 26, 1995, from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.; and
    (2) The Commission will also accept written comments on the 
proposed action and alternatives. Written comments should be submitted 
by June 9, 1996, and should be sent to: Rules Review and Directives 
Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Hand 
deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland between 
7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
    According to 10 CFR 51.29, the scoping process is to be used to 
address the topics which follow. Participants may make written 
comments, or verbal comments at the scoping meeting, on the following 
(current preliminary NRC staff approaches with regard to each topic are 
included for information):

(a) Define the Proposed Action To Be the Subject of the EIS

    The proposed action and alternatives are: (1) Restricted release 
without remediation, (2) Partial DU remediation, (3) Complete DU 
remediation, and (4) No Action. NRC will consider the designated ``No 
Action'' alternative for comparison with the other alternatives.

(b) Determine the Scope of the EIS and the Significant Issues To Be 
Analyzed in Depth

    The NRC is proposing to analyze the costs and impacts associated 
with the proposed action and the proposed alternative decommissioning 
approaches. The following outline of the EIS reflects the current NRC 
staff views on the scope and major topics to be dealt with in the EIS:

Proposed Outline: Environmental Impact Statement:

    Abstract
    Executive Summary
    Table of Contents

 1. Introduction

    1.1  Background
    1.2  Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
    1.3  Description of Proposed Action
    1.4  Approaches in Preparation of the Draft EIS [[Page 18158]] 
    1.5  Structure of the Draft EIS

2. Alternatives including the Proposed Action

    2.1  Factors Considered in Evaluating Alternatives
    2.2  Alternatives
    2.3  Regulatory Compliance

3. Affected Environment

    3.1  Introduction
    3.2  Description of the JPG DU Impact Area
    3.3  Land Use
    3.4  Geology/Seismicity
    3.5  Meteorology and Hydrology
    3.6  Ecology
    3.7  Socioeconomic Characteristics
    3.8  Radiation
    3.9  UXOs
    3.10  Cultural Resources
    3.11  Other Environmental Features

4. Decommissioning Alternatives Analyzed and Method of Approach for the 
Analysis

    4.1  General Information on Approach and Method of Analysis of 
Decommissioning Alternatives
    4.2  Alternatives Considered--Each of the alternatives 
represents an alternative decommissioning approach.

    (a) Alternative 1, Restricted Release without DU Remediation 
[Licensee's Proposed Action]. The Delta Impact Area would be 
released with land use restrictions compatible with the use of the 
area as a wildlife refuge. The depleted uranium contamination would 
be allowed to remain on site in the Delta Impact Area in excess of 
NRC's radiological criteria for decommissioning (e.g., 35 picoCuries 
DU per gram of soil). Additional remediation of the DU contamination 
would not be required. Appropriate institutional controls would be 
imposed to ensure the durability of the land use restrictions. These 
may involve a variety of measures, such as environmental monitoring, 
fencing, patrolling, and posting the area.
    (b) Alternative 2, Partial DU Remediation. The top one foot of 
the soil in the Delta Impact Area would be remediated to remove DU 
contamination in excess of NRC's radiological criteria for 
decommissioning. Any radioactive waste generated in the remediation 
would be disposed of at a licensed disposal facility for low-level 
radioactive waste. Institutional controls would be imposed to 
restrict access to the Delta Impact Area; these controls would be 
compatible with the future intended use of the area as a wildlife 
refuge, as described in proposed action (i);
    (c) Alternative 3, Complete DU Remediation. The soil and other 
environmental media (e.g., vegetation, surface water) in the Delta 
Impact Area would be remediated to remove DU contamination in excess 
of NRC's radiological criteria for decommissioning. Any radioactive 
waste generated in the remediation would be disposed of at a 
licensed disposal facility for low-level radioactive waste. 
Institutional controls would not be necessary to prevent 
unacceptable radiological risks to the public because the DU 
contamination would be suitably reduced in accordance with NRC 
requirements in the Delta Impact Area. However, some controls may 
still be necessary to protect against the hazards associated with 
the UXOs;
    (d) Alternative 4, No Action. The DU contamination would be 
allowed to remain onsite in its present configuration without 
additional remediation or land use restrictions. This alternative is 
being included for the purpose of comparison between the benefits 
and impacts associated with the other alternatives.
4.3  Methods of Analysis of Alternatives
    (a) Define a range of alternatives;
    (b) Evaluate the alternatives with respect to:
    (1) The incremental impact to workers, members of the public, 
and the environment, both radiological and non-radiological, 
resulting from each alternative, and
    (2) The costs associated with each regulatory alternative.
    (c) Perform a comparative evaluation of the alternatives based 
on the impacts and costs of each alternative from 4.3(b).

5. Environmental Consequences, Monitoring, and Mitigation

    5.1  Remediation Consequences
    5.2  Monitoring Programs
    5.3  Mitigation Measures
    5.4  Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts
    5.5  Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and 
Long-Term Productivity
    5.6  Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

6. Costs and Benefits Associated with Decommissioning Alternatives

    6.1  General
    6.2  Quantifiable Socioeconomic Impacts
    6.3  The Benefit-Cost Summary
    6.4  Staff Assessment

7. List of Preparers

8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Receiving Copies of the 
Draft EIS

9. References

Appendix A--Reserved for Comments on DEIS
Appendix B--Results of Scoping Process

(c) Identify and Eliminate From Detailed Study Issues which Are Not 
Significant or Peripheral, or Those Which Have Been Covered by Prior 
Environmental Review

    The NRC has not yet eliminated any nonsignificant issues. However, 
NRC is considering elimination of the following issues from the scope 
of this EIS because they have previously analyzed in a Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) (NUREG-0586) and included in an 
earlier rulemaking (53 FR 24018; June 28, 1988):
    (i) Planning necessary to conduct decommissioning operations in a 
safe manner;
    (ii) Assurance that sufficient funds are available to pay for 
decommissioning;
    (iii) The time period in which decommissioning should be completed; 
and
    (iv) Whether facilities should not be left abandoned, but instead 
be remediated to appropriate levels.
    In addition, requirements were recently established in a separate 
rulemaking regarding timeliness of decommissioning for licensed 
facilities regulated under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 (59 FR 36026; 
July 15, 1994). NRC also recently proposed establishing radiological 
criteria for decommissioning, which are supported by a draft GEIS 
(NUREG-1496, 59 FR 43200, August 22, 1994).

(d) Identify any Environmental Assessments of EISs Which Are Being or 
Will Be Prepared That Are Related but Are Not Part of the Scope of This 
EIS

    An Environmental Assessment on the timeliness of decommissioning 
has been prepared as part of a separate rulemaking on decommissioning 
timeliness (59 FR 36026; July 15, 1994). NRC is presently developing a 
GEIS (NUREG-1496) to support the rulemaking which will establish 
generic radiological criteria for decommissioning (59 FR 43200; August 
22, 1994). In addition, NRC is presently developing EISs for 
decommissioning sites owned by the Shieldalloy Metallurigical 
Corporation in Cambridge, OH, and Newfield, NJ; and Babcock and Wilcox 
Shallow Land Disposal Area, Parks Township, PA.
    The Army has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement on the 
transfer of JPG's mission to Yuma Proving Ground, near Yuma, AZ 
(Closure of Jefferson Proving Ground, Indiana and Realignment to Yuma 
Proving Ground, Arizona--Environment Impact Statement (September, 
1991)). In addition, the Army also prepared a Draft EIS for Disposal 
and Reuse of JPG, which was recently announced in the Federal Register 
and is currently under public review (60 FR 15542; March 24, 1995).

(e) Identify Other Environmental Review or Consultation Requirements 
Related to the Proposed Action

    NRC will consult with other Federal, state, and local agencies that 
have jurisdiction over the decommissioning of the JPG. For example, NRC 
has already been coordinating its reviews of decommissioning actions 
with EPA, the State of Indiana, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
other governmental agencies. NRC anticipates continued consultation 
with other [[Page 18159]] agencies, as appropriate, during the 
development of the EIS.

(f) Indicate the Relationship Between the Timing of the Preparation of 
Environmental Analysis and the Commission's Tentative Planning and 
Decision Making Schedule

    NRC intends to prepare and issue for public comment a draft EIS in 
early 1996. The comment period would be for 90 days. The final EIS is 
scheduled for publication in the late 1996. This schedule may be 
impacted by the availability and adequacy of information about the 
site. Subsequent to completion of the final EIS, the NRC would review 
and act on a license amendment from the licensee requesting 
authorization for decommissioning the site. This could include review 
of the decommissioning plan as required in 10 CFR 40.42(c)(2), 
depending upon the outcome of the EIS.

(g) Describe the Means by Which the EIS Will Be Prepared

    NRC will prepare the draft EIS according to the requirements in 10 
CFR Part 51. Specifically, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.71, the draft 
EIS will consider comments submitted to NRC as part of the scoping 
process and will include a preliminary analysis which considers and 
balances the environmental and other effects of the proposed action and 
the alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 
environmental and other effects, as well as any benefits of the 
proposed action, including the environmental, economic, technical, and 
other benefits.
    The EIS will be prepared by the NRC staff. NRC may rely, to some 
extent, on the other NEPA documents prepared by the Army in support of 
the transfer of the JPG mission and the intended reuse of JPG after 
closure. NRC may also seek some technical assistance from one or more 
contractors (e.g., a national laboratory), if there is a need for such 
support. In addition, NRC anticipates requesting specific information 
from the licensee to support preparation of the EIS (e.g., available 
environmental monitoring data, risk assessment for the DU 
contamination, and UXO risks and costs for remediation). Any 
information received from the licensee related to the EIS will be 
available for public review, unless the information is protected from 
public disclosure in accordance with NRC requirements in 10 CFR 2.790.
    In the scoping process, participants are invited to speak or submit 
written comments, as noted above, on any or all of the areas described 
above. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.29, at the conclusion of the 
scoping process, NRC will prepare a concise summary of the 
determinations and conclusions reached, including the significant 
issues identified, and will send a copy to each participant in the 
scoping process as well as place this information in the NRC's Public 
Document Room.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of April 1995.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Michael F. Weber,
Chief, Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects Branch, Division of 
Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 95-8704 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M