[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 131 (Monday, July 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35571-35574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16787]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket 70-364]


Babcock and Wilcox Company; Parks Township Facility; Director's 
Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, has taken action with regards to the 
remaining issues (Sections Q and X) referred to the Commission's 
Executive Director for Operations, by the Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board, in its Initial Director's Decision, dated January 3, 1995, 
Babcock and Wilcox Company (Pennsylvania Nuclear Service Operation 
Parks Township, PA), LBP-95-1, 41 NRC 1, 35 (1995). Section Q was 
interpreted as a request that the NRC test for radioactive 
contamination in the general vicinity of Kepple Hill and Riverview in 
Parks Township, and Section X was interpreted as a request 

[[Page 35572]]
for the NRC to investigate radiological contamination on the Farmers 
Delight Dairy Farm. Notice of Receipt of Petition for Director's 
Decision under 10 CFR 2.206, dated March 3, 1995, was published in the 
Federal Register on March 13, 1995, (60 FR 13478).
    The Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and 
Safeguards has determined, after taking actions with respect to each 
request discussed in the Decision, that no further action by the 
Commission is warranted. The reasons for this Decision are explained in 
the ``Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206'' (DD-95-12), which is 
published below.
    A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c). As 
provided by this regulation, the Decision will constitute the final 
action of the Commission 25 days after the date of issuance of the 
Decision unless the Commission on its own motion institutes a review of 
the Decision within that time.
    A copy of the Petition, Initial Decision, Notice of Receipt of 
Petition for Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206, and other 
documents related to the Petition are available for inspection in the 
NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and 
the Local Public Document Room located at the Apollo Memorial Library, 
219 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, Apollo, Pennsylvania 15613.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day of June 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Malcolm R. Knapp,
Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

I. Introduction

    By Petition dated January 5, 1994, Citizens' Action for a Safe 
Environment (CASE) and the Kiski Valley Coalition To Save Our Children 
(the Coalition) (together referred to as Intervenors or Petitioners) 
filed a joint request for an informal hearing pursuant to 10 CFR Part 
2, Subpart L, with regard to Babcock & Wilcox Company's (Licensee) 
application for renewal of Special Nuclear Material (SNM) License SNM-
414 issued to the Licensee by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC or Commission) for the Pennsylvania Nuclear Service Operations 
facility located in Parks Township, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania 
(Parks Township facility). In a Memorandum and Order dated April 22, 
1994, the Presiding Officer granted the request for hearing and 
admitted the Petitioners as Intervenors.\1\ An informal hearing was 
conducted pursuant to Subpart L of the Commission's procedural 
regulations. In the Initial Decision, dated January 3, 1995, 
authorizing the renewal of the materials license, the Presiding 
Officer, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1205(k)(2), referred to the Commission's 
Executive Director for Operations for consideration, as a request for 
action under 10 CFR 2.206, 12 areas of concern raised in that 
proceeding by the Intervenors.\2\ These concerns were referred to my 
office for review. Each of these concerns were reviewed with respect to 
the requirements of 10 CFR 2.206. Two concerns \3\ (Sections Q and X) 
were found to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 2.206. On March 7, 
1995, a latter was sent to the Intervenors acknowledging the treatment 
of the Intervenors' Sections Q and X as requests for action under 10 
CFR 2.206.\4\

    \1\ Babcock and Wilcox Company (Pennsylvania Nuclear Service 
Operations, Parks Township, PA), LBP-94-12, 39 NRC 215 (1994).
    \2\ Id., LBP-95-1, 41 NRC 1, 35 (1995).
    \3\ As the Commission recently noted, there were three concerns 
(Sections Q, R, and X). However, one of the concerns (Section R) was 
included within Section Q. See Babcock and Wilcox Company 
(Pennsylvania Nuclear Service Operations, Parks Township, PA), CLI-
95-04, slip op. at 7 (April 26, 1995), 41 NRC ____.
    \4\ In the acknowledgement letter it was noted that the other 
concerns (Sections B, H, I, M, P, S, T, U, W, and Y) had been 
addressed by the Commission staff in affidavits of Michael A. 
Lamastra and Heather M. Astwood. These affidavits were submitted to 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Subpart L proceeding on 
September 22, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section Q has been interpreted as a request for the Commission to 
test for radioactive contamination in the general vicinity of Kepple 
Hill and Riverview in Parks Township. The apparent concern is that this 
area is downwind of the Apollo facility, which the Intervenors assert 
had been releasing radioactivity at a rate above regulatory limits. The 
Intervenors rely on letters dated April 20, 1966, and May 26, 1969, 
concerning the need for experimental data for an air surveillance 
program at the Apollo plant and authorization by the Commission's 
predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), for the discharge of 
radioactive materials in concentrations exceeding 10 CFR Part 20 
limits.
    Section X has been interpreted as a request for the Commission to 
investigate radiological contamination on the Farmers Delight Dairy 
Farm (apparently located in Parks Township). The apparent concern is 
that past operations of the Parks Township facility caused radioactive 
contamination of the farm. As basis for this request, the Intervenors 
assert that there is information in a 1966 U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) study that indicates that the cattle on the farm 
were having thyroid problems and that radionuclides were showing up in 
the cows' milk.
    I have completed my evaluation of the matters raised by the 
Intervenors and have determined that, for the reasons stated below, no 
further action by the Commission is warranted.

II. Background

    The Nuclear Material and Equipment Company (NUMEC) began operations 
at the Apollo and Parks Township facilities in the late 1950s. The 
Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) purchased the stock of NUMEC in 1967. 
In 1971, Babock & Wilcox (B&W) purchased NUMEC and is the current owner 
of the Apollo and Parks Township facilities.
    The primary function of the NUMEC Apollo facility was the 
conversion of low-enriched (less than 5 wt. percent U-235) uranium 
hexafluoride to uranium oxide for use in fuel for light-water-moderated 
power reactors and to produce high-enriched (> 93 wt. percent U-235) 
nuclear fuel material for use in naval reactors. The B&W Apollo 
facility ceased manufacturing nuclear fuel in 1983 and has completed 
site decommissioning. The Commission staff expects to terminate the 
Apollo facility license in 1995.
    The primary function of the NUMEC Parks Township facility was the 
fabrication of plutonium fuel, the preparation of high-enriched uranium 
fuel, and the production of zirconium/hafnium bars. The Parks Township 
facility ceased fuel fabrication activities in 1980 and is currently 
conducting decontamination and refurbishment of nuclear reactor 
components and equipment. The Parks Township license was last renewed 
on May 16, 1984, with an expiration date of May 31, 1989, and the 
license is currently under timely renewal.\5\

    \5\ The Commission on April 26, 1995, denied the Intervenors' 
petition for review of the Presiding Officer's January 3, 1995, 
Initial Decision (License Renewal), LBP-95-1 (``Initial Decision''). 
The staff expects to renew the license in 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The NRC staff has evaluated the Intervenors' two requests for 
action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. The evaluation and my disposition for 
each request are discussed below.
    1. Test for radioactive contamination in the general vicinity of 
Kepple Hill and Riverview areas in Parks Township.
    The Intervenors' request is based on their interpretation of 
letters dated April 20, 1966, and May 26, 1969, from Roger D. Caldwell, 
Manager, Health, Safety 

[[Page 35573]]
and Licensing, of NUMEC concerning the need for experimental data for 
an air surveillance program at the NUMEC Apollo plant\6\ and 
authorization by the Atomic Energy Commission for the discharge of 
radioactive materials in concentrations exceeding 10 CFR Part 20 
limits.\7\

    \6\ One of the sub-areas of concern accepted as an issue in the 
informal hearing was ``[w]hether B&W Management practices as 
manifested by the management of the Apollo facility threaten offsite 
releases of radiation from the Park Township facility.'' LBP-94-12, 
39 NRC, 215, 222-23 (1994).
    \7\ Prior to January 1994, NRC regulations for radioactivity in 
effluents to unrestricted areas were contained in 10 CFR 20.106. The 
current requirements are found in 10 CFR 1302. 10 CFR 20.106(a) 
limited radioactivity in air effluents to unrestricted areas to less 
than those listed in Appendix B, Table II, except as authorized in 
10 CFR 20.106(b). 10 CFR 20.106(b) allowed licensees to propose 
limits higher than those specified in 10 CFR 20.106(a), if certain 
conditions were met. 10 CFR 20.106(d) clarified that the limits 
listed in Appendix B, Table II, apply at the boundary of the 
restricted area and not at the stack discharge point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By application dated November 13, 1968, and supplement dated March 
5, 1969, and pursuant to 10 CFR 20.106(b), NUMEC requested that License 
SNM-145 be amended to permit concentrations up to 100 times the limits 
specified in Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, in any stack effluent, 
provided that concentrations at the roof edge and in the local 
environment complied with 10 CFR Part 20 limits. By License Amendment 
31, dated May 26, 1969, the AEC authorized NUMEC to discharge 
radioactive material from any stack, in concentrations up to 100 times 
the values specified in Appendix B, Table II, of 10 CFR Part 20\8\ 
subject to the following conditions:

    \8\ The values set forth in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 
II, are the regulatory limits applicable at the site boundary, not 
at the stack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Concentrations of radioactive material measured by the 
continuously operating air samplers positioned at the plant roof 
perimeter shall not exceed the values specified in Appendix B, Table 
II, of 10 CFR Part 20; and
    (b) an environmental air sampling program shall be conducted in the 
neighboring unrestricted areas\9\ of the plant.

    \9\ 10 CFR 20.1003 defines ``unrestricted area'' as ``... an 
area, access to which is neither limited nor controlled by the 
licensee.'' Prior to January 1, 1994, an unrestricted area was 
defined as ``... any area access to which is not controlled by the 
licensee for purposes of protection of individuals from exposure to 
radiation and radioactive materials, and any area used for 
residential quarters.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, even though NUMEC was authorized to discharge at the 
stack up to 100 times the value specified in Appendix B, Table II, 
NUMEC was still required to meet the limits at the site boundary (see 
footnote 8). Moreover, NUMEC was required to meet these same values at 
the plant roof perimeter.
    To evaluate the Intervenors' concern about the alleged 
contamination in the general vicinity of the Kepple Hill and Riverview 
areas of Parks Township, the staff estimated the average airborne 
uranium concentrations using the results from the environmental 
monitoring program, which was a condition of the License. The NRC staff 
calculated the average airborne uranium concentrations to be 
3.6 x 10-13uCi/cc.\10\ This calculated value is less than one 
tenth of the maximum permissible concentration in air for insoluble 
uranium-238 and uranium-235; the requirement for unrestricted air 
effluent set forth in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II. 
Accordingly, the releases from the facility were within 10 CFR Part 20 
requirements for unrestricted release and, therefore, were not a safety 
concern.

    \10\ An estimate of the average airborne uranium concentration 
can be calculated using a uranium deposition rate of 20 pCi/
Ft2/week (measured by NUMEC during plant operation) and 
assuming a gravitational settlement rate of 0.001 meters per second.
    The NRC staff also estimated the potential contamination of soil 
outside the plant boundary from facility operations.\11\ Using 
conservative assumptions, the Commission staff calculated a maximum 
concentration of 12 pCi per gram of soil. This is less than the 
Commission's current release criteria for uranium.\12\

    \11\ An estimate of the soil uranium concentration can be 
calculated using a uranium deposition rate of 20 pCi/Ft2/week 
(measured by NUMEC during plant operation) and assuming a 1cm depth, 
a soil density of 1.5g cm-3, and a 15-year operating period at 
Apollo.
    \12\ The current release criteria for uranium, which is 30 pCi 
per gram, is set forth in the Commission's ``Branch Technical 
Position'' (BTP) published in the Federal Register, October 23, 
1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff also reviewed environmental radiation 
monitoring data collected during the facility's period of operation. 
Environmental radiation monitoring has been conducted at the Apollo 
site since 1968. Monitoring programs included measurements of 
radioactive materials in the environment (river water, and sediment, 
air, soil, and vegetation) and thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) 
measurements of direct radiation in the environment. Radiological 
monitoring stations have been active in the Apollo facility area for as 
long as three decades, monitoring the Allegheny and Kiskiminetas Rivers 
and various tributaries, as well as other surface waters and ground 
water. These include Commission, State, and B&W stations. Based on its 
review of this data, the Commission staff concludes that operation of 
the Apollo facility did not result in any significant changes to normal 
background levels outside the immediate site area.
    The Commission staff also reviewed the results of an aerial 
radiological survey to measure gamma radiation \13\ levels in the area 
of the Apollo facility. At the request of the Commission, the survey 
was conducted by EG&G Energy Measurement Group from June 15-19, 1981. 
The survey data identified only background levels of radiation.

    \13\ Gamma radiation is electromagnetic photons originating from 
the nucleus of an atom. Gamma rays are similar to x-rays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the Commission staff calculated the potential airborne 
uranium concentration and potential contamination of soil, reviewed the 
environmental monitoring and aerial radiological survey data, and 
concluded that the radioactive releases from the Apollo facility have 
been within regulatory limits and have not resulted in concentrations 
of radioactivity in the soil greater than the NRC release criteria 
stated in the Branch Technical Position (see footnote 12). In reaching 
this conclusion, the staff took into account the fact that in 1969, the 
AEC authorized NUMEC to release at the stack, radioactive materials in 
concentrations up to 100 times the values (applicable at the site 
boundary) listed in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20. The Intervenors' 
request that the Commission test for radiological contamination in the 
general vicinity of Kepple Hill and Riverview in Parks Township is 
granted to the extent of the review described above. However, the 
Intervenors have failed to raise any substantial health or safety 
issues. Therefore, no further action is warranted.
    2. Investigate potential radiological contamination on the Farmers 
Delight Dairy Farm located in the vicinity of the Parks Township 
facility.
    In its request for the Commission to investigate radiological 
contamination on the Farmers Delight Dairy Farm, the Intervenors assert 
that information contained in a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
report entitled NUMEC-1966 indicates that cattle on the farm are having 
thyroid problems and that radionuclides are showing up in the cows' 
milk. The Intervenors indicate that the report was read to them over 
the telephone by a reference librarian at the USDA Library in 
Beltsville, Maryland. The Intervenors also assert that the report 
``vanished'' from that Library.
    To evaluate the NUMEC-1966 report, the Commission staff searched 
its files, 

[[Page 35574]]
requested both B&W and ARCO to search their files, and requested the 
USDA to check its files for a copy of the report. No copy was found. 
However, the USDA did confirm that the only copy in its system was 
missing from the USDA Beltsville, Maryland, library. It was also 
determined that NUMEC-1966 was not a USDA report but a NUMEC-published 
document. The Commission staff again searched its files and requested 
that B&W and ARCO search their files for a NUMEC report entitled NUMEC-
1966. Again, no copy was found.
    Since the Commission staff was unable to evaluate the NUMEC-1966 
report, the staff reviewed environmental radiation monitoring data 
collected from the area of the Parks Township facility. Environmental 
radiation monitoring has been conducted at the Parks Township site 
since 1969. The monitoring program includes measurements of radioactive 
materials in the environment (air, soil, and vegetation) and TLD 
measurements of direct radiation in the environment. These include 
Commission, State, and B&W monitoring stations. The NRC staff has also 
taken soil samples from private residences and other locations in the 
Parks Township area.\14\ The NRC staff has reviewed the environmental 
monitoring data, including the soil samples, and concluded that there 
has been no significant increase in background levels outside of the 
immediate site area of the Parks Township facility. The Intervenors' 
request that the Commission investigate potential radiological 
contamination on the Farmers Delight Dairy Farm is granted to the 
extent of the review described above. The Intervenors have, however, 
failed to raise a substantial health or safety concern; therefore, no 
further action is warranted.

    \14\ The NRC soil sampling results were reported in NRC combined 
Inspection Reports Nos. 70-135/93-01 and 70-364/93-02; 70-135/93-02 
and 70-364/93-03; 70-135/93-03 and 70-364/93-04; 70-135/94-01 and 
70-364/94-01; and 70-135/94-02 and 70-364/94-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    The institution of proceedings pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 is 
appropriate only where substantial health and safety issues have been 
raised. See Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Units 1, 
2, and 3), CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173, 175-76 (1975), and Washington Public 
Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD-84-7, 19 NRC 899, 
923 (1984). This is the standard that I have applied to determine 
whether the actions requested by the Intervenors are warranted. Since 
no substantial health and safety issues have been raised by the 
Intervenors and for the reasons discussed above, no basis exists for 
taking any further action in response to the requests beyond that 
described above. Accordingly, in this matter, the Commission is taking 
no further action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
    As provided by 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be 
filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review. 
The Decision will become the final action of the Commission 25 days 
after issuance unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a 
review of the Decision.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of June, 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Malcolm R. Knapp,
Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 95-16787 Filed 7-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M