[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20548-20549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11291]



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


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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 uranium-
contaminated 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 uranium-contaminated 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

[[Page 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 low-level 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