[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5841-5843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2750]


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

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 construction of Closure Cell No. 2 for onsite 
disposal of waste contaminated with depleted uranium (DU) and the 
remediation of the contaminated areas of the facility in Lima, Ohio.

Environmental Assessment Summary

Proposed Action

    In connection with decontaminating and decommissioning its Lima, 
Ohio facility, the licensee is proposing to construct and use an onsite 
disposal cell, under 10 CFR Part 20.2002, at its facility in Lima, 
Ohio, for disposal of the wastes with DU concentrations up to the 
Option 2 limit in NRC's 1981 Branch Technical Position (1981 BTP): 
``Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium or Uranium Wastes from Past 
Operations'' (46 FR 52061). The licensee will dispose of soils, debris, 
and sludge currently located in SWMU 102 (Solid Waste Management Unit 
102), and AN-1 (Acrylo Nitrile-1) and containerized areas in the onsite 
disposal cell. The disposal will be in lined Closure Cell No. 2, 
designed and constructed according to the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA) criteria.

Need for Proposed Action

    The proposed action is necessary to complete disposal of existing 
DU contaminated materials from the pond

[[Page 5842]]

areas and for the disposal of wastes generated during remediation of 
SWMU 102, AN-1, and containerized areas.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff reviewed the levels of contamination, the proposed 
remediation and decommissioning methods, the licensee'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 bioassayed 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.
    The licensee proposed to perform decommissioning 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. The 
licensee also proposed disposal of the wastes contaminated with DU 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 DU.
    The staff analyzed the radiological impacts to the public from the 
disposal of sludge, soils, and debris contaminated with DU in the 
proposed onsite 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 could also be exposed to 
radiation as a result of the onsite 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 remediation activities, the potential 
radiological consequences of accidents were considered.
    The licensee provided an estimate of the dose to the public from 
airborne effluents generated during the remediation activities and 
onsite disposal. During normal remediation activities, the licensee and 
the NRC staff expect airborne concentrations to be minimal, because the 
sludges and soils will be handled in a moist state.
    Liquids discharged to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
permitted deep well injection system will have concentrations less than 
the US EPA's proposed drinking water limits for uranium, and would 
result in doses less than 0.057 mSv/yr (5.7 mrem/yr) to individuals 
hypothetically consuming 2 liters of this water each day.
    The licensee performed dose assessments for Closure Cell No. 2 
using RESRAD computer code, Version 5.62. 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 their drinking water from an onsite water well. The NRC 
staff verified the licensee's analyses. These dose assessments include 
the scenario 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.
    During the remediation and placement of the waste into Closure Cell 
No. 2, 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). 
Based on a project schedule of approximately 52 weeks, 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 exposure of persons 
living or traveling near the site will be well within limits contained 
in NRC's regulations and will be small in comparison to natural 
background radiation.
    The licensee and the NRC staff also evaluated the radiological 
impacts from potential accidents. The predicted maximum exposure to a 
member of the public (licensee 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 waste is 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 such as 
chemical, socioeconomic, air quality, land use, and water quality, and 
concluded that all such impacts are negligible.
    The NRC staff examined the distribution of minority and low-income 
communities near the BPC site in accordance with NRC internal guidance. 
Based on the data and the NRC's internal guidance, there is no 
potential for environmental justice issues based on race, or income 
level because the percentage of minorities or low-income households in 
the study area does not exceed the State or County percentage by 20 
percent or more. 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 licensee's site. The 
staff concludes that there are no environmental justice issues at the 
licensee's 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;
     On-site closure (with caps);
     Disposal at a commercial disposal site without treatment;

[[Page 5843]]

     Disposal at a commercial disposal site with treatment;
     On-site temporary storage followed by off-site permanent 
disposal at a future, commercial disposal site;
     On-site permanent disposal under 10 CFR Part 20.2002 
(BPC's preferred option).
    The advantages and disadvantages of these alternatives, are 
described in the Environmental Assessment available in the Public 
Document Room.

Conclusions

    The onsite permanent disposal under 10 CFR Part 20.2002 (the 
licensee's preferred option) consists of removing the contaminated 
material, and disposing of the materials in Closure Cell No. 2 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 will be insignificant. 
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 decommissioning and on-site disposal project 
is $18.26 million.
    The NRC staff concludes that there are no reasonably available 
alternatives to the licensee's preferred action that are obviously 
superior.

Agencies and Persons Consulted, and Sources Used

    This environmental assessment 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 Significant 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 dated August 2, 1996, and BPC's 
responses dated September 17, 1996, February 2, 1998, and June 19, 
1998, to the NRC comments; and (2) the complete Environmental 
Assessment. The documents are available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20555.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of January 1999.
    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. 99-2750 Filed 2-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P