94-32083. Decommissioning of Babcock & Wilcox's Shallow Land Disposal Area in Parks Township, PA; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and to Conduct a Scoping Process  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 249 (Thursday, December 29, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-32083]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: December 29, 1994]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
     
    
    Decommissioning of Babcock & Wilcox's Shallow Land Disposal Area 
    in Parks Township, PA; 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), to conduct a scoping process for the EIS, and to conduct a 
    scoping meeting.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The NRC intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
    for the decommissioning of Babcock & Wilcox's (B&W) Shallow Land 
    Disposal Area (SLDA) located in Parks Township, Pennsylvania. The SLDA 
    is an area which was used in the 1960's and 1970's to dispose of 
    radioactively contaminated materials in accordance with the previous 
    requirement at 10 CFR 20.304. NRC rescinded this requirement in 1981. 
    This notice indicates NRC's intent to prepare an Environmental Impact 
    Statement 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 
    February 27, 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 Leechburg Area High School in Leechburg, 
    Pennsylvania, on January 26, 1995 from 7-10 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, 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 in the cafeteria of the Leechburg 
    Area High School, 215 First Street, Leechburg, PA, on January 26, 1995.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Heather Astwood, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 
    Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-415-5819.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the statutory 
    responsibility for protection of public health and safety and the 
    environment related to the use of source, byproduct, and special 
    nuclear material under the Atomic Energy Act. The NRC believes that one 
    portion of this responsibility is to assure safe and timely 
    decommissioning of nuclear facilities which it licenses. This 
    responsibility can be partially fulfilled by 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. This requires that radioactivity in 
    buildings, equipment, soil, groundwater, and surface water resulting 
    from the licensed operation be reduced to acceptably low levels that 
    allow the property to be released for unrestricted use. Licensees must 
    then demonstrate by a site radiological survey that residual 
    contamination in all facilities and environmental media have been 
    properly reduced or eliminated and that, except for any residual 
    radiological contamination 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 SLDA is an area which was used in the 1960's and 1970's to 
    dispose of radioactively contaminated materials in accordance with the 
    regulations found in the now rescinded 10 CFR 20.304. The former owners 
    of the Parks Township site (NUMEC) disposed of radioactive (primarily 
    uranium and thorium) and non-radioactive waste in the SLDA during the 
    1960's and early 1970's. In 1967, the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) 
    purchased stock in NUMEC. ARCO sold the stock to B&W in 1971. Since the 
    acquisition of the stock, B&W has maintained the SLDA under an active 
    NRC license (License No. SNM-414; Docket No. 070-00364). The SLDA is 
    currently listed in NRC's Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) 
    because it warrants special NRC oversight to ensure safe and timely 
    decommissioning.
        Based on available records, the waste placed in the trenches by 
    NUMEC, consisted of process wastes, scrap, and trash from the nearby 
    Apollo nuclear fuel fabrication facility. This waste contained 
    radioactive materials, including natural uranium and uranium that was 
    either enriched or depleted with respect to uranium-235. The waste also 
    contained lesser quantities of thorium. At least some of the waste is 
    known to exceed NRC's existing radiological criteria for 
    decommissioning. Therefore, NRC is requiring the licensee to remediate 
    the SLDA to meet the NRC's decommissioning criteria, as described in 
    NRC's Action Plan to Ensure Timely Cleanup of SDMP Sites (April 16, 
    1992; 57 FR 13389).
        B&W and ARCO have performed characterization activities for the 
    SLDA and submitted a Site Characterization Report (SCR) for the SLDA, 
    dated October 1993. The NRC reviewed and commented on the SCR by letter 
    dated March 24, 1994 and received a response to those comments from B&W 
    by letter dated September 28, 1994. Also, on September 28, 1994, B&W 
    submitted to the NRC a proposal for the remediation of the SLDA. B&W 
    and ARCO have proposed that the waste trenches be stabilized in place. 
    The proposal is based on a comprehensive analysis of three 
    alternatives: stabilization in place, exhumation of the waste and 
    stabilization on site, and exhumation of the waste and disposal off 
    site. NRC and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 
    are currently reviewing this proposal.
        The NRC has determined that approval of the licensee's proposal 
    would constitute a major federal action and, therefore, warrants 
    preparation of an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental 
    Policy Act (NEPA) and the NRC's implementing requirements in 10 CFR 
    Part 51. Approval of the other alternatives may also constitute major 
    Federal actions. The alternatives may involve significant radiological 
    and non-radiological risks to humans and the environment resulting from 
    the remedial actions. In addition, stabilization on site or in place 
    could also constitute an irretrievable commitment of land resources 
    dedicated for waste disposal purposes. Concentrations of uranium and 
    thorium in the waste are known or 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).
        Consequently, if NRC approved either stabilization in place or 
    onsite disposal, land use restrictions or other institutional controls 
    may be necessary to ensure long-term protection of the public and the 
    environment. NRC expects that B&W would have to apply for and obtain an 
    exemption from NRC's present requirements because NRC's current 
    requirements for decommissioning do not allow for land use restrictions 
    (see definition of decommissioning in 10 CFR 40.4).
        In addition to the issues discussed above that fall under NRC's 
    jurisdiction, there are other environmental issues associated with 
    decommissioning the SLDA that are regulated by other agencies, 
    including the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 
    (PADER). For example, the waste trenches may contain hazardous or solid 
    waste regulated by PADER in addition to the radioactive waste that is 
    regulated by NRC. The scoping process and EIS will not only aid NRC in 
    reaching decisions about the decommissioning of the SLDA, but should 
    also be useful to PADER in discharging its duties.
    
    Description of Proposed Action
    
        The proposed action is stabilization onsite of radioactive waste 
    contained in the trenches at the SLDA using an engineered cover system 
    and a system of hydrologic barriers surrounding the trench areas to 
    provide groundwater protection.
    
    Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
    
        Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all 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 decision-making 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 scope of the EIS includes consideration of 
    both radiological and non-radiological 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 that will be available to the Agency's 
    decision makers in reviewing the licensee's remediation proposal and 
    future decommissioning plan for the SLDA.
    
    The Scoping Process
    
        The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 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 by NRC in connection with a proposed action, NRC will 
    publish a notice of intent in the Federal Register stating that an EIS 
    will be prepared and conduct an appropriate scoping process. In 
    addition, this scoping process may include the holding of a public 
    scoping meeting.
        NRC also describes, in 10 CFR 51.27, the content of the notice of 
    intent and requires that the notice describe the proposed action and 
    also, to the extent that sufficient information is available, possible 
    alternatives. In addition, the notice of intent is to 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 Secs. 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 discussion on the 
    proposed action and possible alternatives at the public scoping meeting 
    at the Leechburg, Area High School cafeteria, Leechburg, PA, on January 
    26, 1995, from 7 to 10 p.m.
        (2) The Commission will also accept written comments on the 
    proposed action and alternatives from the public. Written comments 
    should be submitted by February 27, 1995, 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 am and 4:15 pm 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 stabilization in place, 
    stabilization onsite, and disposal offsite of the waste in the trenches 
    at the SLDA in Parks Township, Pennsylvania. NRC will also 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 alternative 
    decommissioning approaches. The following proposed outline for the EIS 
    reflects the current NRC staff view on the scope and major topics to be 
    dealt within 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  Approach in Preparation of the Draft EIS
        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 B&W SLDA
        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  Cultural Resources
        3.10  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 represent 
    alternate decomissioning approaches.
        (a) Alternative 1, Stabilization in Place [Licensee's Proposed 
    Action]--radioactive waste in the trenches would be stabilized in 
    place. This alternative includes an engineered cover, a slurry wall, 
    a grout curtain and hydraulic control borings all designed to 
    isolate the waste in a manner to provide long-term protection of the 
    waste and to minimize groundwater contamination. This alternative 
    would also likely include land use restrictions and/or other 
    institutional controls to prevent or reduce potential intrusion into 
    the waste and to monitor the long-term effectiveness of the disposal 
    and take mitigative measures as necessary to protect the public and 
    environment. The alternative may also include a long-term license to 
    ensure that necessary surveillance and monitoring activities are 
    conducted.
        (b) Alternative 2, Disposal On Site--trench wastes would be 
    exhumed from the trenches, sorted, treated, and packaged in 
    appropriate containers. The containers would then be placed in an 
    engineered vault for disposal on site. This alternative would also 
    likely include land use restrictions and long term monitoring of the 
    site. The alternative may also include a long-term license to ensure 
    that necessary surveillance and monitoring activities are conducted.
        (c) Alternative 3, Disposal Off Site--trench wastes would be 
    exhumed from the trenches, sorted, treated, and packaged onsite and 
    then shipped offsite and disposed of at various disposal facilities, 
    depending on the type of waste. The disposal facility may either be 
    located in the vicinity of Parks Township SLDA, for material that 
    can be disposed of in a municipal landfill, or in another area in 
    permitted hazardous waste or licensed low-level waste disposal 
    facilities. Radioactive contamination onsite would be reduced down 
    to levels that NRC presently considers acceptable for release for 
    unrestricted use (e.g., 30 picoCuries per gram (pCi/g) enriched 
    uranium and other criteria such as exposure rate and radon 
    concentrations):
        (d) Alternative 4, No Action--trench contents would be left in 
    their present condition without any additional processing or 
    stabilization. This alternative does not consider any protective 
    measures, such as land use restrictions or other institutional 
    controls, that might mitigate or prevent intrusion into the waste or 
    long-term release and transport of contamination in the environment.
        4.3 Method 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 nonradiological, resulting from 
    each alternative, and (2) the costs associated with each regulatory 
    alternative. Evaluations of impacts and costs are contained in 
    Sections 5 and 6 below;
        (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 Construction and Remediation Consequences
        5.2 Monitoring Programs
        5.3 Mitigation Measures
        5.4 Unaviodable 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 which are peripheral or 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 been 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 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 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-
    1496; 59 FR 43200; August 22, 1994).
        (d) Identify any Environmental Assessments or 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 Generic EIS (NUREG-1496) to support the 
    rulemaking to 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 Metallurgical Corporation in Cambridge, OH, and Newfield, 
    NJ.
        (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 Parks Township SLDA. For example, NRC has 
    already been coordinating its reviews of decommissioning actions at the 
    SLDA with PADER. NRC anticipates continued consultation with this and 
    other 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 late 1995. The comment period would be for 90 
    days. The final EIS is scheduled for publication in the Fall of 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, including review 
    of the decommissioning plan as required in 10 CFR 40.42(c)(2).
        (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 Part 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 the environmental, economic, technical, 
    and other benefits of the proposed action.
        The EIS will be prepared by the NRC staff and an NRC contractor. 
    NRC is arranging a project with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to 
    provide technical assistance in the preparation of the EIS. In 
    addition, NRC anticipates requesting specific information from the 
    licensee to support preparation of the EIS. 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.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of December 1994.
    
        For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    John E. Glenn,
    Chief, Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects Branch, Division of 
    Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 94-32083 Filed 12-28-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
12/29/1994
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to conduct a scoping process for the EIS, and to conduct a scoping meeting.
Document Number:
94-32083
Dates:
Written comments on matters covered by this notice received by February 27, 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 Leechburg Area High School in Leechburg, Pennsylvania, on January 26, 1995 from 7-10 p.m.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: December 29, 1994