[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
