E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact, Notice of Availability
[Federal Register: May 22, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 36046-36048]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22my02-90]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Number 030-20681]
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact, Notice of Availability
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental and Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact for E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the
authorization of the use of carbon-14 (C-14) in field studies at the
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Stine-Haskell Research Center
located in Newark, Delaware.
The NRC contact for this licensing action is Pamela J. Henderson,
who may be contacted at (610) 337-6952 or by e-mail at pjh1@nrc.gov.
for more information about the licensing action.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is
considering amending E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. Byproduct
Materials License Number 07-13441-02 to authorize the use of carbon-14
(C-14) in field studies at the E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
Stine-Haskell Research Center located in Newark, Delaware.
Environmental Assessment
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
This environmental assessment (EA) is being prepared to identify
and evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed amendment to
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Byproduct Materials License Number 07-
13441-02, to permit the use of carbon-14 (C-14) in field studies at the
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Stine-Haskell Research Center
(hereafter referred to as the Center). The Center is located on Elkton
Road (Route 2) in Newark, Delaware.
1.2 Proposed Action
The proposed action is to amend NRC Byproduct Materials License No.
07-13441-02, issued to E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. on December
23, 1983 (as amended), to allow the performance of outdoor field
studies with C-14 labeled radiochemicals having agricultural activity
at the Center. The Center proposes to use a maximum of 10 millicuries
(mCi) of C-14 labeled radiochemicals per year, applied to one 24.2
meters by 30.5 meters test plot. The objectives of the small-plot field
studies is to identify the metabolic pathway, stability and
environmental fate of agricultural chemicals and associated products
following application to a given crop or the soil in which the crop is
grown.
1.3 Need for the Proposed Action
In the current amendment request, the licensee proposes to perform
studies at the Center similar to field studies that have been performed
by similar Companies. The studies at the Center are required by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to make regulatory
decisions relative to the registration of biologically active chemicals
according to the criteria set forth in the amended Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The use of radiolabeled
materials is specifically required in 40 CFR 158.240 and 158.290 to
determine (1) the nature of residue in crops after treatment with a
biologically active chemical and (2) the uptake of a soil-applied
biologically active chemical by crops grown in the treated soil. The
analytical sensitivity afforded through the use of radioisotope labels
in field studies is essential for isolation and identification of
metabolites present in trace amounts in complex biological matrices. In
the absence of such radiolabeled molecules, it would be extremely
difficult to trace, isolate, and identify a single chemical in these
complex matrices. No alternatives are given in the EPA regulations.
1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As required by Section 102(2)(E) of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), possible alternatives to the final action have been
considered. One possible alternative to the field studies is the
treatment of greenhouse-grown plants with the radiolabeled chemical.
However, this alternative is not feasible because the required studies
must evaluate the behavior of the agricultural chemical under normal
agricultural conditions. Greenhouse studies provide an unnaturally
stable environment without the normal variations in weather and other
field conditions, and may lead to non-representative metabolic
profiles.
Another alternative considered was the no-action alternative. Under
this alternative the NRC would not grant the licensee's request to use
radiolabeled C-14 compounds. As discussed below, there are minimal, if
any, effects from the proposed action. Additionally, if the licensee
does not perform these studies, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) will not consider registering the chemicals as required by FIFRA
and new products will not be available in that regulated area.
Therefore, the no-action alternative is not a viable alternative and is
not further considered in this environmental assessment.
2.0 Affected Environment
The Center is located on Elkton Road, in Newark, Delaware. The
Center is situated on a five hundred thirty five (535) acre site at
approximately 39 degrees and 40 minutes north latitude and 75 degrees
and 45 minutes west longitude. Of the 535 acres, 267 acres of open
fields and woodlands are in Cecil County, Maryland, with the remaining
268 acres of fields, woods and all buildings are in New Castle County,
Delaware. No radiological activities will be carried out in the portion
of the site located in the State of Maryland.
Currently, numerous laboratories and greenhouses are located at the
site which are used for toxicology and safety testing, and research and
development of agricultural products and pharmaceuticals. Agricultural
fields surround theses structures and are used for testing experimental
herbicides and pesticides under natural climatic conditions. The site
currently employs approximately 800 personnel.
[[Page 36047]]
The site is bounded to the east and south by woodlands, homes,
light industry, and businesses, and to the north and west by the
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad tracks. Topographically, the site is at an
approximate elevation of 120 feet above mean sea level, although the
western portion of the site rises to an elevation of 170 feet above
mean sea level.
Surface drainage patterns are controlled regionally by the Delaware
River. The site lies within the drainage basin of the Christina River.
At the site, surface drainage patterns are controlled by an unnamed
tributary of the West branch of the Christina River, which bisects the
site and flows in a southerly direction connecting with the West branch
south of the property boundary. The East branch of the Christina River
meanders briefly through the northeast corner of the site, flows
eastwardly before turning southwardly, joins the West branch and
discharges into the Delaware River. A surface-water intake located near
Smalley's Pond, on the Christina River approximately 8 to 10 miles
downstream of the site, is operated by the Wilmington Suburban Water
Authority as a potable-water source for nearby communities.
Radiological tests will be conducted in one small test plot, 24.2
meters by 30.5 meters, surrounded by a four (4) foot high fence,
located southwest of farm building 250. The location of the closest
off-site human dwelling is approximately 182 meters from the test plot.
3.0 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The objectives of the small-plot outdoor field studies is to
identify the metabolic pathway, stability and environmental fate of
agricultural chemicals and associated products following application to
a given crop or the soil in which the crop is grown. The maximum
radioactivity released in one year will be 10 mCi of C-14. Using this
information, impact to water supplies and the dose to the maximally
exposed individual is calculated. The radiological impact from the
performance of field studies with radiolabeled materials at the Center
has been calculated using both the EPA's Gaussian Dispersion model,
SCREEN 3, and the EPA's COMPLY model. SCREEN 3 is a computer code that
employs worst case scenario parameters, including worst case
meteorological conditions, to estimate potential concentrations of
radionuclides at a specific receptor, the nearest off-site residence,
positioned in the downwind direction from the test plot area. COMPLY is
a computer code that calculates the maximum dose to an individual
residing outside of the facility and considers dose from all pathways
including inhalation, ingestion of contaminated food, immersion, and
ground deposition to estimate the worst-case dose.
3.1 Impact on Food Chain
The plants grown in radiolabled studies will not be available for
incorporation into the food chain. The test area is enclosed by a 4-
foot tall chain link fence, and wire mesh or bird netting will be used
to restrict bird and small rodent access to the plot. All plant
material generated will be used for laboratory research purposes or
disposed of as radioactive waste. Soil will be removed from the plot to
a level where the soil radioactivity is at background. Removed soil
will be disposed of per 10 CFR 20.2001 or in accordance with specific
license conditions. Due to the precautions taken during application,
the physical barriers in place to prevent wildlife access, and the
removal of all soil and plant materials at the conclusion of the study,
it is reasonable to assume that the radiolabled plant material will not
enter the food chain by the ingestion process.
3.2 Groundwater Impacts
The procedure for application results in a very low potential for
overspray and contamination of soil. For plants in pots, a plastic bag
is placed over the entire setup. The spraying is conducted through a
slit in the plastic bag. For plots, plastic is wrapped around stakes,
which are placed at each corner of the plot. Any drift will be
contained by the plastic.
At the conclusion of the testing, all vegetation is removed and
disposed. Core soil samples are taken to depths of 18'' and analyzed
for C-14. Soil is removed from the plot to a level where the soil
radioactivity is at background.
Given the application procedures, and the soil testing at the
conclusion of the test, it is not considered likely that the
radiolabeled material from the plot will contaminate the groundwater.
3.3 Surface Water Runoff
An unrealistic, worst case of radioactivity released by surface
runoff can be estimated based on a severe rain fall event which washes
all of the applied activity from the plant and/or soil. The maximum
activity used per application will be 10 mCi with no more than 10 mCi
total in a year. The annual average rainfall in Newark, Delaware is 45
inches. The largest monthly rainfall from 1972 to 2000 in Newark
Delaware, occurred in July 1989, and was 13.58 inches. The plot area
plus the surface drainage area immediately around the plot is
approximately 109 meters by 91 meters. If 13.58 inches of rain fell
over the 109 by 91 meter area, a volume of 2.567 x 108 milliliters (ml)
would runoff the immediate surface area. If 100% of a 10 mCi
application were lost to surface runoff during this rainfall, the
activity concentration of this surface runoff would be 3 x
10-6 microcuries/milliliters (uCi/ml), below the Appendix B,
Table 2, Column 2, Part 20 limits for C-14 water effluent limit of 3 x
10-5 uCi/ml. In addition, the runoff from the area would be
significantly diluted, as the complete site drainage area into the
tributary is large. Since the concentration values in Appendix B, Table
2, Column 2, of Part 20 are equivalent to concentrations which, if
ingested continuously over the course of year, would produce a total
effective dose equivalent (TEDE) of 50 millirem or 0.5 millisieverts,
and the 3 x 10-6 uCi/ml runoff from the area would be
significantly diluted, the TEDE would be considerably less than 50
millirem.
3.4 Dose to the Maximally Exposed Individual
SCREEN 3 modeling was employed using the maximum amount of 10 mCi
of C-14 applied in one year, and the specific activity value for C-14
of 4.5 x 10-6 uCi/gram (from 10 CFR Part 71, Appendix A,
Table A-1). A worst case annual concentration of 4.872 x
10-7 micrograms/cubic meter (2.19 x 10-12 uCi/ml)
is estimated for an individual at the nearest off site receptor
location (182 meters). The Appendix B, Table 2, Column 1, of Part 20
limit of 3 x 10-7 uCi/ml, which, if ingested continuously
over the course of year, would produce a TEDE of 50 millirems or 0.5
millisieverts. Since 2.19 x 10-12 uCi/ml is a small fraction
of the 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B limit (3 x 10-7 uCi/ml),
the TEDE would be considerably less than 50 millirems.
The COMPLY model was also used to evaluate dose to the general
public with the assumption that 10 mCi of C-14 was released over one
year, at a distance of 182 meters to the nearest residence. The COMPLY
program, level 2, calculated the maximum effective whole body dose for
the maximally exposed individual to be 0.045 millirem/year. This dose
is a very small fraction of the 100 millirem/year dose limit for
individual members of the public required by 10 CFR 20.1301.
The results of both the SCREEN 3 and COMPLY codes agree that doses
will be considerably less than the dose limit for
[[Page 36048]]
individual members of the public required by 10 CFR 20.1301.
3.5 Endangered Species
Due to the small size of the test plot (24.2 meters by 30.5
meters), the precautions taken during application, the physical
barriers in place to prevent wildlife access, and the removal of all
soil and plant materials at the conclusion of each study, it is
considered unlikely that the proposed action would have any impact on
threatened and endangered species and therefore no further consultation
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is required.
3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources
Due to the small size of the test plot (24.2 meters by 30.5 meters)
and previous disturbances of the ground at the site of the proposed
action, it is considered unlikely to have any potential effect on
historic or cultural properties and therefore no further consultation
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is
required.
4.0 Agencies and Persons Contacted
Letter from Allan C. Tapert, Program Administrator, Office of
Radiation Control, Delaware Health and Social Services, dated July 19,
1995, to the Center. Mr. Tapert declined to review the Center's plans
for field studies because the radioactive material in question is not
NARM rather byproduct material.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was not consulted since the
licensing action involves a small plot of land and will not affect
endangered or threatened species. The State Historic Preservation
Officer was not consulted since there is no potential to affect
historic properties.
5.0 List of Preparers
John D. Kinneman, Chief, Nuclear Materials Safety Branch 2,
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, Health Physics Review.
Pamela J. Henderson, Senior Health Physicist, Nuclear Materials
Safety Branch 2, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, Health
Physics Review.
6.0 Identification of Sources Used
Draft NUREG-1748, ``Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing
Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,'' published September 2001.
Letter dated March 15, 2002, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Region I; from Joseph Montovino, Facilities Manager, Stine-
Haskell Research Center, DuPont Agricultural Products.
Finding of No Significant Impact
The Commission has prepared an Environmental Assessment related to
the proposed action to use C-14 labeled radiochemicals in outdoor field
studies and amendment of License No. 07-13441-02. On the basis of the
assessment, the Commission has concluded that environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action would not be significant and do not
warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.
Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant
Impact is appropriate.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's ``Rules of Practice,''
the Environmental Assessment and the documents related to this proposed
action will be available electronically for public inspection from the
Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system
(ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html 
(the Electronic Reading Room).
Opportunity for a Hearing
Based on the EA and accompanying safety evaluation, NRC is
preparing to issue a FONSI. The NRC hereby provides that this is a
proceeding on an application for amendment of a license falling within
the scope of Subpart L, ``Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudication
in Materials Licensing Proceedings,'' of NRC's rules and practice for
domestic licensing proceedings in 10 CFR part 2. Pursuant to
Sec. 2.1205(a), any person whose interest may be affected by this
proceeding may file a request for a hearing in accordance with Section
2.1205(d). A request for a hearing must be filed within thirty (30)
days of the date of publication of this Federal Register notice.
A request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be
filed with the Office of the Secretary either:
1. By delivery to the Document Control Desk or may be delivered to
the Commission's Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
MD 20852-2738; or
2. By mail or telegram addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(f), each request for
a hearing must also be served, by delivering it personally or by mail
to:
1. The applicant, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., DuPont
Agricultural Products, Stine-Haskell Research Center, Elkton Road, PO
Box 30, Newark, Delaware, 19714-0030, ATTN: Norman W. Henry III; or
2. The NRC staff, by delivering to the Executive Director for
Operations, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
20852, or by mail, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
A request for hearing, filed by a person other than an applicant,
must describe in detail:
1. The interest of the requester in the proceeding;
2. How that interest may be affected by the results of the
proceeding, including the reasons why the requestor should be permitted
a hearing, with particular reference to the factors set out in
Sec. 2.1205(h).
3. The requester's areas of concern about the licensing activity
that is the subject matter of the proceeding; and
4. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is
timely in accordance with Sec. 2.1205(d).
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 15th day of May,
2002.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
John D. Kinneman,
Nuclear Materials Safety Branch 2, Division of Nuclear Materials
Safety, Region I.
[FR Doc. 02-12836 Filed 5-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}