![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Environmental Assessment: Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Amendment to Materials License No. Sub-908, BP Chemicals, Inc., Lima, OH
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: February 5, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 5841-5843]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05fe99-108]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
<bullet> No action;
<bullet> On-site closure (with caps);
<bullet> Disposal at a commercial disposal site without treatment;
[[Page 5843]]
<bullet> Disposal at a commercial disposal site with treatment;
<bullet> On-site temporary storage followed by off-site permanent
disposal at a future, commercial disposal site;
<bullet> 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