Environmental Assessment: Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Amendment to Materials License No. Sub-908, BP Chemicals, Inc., Lima, OH

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