Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Source Materials License No. Sma-1018, Approving the Final Status Survey Plan for Section 2 of the Whittaker Corporation's Facility in Transfer, PA, 35957-35960 [E6-9850]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
35957
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 120 / Thursday, June 22, 2006 / Notices
Mexico uranium mill site. The purpose
of this amendment is to revise several
current ground water protection
standards based on a more extensive
data set (temporal and spacial) of
background water quality in the upper
most (alluvial) aquifer. In addition, this
amendment will include establishing
new ground water protection standards
for several constituents in the alluvial
aquifer; the Upper, Middle, and Lower
Chinle non-mixing zones; and the
Chinle mixing zone. Presently, three
alluvial aquifer monitor wells have been
designated as point of compliance wells
for existing ground water protection
standards. Designation of additional
point of compliance wells for the
alluvial aquifer and the Chinle nonmixing and mixing zones will be
addressed in a revised Corrective Action
Plan, to be submitted by HMC no later
than December 31, 2006. NRC has
prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA) in support of this amendment in
accordance with the requirements of 10
CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC
has concluded that a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) is
appropriate. The amendment will be
issued following the publication of this
Notice.
II. EA Summary
The staff has prepared the EA in
support of the proposed license
amendment. Since this action relates to
ground water, the primary focus of the
evaluation of potential environmental
impacts relates to ground water. For
several of the constituents of interest,
including uranium and selenium, the
proposed ground water quality
standards are higher than the existing
standards. With respect to uranium and
selenium, both the current and
proposed ground water protection
standards exceed their respective Safe
Drinking Water Act maximum
contaminant levels; therefore, postrestoration treatment to meet Federal
potable water quality limits will be
necessary. Since the proposed standards
are higher, the cost of post-restoration
treatment to meet Federal water quality
limits under the proposed amendment
may be higher. However, it is
recognized that the proposed ground
water quality standards represent the
ambient (background) chemical quality
of the ground water flowing into (and
eventually downgradient) of the mill
site from upgradient areas and these
higher background levels are not related
to milling activities. In addition, staff
has concluded that there would be no
effect to the following resources: visual
resources, vegetation and soils, ambient
air quality, and transportation. Staff has
also determined that the proposed
action is not the type of activity that has
the potential to cause effects on cultural
or historic resources.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the EA, NRC has
concluded that there are no significant
environmental impacts from the
proposed amendment and has
determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
IV. Further Information
Documents related to this action,
including the application for
amendment and supporting
documentation, are available
electronically at the NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. From this site,
you can access the NRC’s Agencywide
Document Access and Management
System (ADAMS), which provides text
and image files of NRC’s public
documents. The ADAMS accession
numbers for the documents related to
this notice are as follows:
ADAMS
Accession No.
Document
Environmental Restoration Group Statistical Evaluation of Alluvial Ground Water Quality Upgradient of
the Homestake Site Near Grants, New Mexico.
Environmental Restoration Group Statistical Evaluation of the Chinle Aquifer Quality at Homestake
Site Near Grants, New Mexico.
Homestake Mining Company and Hydro-Engineering Background Water Quality Evaluation of Chinle
Aquifers.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Homestake Mining Company—HMC’s response to New Mexico Environment Department Comments ..
Homestake Mining Company—Revised Ground Water Protection Standards ..........................................
NRC’s EA for Homestake’s Proposed Revisions to Ground Water Protection Standards ........................
If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact
the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR)
Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
These documents may also be viewed
electronically on the public computers
located at the NRC’s PDR, O1 F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:08 Jun 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day
of June, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ron Linton,
Project Manager, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch,
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E6–9851 Filed 6–21–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
ML020080071
ML020080076
ML020080104
ML020350348
ML033140226
................
................
................
................
................
12/31/01
ML033140212
ML033140215
ML033140218
ML033140223
ML033160201
ML033160203
ML033160207
ML033160213
ML060790062
ML060250273
ML061450327
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
10/31/03
Sfmt 4703
6/9/05
1/19/06
6/06/06
[Docket No. 040–07455]
Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License
Amendment to Source Materials
License No. Sma–1018, Approving the
Final Status Survey Plan for Section 2
of the Whittaker Corporation’s Facility
in Transfer, PA
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Fmt 4703
10/31/03
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
AGENCY:
Frm 00098
Date
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
35958
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 120 / Thursday, June 22, 2006 / Notices
Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License
Amendment.
ACTION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marjorie McLaughlin, Health Physicist,
Decommissioning Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475
Allendale Road, King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania 19406–1415; telephone
(610) 337–5240; fax number (610) 337–
5269; or by e-mail: mmm3@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of a license amendment to
Source Materials License No. SMA–
1018. This license is held by Whittaker
Corporation (the Licensee), for its
Whittaker facility (the Facility), located
at 99 Crestview Drive in Transfer,
Pennsylvania. Issuance of the
amendment would approve a Final
Status Survey Plan (FSSP) for Section 2
of the Facility. The Licensee requested
this action in a letter dated October 5,
2005. The NRC has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) in
support of this proposed action in
accordance with the requirements of
Title 10 Code of Federal Regulation
(CFR), part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based
on the EA, the NRC has concluded that
a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is appropriate with respect to
the proposed action. The amendment
will be issued following the publication
of this FONSI and EA in the Federal
Register.
II. Environmental Assessment
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would grant the
Licensee’s October 5, 2005, license
amendment request, thereby approving
the FSSP for Section 2 of the Facility.
Specifically, the FSSP describes the
Licensee’s methods and procedures for
determining whether that portion of the
site currently meets the radiological
criteria for release for unrestricted use
specified in Subpart E of 10 CFR part
20, or if additional remediation is
required. NRC approval of the FSSP
does not constitute termination of the
license or release of the site for
unrestricted use. Instead, it would allow
the Licensee to obtain the information
required by the NRC in support of any
later request to release the Facility (or a
portion of the Facility) for unrestricted
use.
License No. SMA–1018 was issued on
December 15, 1969, pursuant to 10 CFR
part 40, and has been amended
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:08 Jun 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
periodically since that time. The license
authorized the possession and use of
unsealed source material (natural
thorium and natural uranium) contained
in ores used for minerals processing and
as a contaminant that was isolated by
the processing of scrap metal. The
Facility originally consisted of a plant
and a slag waste storage area. In 1974,
the Licensee ceased licensed operations
at the Facility, and initiated
decommissioning of plant equipment
and buildings. Waste slag, raw
materials, feed-metal scrap, and
contaminated building materials that
were generated from the
decontamination activities were placed
in the slag storage area. The portion of
the property housing the plant was
released for unrestricted use in 1975,
following the performance of a
confirmatory survey by the NRC. An
additional plant building was
decommissioned in 1983 and released
for unrestricted use in 1985. The plant
is an active facility under a new owner
(Greenville Metals), who is not
associated with the Licensee. Greenville
Metals processes and refines scrap and
other metals to produce metal alloys
and conversion products. Greenville
Metals does not utilize NRC-licensed
radioactive material, and is separated
from the Whittaker property by metal
fencing.
The Facility that the Licensee plans to
decommission consists of the slag area,
located on a 5.9 acre strip of land, that
is characterized by four sections
according to topography and site use.
Section 2 is in the center, bordered by
Section 3 to the north, the boundary
fence with the Greenville Metals plant
to the west, a ravine to the south, and
floodplain and the Shenango River to
the east. Section 2 contained the
highest-activity slag, most of which has
now been excavated and disposed in
accordance with the Licensee’s
procedures that were approved by NRC
in the license amendment dated June
10, 1999. The Facility is located within
an industrial park. There are no
buildings remaining at the Facility (with
the exception of temporary trailers
supplied by the decommissioning
contractor), and the surrounding area is
primarily rural.
In July 2004, the Licensee initiated
excavation and survey of the slag and
waste materials in Section 2 of the
Facility. On September 12, 2005, the
Licensee commenced shipping the
material to an authorized radioactive
waste disposal site. The proposed action
is to approve the Licensee’s plan for
conducting a radiological survey of
Section 2 of the Facility. The Licensee
will perform the survey to determine if
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Section 2 meets the site-specific Derived
Concentration Guideline Levels
(DCGLs), approved by the NRC on
September 20, 2005 (70 FR 54779).
These DCGLs describe the maximum
amount of residual radioactivity on
building surfaces, equipment, materials,
and soils that will satisfy the NRC
requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR
part 20 for unrestricted release of the
Facility.
Need for the Proposed Action
The Licensee is no longer using
licensed materials at the Facility. In
accordance with the requirements of 10
CFR 40.42(h), the Licensee must
complete decommissioning of the site
no later than 24 months following the
initiation of decommissioning. The
Licensee will use the proposed FSSP to
determine if Section 2 of the Facility
meets the NRC criteria for release for
unrestricted use, or if additional
decommissioning activities are required.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The survey described in the proposed
Section 2 FSSP follows the guidance
contained in NUREG–1575, Rev 1,
‘‘Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and
Site Investigation Manual’’ (MARSSIM).
The proposed FSSP divides Section 2
into Class 1 and Class 2 survey units,
based on the expected remaining
radioactive contamination. Under the
proposed action, each survey unit will
receive a walkover radiation survey of
the soil surface (one-hundred percent of
the area for the Class 1 units and a
minimum of ten percent of the area for
the Class 2 units). The walkover surveys
will be performed using a two-inch by
two-inch (2″ x 2″) Sodium-Iodide (NAI)
radiation detector. The proposed FSSP
also provides for obtaining 11 discrete
soil samples from each survey unit. The
sample locations would be determined
using a random-start grid pattern, in
accordance with the MARSSIM
guidance. The samples would consist of
filling one-gallon bags with soil from the
remediated area, and having the soil
analyzed by gamma spectroscopy to
determine the radiological composition.
In addition, the proposed FSSP includes
the performance of exposure rate
measurements at each soil sample
location at a height of one meter (m).
The proposed action would have
minimal effect on environmental
resources because it involves passive
surveys and the removal of only a small
amount of soil from an area that was
previously-impacted by licensed
operations. The proposed action would
not result in the release of radioactivity
to the air or water. The proposed action
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 120 / Thursday, June 22, 2006 / Notices
also would not authorize release of
Section 2 of the Facility for unrestricted
use. Based on its review, the NRC staff
has determined that the proposed FSSP
is in compliance with approved NRC
standards, as described in NUREG–
1575, Rev.1.
Area groundwater is chemically
contaminated with trichloroethylene
(TCE). The origin of this contamination
is being investigated by the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP).
PADEP has indicated that it believes the
contamination is being leached onto the
Facility property from surrounding
industrial sites. The Licensee is working
with PADEP and the surrounding
industries to identify and remediate the
TCE source and the contamination. The
proposed action will not result in the
release of TCE to the environment. The
NRC staff has found no other
radiological or non-radiological
activities in the area that could result in
cumulative environmental impacts.
Based on its review, the staff concluded
that the proposed action will not have
a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The only alternative to the proposed
action is the no-action alternative, under
which the staff would deny the
amendment request for the proposed
FSSP. This alternative would result in
no environmental impacts, but would
prohibit the performance of a FSS for
Section 2 of the Facility. This no-action
alternative is not feasible because it
conflicts with 10 CFR 20.1402, requiring
licensees to verify that residual
radioactivity meets the radiological
unrestricted release criteria. The
Licensee cannot demonstrate that the
site meets the decommissioning criteria
without performing the FSS. The
licensee must verify that the
decommissioning criteria are met before
it can request release of Section 2 of the
Facility for unrestricted use.
Additionally, denying the amendment
request would prevent the Licensee
from completing decommissioning in
the timeframe required by 10 CFR
40.42(h). The environmental impacts of
the proposed action are minimal, and
the no-action alternative is accordingly
not further considered.
Conclusion
The NRC staff has concluded that the
proposed action is consistent with NRC
guidance and regulations. Because the
proposed action will not significantly
impact the quality of the human
environment, the NRC staff concludes
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:08 Jun 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
that the proposed action is the preferred
alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
NRC provided a draft of the EA to
PADEP on January 24, 2006. On
February 15, 2006, PADEP responded by
e-mail. The State agreed with the
conclusions of the EA, and provided
some typographical comments on the
EA document, and two specific
comments on the FSSP:
Comment 1: PADEP asked whether
the contractor, NRC, will use to perform
a confirmatory survey of Section 2 of the
Facility will review and comment on
the FSSP.
Resolution: NRC provided the
proposed FSSP to the NRC contractor
for review and comment on February
21, 2006. Comments were received on
March 2, 2006. NRC provided the
comments to the Licensee in a Request
for Additional Information on March 29,
2006. The Licensee revised the
proposed FSSP in response to the
comments, and provided the revised
FSSP in a letter dated May 15, 2006.
The staff reviewed the revised FSSP for
the preparation of this EA.
Comment 2: PADEP asked how the
Licensee has verified the belief stated in
the proposed FSSP that Section 2 of the
Facility has been excavated to native
soil, and that there is not additional
contamination at a greater depth.
Resolution: NRC discussed the
comment with the Licensee and PADEP.
The bottom of the excavation is
characterized by foundry sand in most
locations, and by river rock and coarse
soil in others. The Licensee believes,
and NRC concurs that the river rock and
coarse soil is native soil. In areas
exposing foundry sand, the Licensee
will perform surveys to verify that
contamination is not present at greater
depths. PADEP indicated that they are
satisfied with this response.
The NRC staff has determined that the
proposed action has minimal
environmental impacts, and will not
affect listed species or critical habitat.
Therefore, no consultation is required
under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. The NRC staff has also
determined that the proposed action is
not the type of activity that has the
potential to cause effects on historic
properties. Therefore, no further
consultation is required under Section
106 of the National Historic reservation
Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff has prepared this EA in
support of the proposed action. On the
basis of this EA, the NRC finds that
there are no significant environmental
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35959
impacts from the proposed action, and
that preparation of an environmental
impact statement is not warranted.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined
that a Finding of No Significant Impact
is appropriate.
IV. Further Information
Documents related to this action,
including the application for license
amendment and supporting
documentation, are available
electronically at the NRC’s Electronic
Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. From this site,
you can access the NRC’s Agencywide
Document Access and Management
System (ADAMS), which provides text
and image files of NRC’s public
documents. The documents related to
this action are listed below, along with
their ADAMS accession numbers.
1. Initial Amendment Request with
Final Status Survey Plan, dated October
5, 2005 (ML052900082);
2. Request for Additional Information
(RAI), dated October 18, 2005
(ML052910472);
3. Section 2 FSSP, Revision 1, dated
November 14, 2005 (ML053190091);
4. Additional RAI, dated January 9,
2006 (ML060090311);
5. Section 2 FSSP, Revision 2, dated
January 31, 2006 (ML060300532);
6. Comments on the Section 2 FSSP
from the Oak Ridge Institute for Science
and Education, dated March 2, 2006
(ML060690388);
7. Telephone Log, dated March 22,
2006 (ML060810706);
8. Additional RAI, dated March 29,
2006 (ML060880199);
9. Section 2 FSSP, Revision 3, dated
May 15, 2006 (ML061420467);
10. Title 10 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E,
‘‘Radiological Criteria for License
Termination;’’
11. Title 10 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 40. 42, ‘‘Expiration
and Termination of Licenses and
Decommissioning of Sites and Separate
Buildings or Outdoor Areas;’’
12. Title 10 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 51, ‘‘Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions;’’
13. NUREG–1575, Rev 1, ‘‘MultiAgency Radiation Survey and Site
Investigation Manual’’
If you do not have access to ADAMS,
or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact
the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR)
Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
These documents may also be viewed
electronically on the public computers
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
35960
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 120 / Thursday, June 22, 2006 / Notices
located at the NRC’s PDR, O 1 F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee.
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this
15th day of June, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marie Miller,
Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I.
[FR Doc. E6–9850 Filed 6–21–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Required Interest Rate Assumption for
Determining Variable-Rate Premium for
Single-Employer Plans; Interest
Assumptions for Multiemployer Plan
Valuations Following Mass Withdrawal
Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
AGENCY:
Notice of interest rates and
assumptions; correction.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation published in the Federal
Register of June 15, 2006, a notice
informing the public of the interest rates
and assumptions to be used under
certain Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation regulations. This document
corrects an inadvertent error in that
notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine B. Klion, Attorney, Legislative
and Regulatory Department, Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005,
202–326–4024. (TTY/TDD users may
call the Federal relay service toll-free at
1–800–877–8339 and ask to be
connected to 202–326–4024.)
The
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
published a document in the June 15,
2006, Federal Register (71 FR 34645),
informing the public of the interest rates
and assumptions to be used under
certain Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation regulations. This document
corrects an inadvertent error in that
notice.
In FR Doc. E6–9346, published on
June 15, 2006 (70 FR 34645), make the
following correction. On page 34646, in
the second column, in the last line of
the table, remove ‘‘2005’’ and add, in its
place, ‘‘2006’’.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:08 Jun 21, 2006
Jkt 208001
BILLING CODE 7709–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Upon Written Request, Copies Available
From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and
Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 19th day
of June 2006.
Vincent K. Snowbarger,
Acting Executive Director, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. E6–9881 Filed 6–21–06; 8:45 am]
Extension: Rule 6c–7; SEC File No. 270–269;
OMB Control No. 3235–0276.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the
‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments
on the collection of information
summarized below. The Commission
plans to submit these existing
collections of information to the Office
of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for
extension and approval.
Rule 6c–7 (17 CFR 270.6c–7) under
the Investment Company Act of 1940
(15 U.S.C. 80a–1 et seq.) (‘‘1940 Act’’)
provides exemption from certain
provisions of sections 22(e) and 27 of
the 1940 Act for registered separate
accounts offering variable annuity
contracts to certain employees of Texas
institutions of higher education
participating in the Texas Optional
Retirement Program. There are
approximately 80 registrants governed
by Rule 6c–7. The burden of compliance
with Rule 6c–7, in connection with the
registrants obtaining from a purchaser,
prior to or at the time of purchase, a
signed document acknowledging the
restrictions on redeemability imposed
by Texas law, is estimated to be
approximately 3 minutes of professional
time per response for each of
approximately 2600 purchasers
annually (at an estimated $70 per hour),
for a total annual burden of 130 hours
(at a total annual cost of $9,100).
The estimate of average burden hours
is made solely for the purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not
derived from a comprehensive or even
a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules or forms. The
Commission does not include in the
estimate of average burden hours the
time preparing registration statements
and sales literature disclosure regarding
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the restrictions on redeemability
imposed by Texas law. The estimate of
burden hours for completing the
relevant registration statements are
reported on the separate PRA
submissions for those statements. (See
the separate PRA submissions for Form
N–3 (17 CFR 274.11b) and Form N–4 (17
CFR 274.11c).
The Commission requests written
comments on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this
publication.
Please direct your written comments
to R. Corey Both, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an
e-mail to: PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov.
Dated: June 15, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–9833 Filed 6–21–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–54001; File No. 4–429]
Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing of
Joint Amendment No. 19 to the
Intermarket Option Linkage Plan To
Modify the Manner in Which the
Participation Fee Applicable to New
Participants Is Calculated
June 15, 2006.
Pursuant to section 11A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 608 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on February
17, 2006, March 16, 2006, April 12,
2006, April 18, 2006, May 2, 2006, and
May 22, 2006, International Securities
Exchange, Inc. (‘‘ISE’’), Philadelphia
Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’), Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
1 15
2 17
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
U.S.C. 78k–1.
CFR 242.608.
22JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 120 (Thursday, June 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35957-35960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-9850]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 040-07455]
Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Source Materials License
No. Sma-1018, Approving the Final Status Survey Plan for Section 2 of
the Whittaker Corporation's Facility in Transfer, PA
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
[[Page 35958]]
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie McLaughlin, Health Physicist,
Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I,
475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1415; telephone
(610) 337-5240; fax number (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: mmm3@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of a license amendment to Source Materials License No. SMA-
1018. This license is held by Whittaker Corporation (the Licensee), for
its Whittaker facility (the Facility), located at 99 Crestview Drive in
Transfer, Pennsylvania. Issuance of the amendment would approve a Final
Status Survey Plan (FSSP) for Section 2 of the Facility. The Licensee
requested this action in a letter dated October 5, 2005. The NRC has
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed
action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 Code of Federal
Regulation (CFR), part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC
has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is
appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be
issued following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal
Register.
II. Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would grant the Licensee's October 5, 2005,
license amendment request, thereby approving the FSSP for Section 2 of
the Facility. Specifically, the FSSP describes the Licensee's methods
and procedures for determining whether that portion of the site
currently meets the radiological criteria for release for unrestricted
use specified in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20, or if additional
remediation is required. NRC approval of the FSSP does not constitute
termination of the license or release of the site for unrestricted use.
Instead, it would allow the Licensee to obtain the information required
by the NRC in support of any later request to release the Facility (or
a portion of the Facility) for unrestricted use.
License No. SMA-1018 was issued on December 15, 1969, pursuant to
10 CFR part 40, and has been amended periodically since that time. The
license authorized the possession and use of unsealed source material
(natural thorium and natural uranium) contained in ores used for
minerals processing and as a contaminant that was isolated by the
processing of scrap metal. The Facility originally consisted of a plant
and a slag waste storage area. In 1974, the Licensee ceased licensed
operations at the Facility, and initiated decommissioning of plant
equipment and buildings. Waste slag, raw materials, feed-metal scrap,
and contaminated building materials that were generated from the
decontamination activities were placed in the slag storage area. The
portion of the property housing the plant was released for unrestricted
use in 1975, following the performance of a confirmatory survey by the
NRC. An additional plant building was decommissioned in 1983 and
released for unrestricted use in 1985. The plant is an active facility
under a new owner (Greenville Metals), who is not associated with the
Licensee. Greenville Metals processes and refines scrap and other
metals to produce metal alloys and conversion products. Greenville
Metals does not utilize NRC-licensed radioactive material, and is
separated from the Whittaker property by metal fencing.
The Facility that the Licensee plans to decommission consists of
the slag area, located on a 5.9 acre strip of land, that is
characterized by four sections according to topography and site use.
Section 2 is in the center, bordered by Section 3 to the north, the
boundary fence with the Greenville Metals plant to the west, a ravine
to the south, and floodplain and the Shenango River to the east.
Section 2 contained the highest-activity slag, most of which has now
been excavated and disposed in accordance with the Licensee's
procedures that were approved by NRC in the license amendment dated
June 10, 1999. The Facility is located within an industrial park. There
are no buildings remaining at the Facility (with the exception of
temporary trailers supplied by the decommissioning contractor), and the
surrounding area is primarily rural.
In July 2004, the Licensee initiated excavation and survey of the
slag and waste materials in Section 2 of the Facility. On September 12,
2005, the Licensee commenced shipping the material to an authorized
radioactive waste disposal site. The proposed action is to approve the
Licensee's plan for conducting a radiological survey of Section 2 of
the Facility. The Licensee will perform the survey to determine if
Section 2 meets the site-specific Derived Concentration Guideline
Levels (DCGLs), approved by the NRC on September 20, 2005 (70 FR
54779). These DCGLs describe the maximum amount of residual
radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, materials, and soils
that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20
for unrestricted release of the Facility.
Need for the Proposed Action
The Licensee is no longer using licensed materials at the Facility.
In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 40.42(h), the Licensee
must complete decommissioning of the site no later than 24 months
following the initiation of decommissioning. The Licensee will use the
proposed FSSP to determine if Section 2 of the Facility meets the NRC
criteria for release for unrestricted use, or if additional
decommissioning activities are required.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The survey described in the proposed Section 2 FSSP follows the
guidance contained in NUREG-1575, Rev 1, ``Multi-Agency Radiation
Survey and Site Investigation Manual'' (MARSSIM). The proposed FSSP
divides Section 2 into Class 1 and Class 2 survey units, based on the
expected remaining radioactive contamination. Under the proposed
action, each survey unit will receive a walkover radiation survey of
the soil surface (one-hundred percent of the area for the Class 1 units
and a minimum of ten percent of the area for the Class 2 units). The
walkover surveys will be performed using a two-inch by two-inch
(2 x 2) Sodium-Iodide (NAI) radiation detector.
The proposed FSSP also provides for obtaining 11 discrete soil samples
from each survey unit. The sample locations would be determined using a
random-start grid pattern, in accordance with the MARSSIM guidance. The
samples would consist of filling one-gallon bags with soil from the
remediated area, and having the soil analyzed by gamma spectroscopy to
determine the radiological composition. In addition, the proposed FSSP
includes the performance of exposure rate measurements at each soil
sample location at a height of one meter (m).
The proposed action would have minimal effect on environmental
resources because it involves passive surveys and the removal of only a
small amount of soil from an area that was previously-impacted by
licensed operations. The proposed action would not result in the
release of radioactivity to the air or water. The proposed action
[[Page 35959]]
also would not authorize release of Section 2 of the Facility for
unrestricted use. Based on its review, the NRC staff has determined
that the proposed FSSP is in compliance with approved NRC standards, as
described in NUREG-1575, Rev.1.
Area groundwater is chemically contaminated with trichloroethylene
(TCE). The origin of this contamination is being investigated by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). PADEP has
indicated that it believes the contamination is being leached onto the
Facility property from surrounding industrial sites. The Licensee is
working with PADEP and the surrounding industries to identify and
remediate the TCE source and the contamination. The proposed action
will not result in the release of TCE to the environment. The NRC staff
has found no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the
area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. Based on
its review, the staff concluded that the proposed action will not have
a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The only alternative to the proposed action is the no-action
alternative, under which the staff would deny the amendment request for
the proposed FSSP. This alternative would result in no environmental
impacts, but would prohibit the performance of a FSS for Section 2 of
the Facility. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it
conflicts with 10 CFR 20.1402, requiring licensees to verify that
residual radioactivity meets the radiological unrestricted release
criteria. The Licensee cannot demonstrate that the site meets the
decommissioning criteria without performing the FSS. The licensee must
verify that the decommissioning criteria are met before it can request
release of Section 2 of the Facility for unrestricted use.
Additionally, denying the amendment request would prevent the Licensee
from completing decommissioning in the timeframe required by 10 CFR
40.42(h). The environmental impacts of the proposed action are minimal,
and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.
Conclusion
The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent
with NRC guidance and regulations. Because the proposed action will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC
staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
NRC provided a draft of the EA to PADEP on January 24, 2006. On
February 15, 2006, PADEP responded by e-mail. The State agreed with the
conclusions of the EA, and provided some typographical comments on the
EA document, and two specific comments on the FSSP:
Comment 1: PADEP asked whether the contractor, NRC, will use to
perform a confirmatory survey of Section 2 of the Facility will review
and comment on the FSSP.
Resolution: NRC provided the proposed FSSP to the NRC contractor
for review and comment on February 21, 2006. Comments were received on
March 2, 2006. NRC provided the comments to the Licensee in a Request
for Additional Information on March 29, 2006. The Licensee revised the
proposed FSSP in response to the comments, and provided the revised
FSSP in a letter dated May 15, 2006. The staff reviewed the revised
FSSP for the preparation of this EA.
Comment 2: PADEP asked how the Licensee has verified the belief
stated in the proposed FSSP that Section 2 of the Facility has been
excavated to native soil, and that there is not additional
contamination at a greater depth.
Resolution: NRC discussed the comment with the Licensee and PADEP.
The bottom of the excavation is characterized by foundry sand in most
locations, and by river rock and coarse soil in others. The Licensee
believes, and NRC concurs that the river rock and coarse soil is native
soil. In areas exposing foundry sand, the Licensee will perform surveys
to verify that contamination is not present at greater depths. PADEP
indicated that they are satisfied with this response.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action has minimal
environmental impacts, and will not affect listed species or critical
habitat. Therefore, no consultation is required under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the
proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to
cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further
consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic
reservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed
action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no
significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that
preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant
Impact is appropriate.
IV. Further Information
Documents related to this action, including the application for
license amendment and supporting documentation, are available
electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the
NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents
related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS
accession numbers.
1. Initial Amendment Request with Final Status Survey Plan, dated
October 5, 2005 (ML052900082);
2. Request for Additional Information (RAI), dated October 18, 2005
(ML052910472);
3. Section 2 FSSP, Revision 1, dated November 14, 2005
(ML053190091);
4. Additional RAI, dated January 9, 2006 (ML060090311);
5. Section 2 FSSP, Revision 2, dated January 31, 2006
(ML060300532);
6. Comments on the Section 2 FSSP from the Oak Ridge Institute for
Science and Education, dated March 2, 2006 (ML060690388);
7. Telephone Log, dated March 22, 2006 (ML060810706);
8. Additional RAI, dated March 29, 2006 (ML060880199);
9. Section 2 FSSP, Revision 3, dated May 15, 2006 (ML061420467);
10. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E,
``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;''
11. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40. 42, ``Expiration
and Termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites and Separate
Buildings or Outdoor Areas;''
12. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions;''
13. NUREG-1575, Rev 1, ``Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site
Investigation Manual''
If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed
electronically on the public computers
[[Page 35960]]
located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor
will copy documents for a fee.
Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 15th day of June,
2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marie Miller,
Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
Region I.
[FR Doc. E6-9850 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
