Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Source Materials License No. SMA 1018, Approving Revision 2 of the Erosion Sediment Pollution Control Plan for Excavation of Wetlands Areas at the Whittaker Corporation's Facility in Transfer, PA, 44049-44052 [E6-12515]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 149 / Thursday, August 3, 2006 / Notices
hsrobinson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Licensee’s final status survey results
were below these DCGLs, and are thus
acceptable. Based on its review, the staff
has determined that the affected
environment and any environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action are bounded by the impacts
evaluated by the ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement in
Support of Rulemaking on Radiological
Criteria for License Termination of NRCLicensed Nuclear Facilities’’ (NUREG–
1496) Volumes 1–3 (ML042310492,
ML042320379, and ML042330385).
Further, no incidents were recorded
involving spills or releases of
radioactive material at the Facility.
Accordingly, there were no significant
environmental impacts from the use of
radioactive material at the Facility. The
NRC staff reviewed the docket file
records and the final status survey
report to identify any non-radiological
hazards that may have impacted the
environment surrounding the Facility.
No such hazards or impacts to the
environment were identified. The NRC
has found no other radiological or nonradiological activities in the area that
could result in cumulative
environmental impacts.
The NRC staff finds that the proposed
release of the Facility described above
for unrestricted use is in compliance
with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its
review, the staff considered the impact
of the residual radioactivity in Room
105 and 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
Due to the largely administrative
nature of the proposed action, its
environmental impacts are small.
Therefore, the only alternative the staff
considered is the no-action alternative,
under which the staff would leave
things as they are by simply denying the
amendment request. This no-action
alternative is not feasible because it
conflicts with 10 CFR 40.42(d) and
70.38(d), requiring that
decommissioning of source and special
nuclear material facilities be completed
and approved by the NRC after licensed
activities cease. The NRC’s analysis of
the Licensee’s final status survey data
confirmed that Room 105 meets the
requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for
unrestricted release. Additionally,
denying the amendment request would
result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the no-action alternative are
therefore similar, and the no-action
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Aug 02, 2006
Jkt 208001
alternative is accordingly not further
considered.
Conclusion
The NRC staff has concluded that the
proposed action is consistent with the
NRC’s unrestricted release criteria
specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. 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 this
Environmental Assessment to the State
of West Virginia for review on May 17,
2006. On June 20, 2006, the State of
West Virginia responded by electronic
mail. The State agreed with the
conclusions of the EA, and otherwise
had no comments.
The NRC staff has determined that the
proposed action is of a procedural
nature, and will not affect listed species
or critical habitat. Therefore, no further
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 Preservation 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.
44049
Engineering Classroom Building Room 105’’
[ML052280399];
(2) Additional information in letters dated
November 7, 2005 [ML053200348] and
January 19, 2006 [ML060240555], and by
facsimile February 10, 2006 [ML060470436];
(3) Federal Register Notice, Volume 65,
No. 114, page 37186, dated Tuesday, June 13,
2000, ‘‘Use of Screening Values to
Demonstrate Compliance With The Federal
Rule on Radiological Criteria for License
Termination’’;
(4) Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 20, Subpart E, ‘‘Radiological Criteria for
License Termination’’;
(5) Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 51, ‘‘Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and
Related Regulatory Functions’’;
(6) NUREG–1496, ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking
on Radiological Criteria for License
Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear
Facilities.’’
If you do not have access to ADAMS,
or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact
the NRC 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, 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
20th day of July 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James P. Dwyer,
Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division
of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I.
[FR Doc. E6–12514 Filed 8–2–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 040–07455]
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) Letter dated August 9, 2005,
transmitting the ‘‘Final Status Survey for
Decommissioning for West Virginia
University Institute of Technology
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License
Amendment to Source Materials
License No. SMA 1018, Approving
Revision 2 of the Erosion Sediment
Pollution Control Plan for Excavation
of Wetlands Areas at the Whittaker
Corporation’s Facility in Transfer, PA
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License
Amendment.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marjorie McLaughlin, Health Physicist,
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
44050
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 149 / Thursday, August 3, 2006 / Notices
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 revision to
the license tie-down document,
‘‘Erosion and Sediment Pollution
Control Plan for Phase 1 and Phase 2
Activities at the Whittaker Remediation
Site (ESPCP).’’ The Licensee requested
this action in a letter dated May 24,
2006. 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 Regulations
(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 to the Licensee following
the publication of this FONSI and EA in
the Federal Register.
II. Environmental Assessment
hsrobinson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would grant the
Licensee’s May 24, 2006, license
amendment request, thereby approving
Revision 2 of the ESPCP. Specifically,
the ESPCP describes the Licensee’s
activities at the Facility that involve
excavation and/or other forms of earth
disturbance. The ESPCP also describes
the engineering and programmatic
controls the Licensee will implement
during any such activities to minimize
the potential for accelerated erosion and
sedimentation. Accelerated erosion is
the removal of surface soils by natural
processes and human activity at a faster
rate than would occur due to the natural
processes alone. Sedimentation is the
action of depositing sediment (e.g., soil)
in a body of water. The proposed action
would approve the Licensee’s revision
to the ESPCP to allow for excavation of
material within Facility areas that are
delineated as wetlands. The specific
contents of the ESPCP are described in
more detail in a later section of this
report.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Aug 02, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 current Facility consists of the
slag area, located on an irregularlyshaped, 5.9 acre strip of land, that is
characterized by four sections according
to topography and site use. Facility
topography (prior to the initiation of
decommissioning) had been built up
through the repeated disposal of slag,
scrap metal, debris, and foundry sand.
The Facility is bordered by an access
road to the north, Greenville Metals to
the west and south, and the Shenango
River to the east. The Facility is located
within an industrial park. There are no
buildings remaining (with the exception
of temporary trailers supplied by the
decommissioning contractor), and the
surrounding area is primarily rural. In
July 2004, the Licensee initiated
decommissioning activities, involving
excavation of the slag material and
shipment to an authorized disposal
facility.
The NRC has required the Licensee to
monitor the current Facility for signs of
erosion from the time when it was used
only as a storage area for the radioactive
slag material. The slag piles had reached
elevations of 20 feet or more above the
adjoining river flood plain. The
proximity of the Facility to the river,
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
coupled with the steep slope of the slag
piles were the initial motivation for
implementing erosion controls to guard
against offsite migration of
contaminated material. When the
Licensee commenced decommissioning
activities, a more robust erosion control
program was required. NRC approved
the previous ESPCP revision with the
most recent license renewal. The EA
associated with that renewal was
published in the Federal Register on
September 16, 2005 (Volume 70,
Number 179). The current and proposed
ESPCPs describe the controls that are to
be implemented during Phase 1 and
Phase 2 of the Facility decommissioning
operation. Phase 1 involved the removal
of staged debris and slag from a concrete
pad located on the Facility, and is
complete. Phase 2 involves excavation
and removal of slag material from other
Facility areas, and is currently in
progress.
The proposed ESPCP amendment
involves excavation of material located
within the site-delineated wetlands
areas. As defined in the Clean Water Act
(CWA), wetlands are, ‘‘those areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support,
a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs and similar
areas [Source: 40 CFR 230.3(t)].’’ Section
404 of the CWA establishes the program
that regulates the discharge of material
into U.S. waters, including wetlands.
Activities within wetlands areas are
evaluated and controlled through a
permitting process, which grants
approval of proposed actions.
Significant activities are approved by
individual permits. Activities that are
determined to have minimal adverse
effects may be granted a general permit.
The program is developed and enforced
by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and is administered by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACE). State environmental agencies
involvement may consist of assuming
either the general permitting process or
the entire permitting program. The
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) has
assumed the authority for general
permit reviews for proposed activities in
wetlands within the Commonwealth.
The current ESPCP is a part of the
Licensee’s NRC license. Amendments to
the ESPCP require an amendment to the
license. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal
agencies to consider the environmental
impacts of actions under their
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 149 / Thursday, August 3, 2006 / Notices
jurisdiction. Although the
decommissioning activities described in
the proposed ESPCP do not differ from
those already approved by the NRC in
the licensee’s current operating
procedures, their application to Facility
wetlands areas requires NRC to perform
this assessment of the environmental
impacts of the proposed action.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Need for the Proposed Action
The Licensee is no longer using
licensed materials at the Facility, and
has initiated site decommissioning. The
Licensee is preparing a formal
Decommissioning Plan (DP) that will
describe the methods and procedures to
complete decommissioning activities,
and will submit the DP as a separate
amendment request. Until the NRC
approves the Licensee’s DP,
decommissioning activities must be
performed in accordance with NRCapproved procedures. This amendment
request involves such a procedure and
the action allows the licensee to
continue site cleanup activities until the
DP is approved. In accordance with 10
CFR 20.1402, a site may be considered
for unrestricted release if the residual
radioactivity results in a total effective
dose equivalent (TEDE) that does not
exceed 25 millirem per year (mrem/yr).
To meet this dose criterion, the Licensee
must remediate (decommission) the
Facility by removing and appropriately
disposing of radioactive materials that
result in a TEDE that is greater than 25
mrem/yr. The Licensee identified that
radioactive materials are present in the
subsurface soils of Facility wetlands
areas. Removal of these materials is
necessary to effect Facility
decommissioning. The Licensee will
follow the proposed ESPCP to provide
protection to the affected wetlands and
waterway while removing this material.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
Both the previous and the proposed
ESPCP revisions provide a brief
description of the site, its history and
current activities, and topography and
soil makeup. There is also no change to
the method for preventing sediments
generated from storm water runoff from
entering the wetlands areas and the
Shenango River. Installed silt fencing at
the base of the slag pile slopes remains
the control method for this situation.
The fencing in some locations is 30-inch
filter fabric reinforced with staked straw
bales and 33-inch filter fabric supported
by chain link fence in other locations.
In addition to the silt fencing, which
will remain installed both during and
in-between excavation activities, weekly
site walkdowns are performed during
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Aug 02, 2006
Jkt 208001
active excavation campaigns. The
walkdowns include inspection and
maintenance of the silt fencing and
removal of any built up debris or
sediment from the base of the fencing.
Any necessary repairs to the fencing are
reported to the appropriate
Commonwealth agency. During periods
of Facility inactivity (i.e., winter shutdown), the site walkdowns are
performed monthly. The proposed
action does not involve a change to the
silt fencing use or design, or to the site
walkdowns.
The current ESPCP describes the
delineation of Facility wetlands and
certifies that slag and material removal
from these areas will be performed by
hand (i.e., heavy equipment will not be
used and excavations will not be
involved). The current ESPCP does
allow for material excavation using
heavy equipment within the Facility
floodway areas, and specifies that such
activities will only remove material
from the floodway, and will not add
any. The current ESPCP was submitted
to the PADEP as a section of the Facility
Restoration Plan, which was provided to
meet the Commonwealth’s requirements
for approving Facility activities. The
Commonwealth approved the current
ESPCP and determined that the
proposed activities had no significant
environmental impacts, and qualified
for a waiver from the permit
requirements in accordance with 25 PA
Code 105.12. NRC approved the current
ESPCP as part of the most recent license
renewal, as described previously in this
report.
The proposed activity amends the
ESPCP to allow for excavation of
material from within the Facilitydelineated wetlands. The proposed
ESPCP states that soil borings may be
obtained from within this area using a
boring machine, so that the soil may be
analyzed for the presence of radioactive
material. In addition, excavation of
material within this area may be
performed, and some trees removed so
that radioactive slag within the root
systems may be accessed and disposed.
The ESPCP proposes to minimize the
environmental impacts from these
activities by: Extending the silt fencing
to contain these areas; setting up the
excavating equipment in non-wetlands
areas and, to the extent possible,
extending the reach of the arm so that
only the bucket impacts the wetlands
(i.e., rather than driving an excavator
truck over the wetlands soil); and
minimizing the amount of soil removed
from the wetlands. The proposed ESPCP
commits that the Licensee will restore
the wetland, floodway, and riverbank
upon completion of slag removal. The
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44051
specific restoration activities will
require PADEP approval and will be
provided in a later ESPCP revision.
The Licensee submitted the proposed
ESPCP to PADEP as a revision to the
Facility Restoration Plan. PADEP
approved the revision on April 19, 2006,
and again determined that the proposed
activities qualify for a waiver from the
permitting requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the
proposed activity will have a minimal
effect on environmental resources. The
activities described in the proposed
ESPCP involve removal of material from
within Facility wetlands areas, but the
amount of material and the impact to
these areas will be minimized to the
extent possible. Additionally, the
proposed activity provides for the use of
engineering barriers (silt fencing) to
prevent migration of sediment and
contaminants into the river. The
proposed activity involves only the
removal of soil and slag material. The
Licensee will not be adding material to
the wetlands or waterway under this
proposed action. Based on its review,
the staff concludes 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
ESPCP. This alternative would result in
no environmental impacts, but would
prohibit the removal of contaminated
material from the Facility wetlands
areas. 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 may not be able to meet
the unrestricted release criteria if the
material in these areas is not removed
from the Facility and appropriately
disposed. 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 not significant, and the noaction alternative is accordingly not
further considered.
Conclusion
The NRC staff has concluded that the
proposed action is consistent NRC
guidance and regulations. Because the
proposed action will not significantly
impact the quality of the human
environment, the NRC staff concludes
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
44052
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 149 / Thursday, August 3, 2006 / Notices
that the proposed action is the preferred
alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
NRC provided a draft of this
Environmental Assessment to PADEP
for review on June 9, 2006. On June 14,
2006, PADEP responded by email that
PADEP staff involved with both
radiation protection and with watershed
management reviewed the EA. PADEP
agreed with the conclusions of the EA,
and otherwise had no comments.
The NRC staff has determined that the
proposed action is of a procedural
nature, and will not affect listed species
or critical habitat. Therefore, no further
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 Preservation 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.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
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. Amendment request with Erosion
and Sediment Pollution Control Plan
Revision 2, dated May 24, 2006
(ML061570151);
2. Title 25, Pennsylvania Code,
Chapter 105, ‘‘Dam Safety and
Waterway Management;’’
3. Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 230, Section 404(b)(1),
‘‘Guidelines for Specification of
Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill
Material;’’
4. Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:20 Aug 02, 2006
Jkt 208001
‘‘Radiological Criteria for License
Termination;’’
5. Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 40, ‘‘Domestic
Licensing of Source Material;’’
6. Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 51, ‘‘Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions;’’
If you do not have access to ADAMS,
or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact
the NRC 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, 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
25th day of July.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marie Miller,
Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I.
[FR Doc. E6–12515 Filed 8–2–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
[Docket No. MC2006–6; Order No. 1472]
Extension of Negotiated Service
Agreement
Postal Rate Commission.
ACTION: Notice and order.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document informs the
public that the Postal Service is seeking
approval of a one-year extension of the
negotiated service agreement with
Capital One Services, Inc. The
document describes the agreement,
identifies certain preliminary decisions,
and addresses procedural steps,
including key deadlines.
DATES: 1. August 14, 2006: Deadline for
intervention, statements identifying
issues requiring a hearing, and
objections to rule 197 treatment.
2. August 15, 2006: Prehearing
conference.
Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, general counsel,
at 202–789–6820.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Procedural History
Capital One Services, Inc. Negotiated
Service Agreement, 67 FR 61355
(September 30, 2002).
On July 26, 2006, the United States
Postal Service filed a request seeking a
recommended decision from the Postal
Rate Commission approving a one-year
extension of the negotiated service
agreement with Capital One Services,
Inc.1 The Capital One negotiated service
agreement was first recommended by
the Commission on May 15, 2003,2 and
ordered into effect for a period of three
years ending September 1, 2006, by the
United States Postal Service Board of
Governors.3 The Request, which
includes seven attachments, was filed
pursuant to chapter 36 of the Postal
Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. 3601 et
seq.4 The Postal Service asks that this
case proceed under the Commission’s
rules for requests to renew previously
recommended negotiated service
agreements with existing participants.
Rule 197 [39 CFR 3001.197].
The Postal Service has identified
Capital One Services, Inc. (Capital One),
along with itself, as parties to the
negotiated service agreement. This
identification serves as notice of
intervention by Capital One. It also
indicates that Capital One shall be
considered a co-proponent,
procedurally and substantively, of the
Postal Service’s Request during the
Commission’s review of the negotiated
service agreement. Rule 191(b) [39 CFR
3001.191(b)].
In support of the direct case, the
Postal Service has filed Direct
Testimony of Jessica Lowrance on
1 Request of the United States Postal Service for
a Recommended Decision to Extend the Duration of
the Previously Recommended Negotiated Service
Agreement with Capital One, July 26, 2006
(Request).
2 PRC Op. MC2002–2, May 15, 2003.
3 Decision of the Governors of the United States
Postal Service on the Opinion and Recommended
Decision of the Postal Rate Commission
Recommending Experimental Rate and Service
Changes to Implement Negotiated Service
Agreement with Capital One, Docket No. MC2002–
2, June 2, 2003.
4 Attachment A to the Request contains proposed
changes to the Domestic Mail Classification
Schedule; Attachment B contains the current rate
schedules, which have not been modified from
Docket No. MC2002–2; Attachment C is a
certification required by Commission rule 193(i)
specifying that the cost statements and supporting
data submitted by the Postal Service, which purport
to reflect the books of the Postal Service, accurately
set forth the results shown by such books;
Attachment D is an index of testimony and exhibits;
Attachment E is a compliance statement addressing
satisfaction of various filing requirements;
Attachment F is a copy of the amendment to the
Negotiated Service Agreement and the Negotiated
Service Agreement itself; and Attachment G
contains the decision of the Governors for the
original Negotiated Service Agreement.
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 149 (Thursday, August 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44049-44052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12515]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Revision 2 of the Erosion Sediment Pollution
Control Plan for Excavation of Wetlands Areas at the Whittaker
Corporation's Facility in Transfer, PA
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License Amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie McLaughlin, Health Physicist,
[[Page 44050]]
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
revision to the license tie-down document, ``Erosion and Sediment
Pollution Control Plan for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Activities at the
Whittaker Remediation Site (ESPCP).'' The Licensee requested this
action in a letter dated May 24, 2006. 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
Regulations (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 to the Licensee 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 May 24, 2006,
license amendment request, thereby approving Revision 2 of the ESPCP.
Specifically, the ESPCP describes the Licensee's activities at the
Facility that involve excavation and/or other forms of earth
disturbance. The ESPCP also describes the engineering and programmatic
controls the Licensee will implement during any such activities to
minimize the potential for accelerated erosion and sedimentation.
Accelerated erosion is the removal of surface soils by natural
processes and human activity at a faster rate than would occur due to
the natural processes alone. Sedimentation is the action of depositing
sediment (e.g., soil) in a body of water. The proposed action would
approve the Licensee's revision to the ESPCP to allow for excavation of
material within Facility areas that are delineated as wetlands. The
specific contents of the ESPCP are described in more detail in a later
section of this report.
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 current Facility consists of the slag area, located on an
irregularly-shaped, 5.9 acre strip of land, that is characterized by
four sections according to topography and site use. Facility topography
(prior to the initiation of decommissioning) had been built up through
the repeated disposal of slag, scrap metal, debris, and foundry sand.
The Facility is bordered by an access road to the north, Greenville
Metals to the west and south, and the Shenango River to the east. The
Facility is located within an industrial park. There are no buildings
remaining (with the exception of temporary trailers supplied by the
decommissioning contractor), and the surrounding area is primarily
rural. In July 2004, the Licensee initiated decommissioning activities,
involving excavation of the slag material and shipment to an authorized
disposal facility.
The NRC has required the Licensee to monitor the current Facility
for signs of erosion from the time when it was used only as a storage
area for the radioactive slag material. The slag piles had reached
elevations of 20 feet or more above the adjoining river flood plain.
The proximity of the Facility to the river, coupled with the steep
slope of the slag piles were the initial motivation for implementing
erosion controls to guard against offsite migration of contaminated
material. When the Licensee commenced decommissioning activities, a
more robust erosion control program was required. NRC approved the
previous ESPCP revision with the most recent license renewal. The EA
associated with that renewal was published in the Federal Register on
September 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 179). The current and proposed
ESPCPs describe the controls that are to be implemented during Phase 1
and Phase 2 of the Facility decommissioning operation. Phase 1 involved
the removal of staged debris and slag from a concrete pad located on
the Facility, and is complete. Phase 2 involves excavation and removal
of slag material from other Facility areas, and is currently in
progress.
The proposed ESPCP amendment involves excavation of material
located within the site-delineated wetlands areas. As defined in the
Clean Water Act (CWA), wetlands are, ``those areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support,
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and
similar areas [Source: 40 CFR 230.3(t)].'' Section 404 of the CWA
establishes the program that regulates the discharge of material into
U.S. waters, including wetlands. Activities within wetlands areas are
evaluated and controlled through a permitting process, which grants
approval of proposed actions. Significant activities are approved by
individual permits. Activities that are determined to have minimal
adverse effects may be granted a general permit. The program is
developed and enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE).
State environmental agencies involvement may consist of assuming either
the general permitting process or the entire permitting program. The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has assumed
the authority for general permit reviews for proposed activities in
wetlands within the Commonwealth.
The current ESPCP is a part of the Licensee's NRC license.
Amendments to the ESPCP require an amendment to the license. The
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to
consider the environmental impacts of actions under their
[[Page 44051]]
jurisdiction. Although the decommissioning activities described in the
proposed ESPCP do not differ from those already approved by the NRC in
the licensee's current operating procedures, their application to
Facility wetlands areas requires NRC to perform this assessment of the
environmental impacts of the proposed action.
Need for the Proposed Action
The Licensee is no longer using licensed materials at the Facility,
and has initiated site decommissioning. The Licensee is preparing a
formal Decommissioning Plan (DP) that will describe the methods and
procedures to complete decommissioning activities, and will submit the
DP as a separate amendment request. Until the NRC approves the
Licensee's DP, decommissioning activities must be performed in
accordance with NRC-approved procedures. This amendment request
involves such a procedure and the action allows the licensee to
continue site cleanup activities until the DP is approved. In
accordance with 10 CFR 20.1402, a site may be considered for
unrestricted release if the residual radioactivity results in a total
effective dose equivalent (TEDE) that does not exceed 25 millirem per
year (mrem/yr). To meet this dose criterion, the Licensee must
remediate (decommission) the Facility by removing and appropriately
disposing of radioactive materials that result in a TEDE that is
greater than 25 mrem/yr. The Licensee identified that radioactive
materials are present in the subsurface soils of Facility wetlands
areas. Removal of these materials is necessary to effect Facility
decommissioning. The Licensee will follow the proposed ESPCP to provide
protection to the affected wetlands and waterway while removing this
material.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
Both the previous and the proposed ESPCP revisions provide a brief
description of the site, its history and current activities, and
topography and soil makeup. There is also no change to the method for
preventing sediments generated from storm water runoff from entering
the wetlands areas and the Shenango River. Installed silt fencing at
the base of the slag pile slopes remains the control method for this
situation. The fencing in some locations is 30-inch filter fabric
reinforced with staked straw bales and 33-inch filter fabric supported
by chain link fence in other locations. In addition to the silt
fencing, which will remain installed both during and in-between
excavation activities, weekly site walkdowns are performed during
active excavation campaigns. The walkdowns include inspection and
maintenance of the silt fencing and removal of any built up debris or
sediment from the base of the fencing. Any necessary repairs to the
fencing are reported to the appropriate Commonwealth agency. During
periods of Facility inactivity (i.e., winter shut-down), the site
walkdowns are performed monthly. The proposed action does not involve a
change to the silt fencing use or design, or to the site walkdowns.
The current ESPCP describes the delineation of Facility wetlands
and certifies that slag and material removal from these areas will be
performed by hand (i.e., heavy equipment will not be used and
excavations will not be involved). The current ESPCP does allow for
material excavation using heavy equipment within the Facility floodway
areas, and specifies that such activities will only remove material
from the floodway, and will not add any. The current ESPCP was
submitted to the PADEP as a section of the Facility Restoration Plan,
which was provided to meet the Commonwealth's requirements for
approving Facility activities. The Commonwealth approved the current
ESPCP and determined that the proposed activities had no significant
environmental impacts, and qualified for a waiver from the permit
requirements in accordance with 25 PA Code 105.12. NRC approved the
current ESPCP as part of the most recent license renewal, as described
previously in this report.
The proposed activity amends the ESPCP to allow for excavation of
material from within the Facility-delineated wetlands. The proposed
ESPCP states that soil borings may be obtained from within this area
using a boring machine, so that the soil may be analyzed for the
presence of radioactive material. In addition, excavation of material
within this area may be performed, and some trees removed so that
radioactive slag within the root systems may be accessed and disposed.
The ESPCP proposes to minimize the environmental impacts from these
activities by: Extending the silt fencing to contain these areas;
setting up the excavating equipment in non-wetlands areas and, to the
extent possible, extending the reach of the arm so that only the bucket
impacts the wetlands (i.e., rather than driving an excavator truck over
the wetlands soil); and minimizing the amount of soil removed from the
wetlands. The proposed ESPCP commits that the Licensee will restore the
wetland, floodway, and riverbank upon completion of slag removal. The
specific restoration activities will require PADEP approval and will be
provided in a later ESPCP revision.
The Licensee submitted the proposed ESPCP to PADEP as a revision to
the Facility Restoration Plan. PADEP approved the revision on April 19,
2006, and again determined that the proposed activities qualify for a
waiver from the permitting requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed activity will have a
minimal effect on environmental resources. The activities described in
the proposed ESPCP involve removal of material from within Facility
wetlands areas, but the amount of material and the impact to these
areas will be minimized to the extent possible. Additionally, the
proposed activity provides for the use of engineering barriers (silt
fencing) to prevent migration of sediment and contaminants into the
river. The proposed activity involves only the removal of soil and slag
material. The Licensee will not be adding material to the wetlands or
waterway under this proposed action. Based on its review, the staff
concludes 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 ESPCP. This alternative would result in no environmental
impacts, but would prohibit the removal of contaminated material from
the Facility wetlands areas. 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 may not be able to meet the unrestricted release
criteria if the material in these areas is not removed from the
Facility and appropriately disposed. 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 not significant, and
the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.
Conclusion
The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent
NRC guidance and regulations. Because the proposed action will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC
staff concludes
[[Page 44052]]
that the proposed action is the preferred alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to PADEP for
review on June 9, 2006. On June 14, 2006, PADEP responded by email that
PADEP staff involved with both radiation protection and with watershed
management reviewed the EA. PADEP agreed with the conclusions of the
EA, and otherwise had no comments.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a
procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical
habitat. Therefore, no further 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
Preservation 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. Amendment request with Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control
Plan Revision 2, dated May 24, 2006 (ML061570151);
2. Title 25, Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 105, ``Dam Safety and
Waterway Management;''
3. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 230, Section
404(b)(1), ``Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged
or Fill Material;''
4. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E,
``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;''
5. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, ``Domestic
Licensing of Source Material;''
6. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions;''
If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC 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, 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 25th day of July.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marie Miller,
Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
Region I.
[FR Doc. E6-12515 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
