Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Approval of the Mallinckrodt C-T Phase 2 Decommissioning Plan; Mallinckrodt, Inc.; St. Louis, MO, 38148-38151 [2010-16086]
Download as PDF
38148
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
28, 2010. The outage has been extended
due need to perform modifications to
several control rod drive mechanism
nozzles prior to restart. Due to the
extension of the outage, plant personal
performing duties defined by 10 CFR
26.4(a)(1) through (a)(5), including the
fire brigade, will have been working
hours in accordance with the
requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(d)(3)
prior to the application of the less
restrictive working hour limitations of
10 CFR 26.205(d)(4) and (d)(5) that
would be authorized by this exemption.
This provides assurance that covered
workers are not already fatigued from
working an outage schedule. Granting
this exemption would allow the licensee
to implement the less restrictive work
hour requirements of 10 CFR
26.205(d)(4) and (d)(5) to allow
flexibility in scheduling required days
off while accommodating the more
intensive work schedules that
accompany completion of a unit outage.
Notwithstanding the exemption for
this specific requirement, the licensee
will continue to be in compliance with
all other requirements as described in
10 CFR 26.
4.0 Environmental Consideration
The exemption authorizes a one-time
exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR 26.205(d)(3) to allow the use of the
less restrictive hour limitations
described in 10 CFR 26.205(d)(4) and
(d)(5). The NRC has determined that this
exemption involves no significant
hazards considerations:
(1) The proposed exemption is
administrative in nature and is limited
to changing the timeframe when less
restrictive hours can be worked. The
proposed exemption does not make any
changes to the facility or operating
procedures and does not alter the
design, function or operation of any
plant equipment. Therefore, issuance of
this exemption does not increase the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
(2) The proposed exemption is
administrative in nature and is limited
to changing the timeframe when less
restrictive hours can be worked. The
proposed exemption does not make any
changes to the facility or operating
procedures and would not create any
new accident initiators. The proposed
exemption does not alter the design,
function or operation of any plant
equipment. Therefore, this exemption
does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
(3) The proposed exemption is
administrative in nature and is limited
to changing the timeframe when less
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Jun 30, 2010
Jkt 220001
restrictive hours can be worked. The
proposed exemption does not alter the
design, function or operation of any
plant equipment. Therefore, this
exemption does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, the NRC
concludes that the proposed exemption
does not involve a significant hazards
consideration under the standards set
forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and
accordingly, a finding of ‘‘no significant
hazards consideration’’ is justified.
The NRC staff has also determined
that the exemption involves no
significant increase in the amounts, and
no significant change in the types, of
any effluents that may be released
offsite; that there is no significant
increase in individual or cumulative
occupational radiation exposure; that
there is no significant construction
impact; and there is no significant
increase in the potential for or
consequences from a radiological
accident. Furthermore, the requirement
from which the licensee will be
exempted involves scheduling
requirements. Accordingly, the
exemption meets the eligibility criteria
for categorical exclusion set forth in 10
CFR 51.22(c)(25). Pursuant to 10 CFR
51.22(b) no environmental impact
statement or environmental assessment
need be prepared in connection with the
issuance of the amendment.
5.0
Conclusion
The staff has reviewed the licensee’s
submittals and concludes that the
licensee has provided adequate
justification for its request for a onetime 21-day exemption from 10 CFR
26.205(d)(3) to allow the use of the less
restrictive hour limitations described in
10 CFR 26.205(d)(4) and (d)(5). The NRC
has determined that the need to ensure
adequate numbers of qualified workers
to complete unit outage activities, given
that workers will have been working
hours in accordance with the
requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(d)(3)
prior to application of this exemption,
justifies granting this exemption.
Accordingly, the Commission has
determined that pursuant to 10 CFR
26.9, ‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ an
exemption from 10 CFR 26.205(d)(3) is
authorized by law and will not endanger
life or property or the common defense
and security, and is otherwise in the
public interest.
Therefore the Commission hereby
grants the licensee’s request for a onetime, twenty-one day exemption from
10 CFR 26.205(d)(3) to allow the use of
the work hour limitations described in
10 CFR 26.205(d)(4) and (d)(5).
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
This exemption is effective upon
issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day
of June 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–16083 Filed 6–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[License No. Stb–401, Docket No. 40–6563;
NRC–201–0241]
Finding of No Significant Impact
Related to Approval of the Mallinckrodt
C–T Phase 2 Decommissioning Plan;
Mallinckrodt, Inc.; St. Louis, MO
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
approval of the Mallinckrodt Inc.
(Mallinckrodt or the licensee)
columbium-tantalum (C–T) Phase 2
Decommissioning Plan (DP), Revision 2,
originally submitted to NRC in May
2003, and resubmitted on October 14,
2008 (ML083150652) with revisions on
June 3, 2010 (ML101620140). In the DP,
Mallinckrodt is proposing to
decommission grade-level and belowgrade building slabs, paved surfaces,
and subsurface materials affected by
former C–T operations, at its St. Louis
site. If properly implemented, the DP
will lead to the successful remediation
of the C–T areas, their release for
unrestricted use, and the termination of
License STB–401.
Below is a summary of the
Environmental Assessment (EA)
prepared by the staff to support
approval of Mallinckrodt’s Phase 2 DP.
The complete EA is available through
NRC(s Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS),
Accession No. ML091960322.
Environmental Assessment
Introduction
Mallinckrodt has been operating at
the St. Louis Plant since 1867 producing
various products including metallic
oxides and salts, ammonia, and organic
chemicals. From 1942 to 1957,
Mallinckrodt was under contract with
the Manhattan Engineering District and
the Atomic Energy Commission (MED–
AEC) to process uranium ore to produce
uranium for development of atomic
weapons. In 1961, pursuant to 10 CFR
part 40, Mallinckrodt was issued a
source material license (License No.
STB–401) authorizing the possession
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Notices
and use of materials containing uranium
and thorium isotopes. Under this
license, from 1961 to 1987, Mallinckrodt
extracted C–T from natural uranium
ores and tin slags, and purchased and
processed materials for C–T production.
Radiological contamination at the site
resulted from MED–AEC and C–T
processing activities. MED–AEC
contamination is being remediated by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) under the Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program
(FUSRAP). USACE developed a
preferred cleanup approach for the
MED–AEC contamination, based on the
data and findings presented in four
documents: (1) Remedial Investigation
Report; (2) Baseline Risk Assessment;
(3) Initial Screening of Alternatives, and
(4) Feasibility Study.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Purpose and Need for the Proposed
Action
Mallinckrodt has requested that NRC
approve the Phase 2 DP, to support the
eventual termination of License No.
STB–401. Before the license can be
terminated, NRC must be assured that
the areas of the Mallinckrodt facility
associated with the C–T project meet
NRC(s release criteria stated in 10 CFR
20.1402.
Mallinckrodt elected to decommission
the C–T project areas of the site in two
phases. In Phase 1, Mallinckrodt
decommissioned the buildings and
equipment to the extent necessary, to
meet NRC’s criteria for unrestricted
release. Phase 1 of the decommissioning
project was completed in February
2007. Phase 2 will include the
remediation of the building slabs and
foundations, paved surfaces, and all
subsurface materials to the extent
necessary, to meet NRC’s unrestricted
release criteria.
Proposed Action
The ultimate goal of the C–T project
decommissioning is to remediate those
areas of the site associated with C–T
production, to the extent necessary, to
terminate License STB–401. Phase 2
decommissioning activities will include
the remediation of the building slabs
and foundations, paved surfaces, and all
subsurface materials. Most of the
decommissioning activities will take
place in Plant 5. However, the
wastewater neutralization basins in
Plant 7W will also be decommissioned.
Mallinckrodt will conduct its nonNRC licensed activities while
decontamination and remediation are
performed. Mallinckrodt selected the
following decommissioning strategy: (1)
Remediate remaining floor slabs and
subsurface soils and systems by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Jun 30, 2010
Jkt 220001
decontamination or excavation and
disposal followed by a final status
survey (FSS); (2) remediate former
wastewater neutralization basins by
decontamination or demolition and
disposal followed by FSS where
appropriate; and (3) remediate sewer
systems affected by the C–T operations.
Mallinckrodt has committed to
conducting a FSS consistent with the
approach presented in the Multi-Agency
Radiation Survey and Site Investigation
Manual, to the extent possible.
Mallinckrodt will determine whether
decontamination and FSS of individual
materials in place is preferred over
excavation and offsite disposal. The
Phase 2 DP is based on the following
preferences: (1) Excavation or
demolition and disposal when it is costeffective; (2) decontamination when it is
judged to be cost-effective compared to
disposal; and (3) decontamination or
removal of selected contaminated areas
of pavement and subsurface material to
site specific derived concentration
guideline levels (DCGLs), to reduce the
volume of waste and therefore minimize
the cost of disposal.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The remediation approach proposed
by Mallinckrodt provides for the
systematic remediation of the C–T
process areas at the Mallinckrodt site.
This approach provides Mallinckrodt
the opportunity to remove contaminated
subsurface C–T process material from
the site, and release C–T process areas
for unrestricted use. The ‘‘no action’’
alternative is the only alternative to the
proposed action. The ‘‘no action’’
alternative is not acceptable because the
C–T process areas contain residual
contamination that presently exceeds
NRC’s criteria for unrestricted release
and these areas must be remediated to
protect public health and safety upon
ceasing operations under 10 CFR part 40
requirements.
Affected Environment
As stated in the Introduction, MED–
AEC contamination at Mallinckrodt
facility is being removed by USACE
under FUSRAP. USACE developed a
preferred cleanup approach for the
MED–AEC contamination, based on the
data and findings presented in four
documents: (1) Remedial Investigation
Report; (2) Baseline Risk Assessment;
(3) Initial Screening of Alternatives, and
(4) Feasibility Study.
Section 2.2 of the Feasibility Study
provides an evaluation of the affected
environment surrounding the
Mallinckrodt facility. The findings in
Section 2.2 of the Feasibility Study also
apply to remediation of the C–T process
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38149
areas and the Feasibility Study is
incorporated by reference. The
following issues are addressed in the
Feasibility Study: (1) Land use and
recreational and aesthetic resources; (2)
climatology, meteorology, and air
quality; (3) geology and soils; (4) water
resources; (5) biological resources; (6)
threatened and endangered species; (7)
wetlands and flood plains; (8)
population and socioeconomics, and (9)
historical, archeological, and cultural
resources.
Environmental Impacts
Remediation of the C–T process area
subsurface material creates a potential
for radiological environmental impacts.
Radiological environmental impacts that
could result from remediation activities
include exposure, inhalation, and
ingestion hazard to workers and the
public. These hazards could occur
during the excavation of floor slabs and
foundations, soil, and sewerage.
Mallinckrodt has committed to
perform work activities in accordance
with a Health and Safety Program as
described in Section 3 of the DP. The
Health and Safety Program will consist
of: (1) An Industrial Safety Program; (2)
a Radiation Protection Program, and (3)
an Environmental Safety Program. The
Radiation Protection Program will
contain controls to monitor exposures to
workers. Action levels have been
established based on 10 CFR part 20,
Appendix B. If action levels are
exceeded, Mallinckrodt will take
corrective action, as necessary. The
Radiation Protection Program will keep
exposures due to ingestion and
inhalation as low as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA) by controlling and
monitoring airborne releases in work
areas, and by utilizing respiratory
protection, as necessary.
Mallinckrodt will implement an
Environmental Safety Program to
monitor air and water effluents
discharged during decommissioning.
Mallinckrodt will routinely collect
samples or take measurements at
locations on-site, site boundaries, and
off-site, to determine the extent of
environmental discharges during
remediation. Environmental sampling
stations will collect continuous samples
during demolition and decontamination
activities to verify that there are no
significant adverse impacts to workers
or the public. NRC staff will evaluate
implementation of the Environmental
Safety Program during routine
inspections to ensure that Mallinckrodt
is adequately monitoring effluent
releases.
Mallinckrodt has committed to
minimize the production of
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
38150
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Notices
contaminated liquids. Phase 2
decommissioning activities will not
involve the use of significant chemicals
requiring treatment and disposal.
Mallinckrodt expects minimal use of
water for dust control during soil
remediation and demolition of paved
surfaces. Mallinckrodt will not generate
free water during dust control. The most
likely source of potentially
contaminated liquids is stormwater
from active remediation areas.
Stormwater may contain contaminated
soil particles. Soil management
activities will minimize the exposure of
contaminated soils to stormwater.
Stormwater in active remediation areas
will be collected and stored in
temporary, above ground tanks.
Collected water will be sampled and
filtered, as necessary, to remove the
solids, and analyzed to estimate the
concentration in the water. The
concentration will be compared with 10
CFR part 20, concentration limits, and
the total inventory discharged will be
calculated. All contaminated liquids
will be disposed to the Metropolitan St.
Louis Sewer District (MSD) following
confirmation that MSD specifications
for sampling, analysis, and pretreatment have been met.
Mallinckrodt has also committed to
monitor direct radiation using
thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs).
TLDs will be placed at various locations
around the perimeter of the restricted
area to ensure that direct radiation in
unrestricted areas does not exceed the
limits specified in 10 CFR 20.1301.
Mallinckrodt has established action
levels for air and water effluents based
on the levels provided in 10 CFR part
20, appendix B, Tables 2 and 3. The
action levels for environmental air,
effluent water, and sewage are 0.75, 0.6,
and 0.6, of the limits, respectively. If
action levels are exceeded, Mallinckrodt
will take corrective actions.
The Mallinckrodt site is located in an
area, which is completely developed
with no pre-settlement vegetation
existing. Land use within a one-mile
radius from the site is a mixture of
commercial, industrial, and residential.
Commercial or industrial properties in
the area include McKinley Iron
Company, Thomas and Proetz Lumber
Company, and several railroad
properties. The USACE Feasibility
Study states that there is no sign of
federal or state designated endangered
or threatened species present at the
Mallinckrodt facility. The Feasibility
Study also states that the Mallinckrodt
facility does not contain any historic
buildings. Further, available data
indicate that there are no archeological
sites in the area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Jun 30, 2010
Jkt 220001
NRC staff previously performed an
environmental justice review of the
Mallinckrodt site for Phase 1
decommissioning activities. That review
concluded that Phase 1
decommissioning activities would result
in an insignificant risk to the public
health and safety, and the human
environment (see ML021230256).
Because the scope of Phase 2
decommissioning activities is similar to
the Phase 1 activities, no environmental
justice impacts are expected from the
proposed action.
Air quality and noise impacts will
result from excavation and transport of
waste. Mallinckrodt will use
appropriate dust control measures
during excavation. These activities will
be sporadic in nature and short in
duration, and therefore, will have
minimal impact on the surrounding
community and environment.
The Mallinckrodt site can be serviced
by road, rail, and river barge. Interstate
70 (east and west) can be accessed
within one mile from the site. Rail lines
from the Chicago, Burlington and
Quincy Railroad, the Norfolk and
Western Railroad, and the St. Louis
Terminal Railroad Association, transect
the Mallinckrodt site from north to
south. Any waste to be disposed of
offsite will be transported from the site
by rail. Mallinckrodt estimates that the
volume of waste to be transported will
be approximately 59,100 ft 3. This
volume of waste will require less than
50 rail cars over an 18-month time
period. Therefore, the impact of
transporting waste from the site will be
insignificant.
Agencies and Persons Consulted and
Sources Used
Much of the information contained in
the EA was taken directly from the
Mallinckrodt DP and the USACE
Feasibility Study. In preparation of the
Feasibility Study, USACE consulted
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the State Historic Preservation
Office. Since Phase 1 decommissioning
activities will be occurring at the same
site where similar USACE actions are
also occurring, but with a much more
limited scope, NRC has utilized the
input of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the State Historic
Preservation Office by reference to the
Feasibility Study. NRC staff provided a
draft of the EA to the State of Missouri
for review.
Conclusion
Radiological exposures to workers
and the public will be in accordance
with 10 CFR part 20 limits and will be
ALARA. NRC finds that the DP contains
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
sufficient controls to keep potential
doses to workers and the public from
direct exposure, airborne material, and
released effluents, below the 10 CFR
part 20 dose limits. The staff also finds
that the remediation alternative
proposed by Mallinckrodt minimizes
the potential dose to workers and
members of the public, and other
environmental impacts.
List of References
1. Mallinckrodt Chemical, Inc.,
Mallinckrodt C–T Decommissioning Project,
C–T Phase II Decommissioning Plan,
Revision 2, October 14, 2008, (ADAMS No.
ML083150652).
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Proposed
Plan for the St. Louis Downtown Site, April
1998.
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Feasibility Study for the St. Louis Downtown
Site, April 1998.
4. NRC, Policy and Guidance Directive FC
83–23, ‘‘Termination of Byproduct, Source,
and Special Nuclear Material Licenses,’’
November 1983.
5. NRC, 10 CFR part 20, ‘‘Radiological
Criteria for License Termination: Final Rule,’’
July 1997.
6. NRC, Environmental Assessment Related
to the Approval of the Mallinckrodt C–T
Phase 2 Decommissioning Plan, for
Mallinckrodt Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, June
2009, (ADAMS No. ML091960322).
Finding of No Significant Impact
Pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, NRC has
prepared an EA related to the approval
of Mallinckrodt’s DP. On the basis of
that EA, NRC has concluded that the
proposed NRC action would not have
any significant affect on the quality of
the human environment and does not
warrant the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement.
Accordingly, it has been determined
that a Finding of No Significant Impact
is appropriate.
Since the EA finds that the
remediation of the C–T project areas of
Mallinckrodt’s site represents no
significant risk to the public health and
safety, and the human environment,
NRC concludes that there are no
environmental justice issues associated
with the proposed remediation
activities.
The aforementioned documents
related to this proposed action are
available for public inspection and
copying at NRC’s Public Document
Room at One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852–
2738.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
T. Buckley, Senior Project Manager,
Reactor Decommissioning Branch,
Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, Office of
Federal and State Materials and
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
38151
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Notices
Environmental Management Programs.
Telephone: (301) 415–6607, e-mail:
john.buckley@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day
of June 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Lydia W. Chang,
Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning
and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate,
Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, Office of Federal
and State Materials and Environmental
Management Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010–16086 Filed 6–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Governors’ Designees Receiving
Advance Notification of Transportation
of Nuclear Waste
On January 6, 1982 (47 FR 596 and 47
FR 600), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) published in the
Federal Register final amendments to
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Parts 71 and 73
(effective July 6, 1982), that require
advance notification to Governors or
their designees by NRC licensees prior
to transportation of certain shipments of
nuclear waste and spent fuel. The
advance notification covered in Part 73
is for spent nuclear reactor fuel
shipments and the notification for Part
71 is for large quantity shipments of
radioactive waste (and of spent nuclear
reactor fuel not covered under the final
amendment to 10 CFR Part 73).
The following list updates the names,
addresses, and telephone numbers of
those individuals in each State who are
responsible for receiving information on
nuclear waste shipments. The list will
be published annually in the Federal
Register on or about June 30, 2010, to
reflect any changes in information.
Current State contact information can
also be accessed throughout the year at
https://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/special/
designee.pdf.
Questions regarding this matter
should be directed to Dr. Stephen N.
Salomon, Office of Federal and State
Materials and Environmental
Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555, by e-mail at
Stephen.Salomon@nrc.gov or by
telephone at 301–415–2368.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day
of June 2010.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Mark Thaggard,
Deputy Director, Division of
Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking,
Office of Federal and State Materials and
Environmental Management Programs.
INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF NUCLEAR WASTE SHIPMENTS
State
Part 71
Alabama ........................................
Colonel J. Christopher Murphy, Director, Alabama Department of Public Safety,
P.O. Box 1511, Montgomery, AL 36102–1511, (334) 242–4394, 24 hours:
(334) 242–4128, Fax: (334) 242–0512.
Douglas H. Dasher, PE, Alaska Monitoring and Assessment Section Manager,
610 University Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99709, (907) 451–2172, 24 hours:
(907) 457–1421, Cell: (907) 347–7779, Fax: (907) 451–5146.
Aubrey V. Godwin, Director, Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency, 4814 South
40th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85040, (602) 255–4845, ext. 222, 24 hours: (602)
223–2212, Fax: (602) 437–0705.
Bernard Bevill, Radiation Control Section, Arkansas Department of Health,
4815 West Markham Street, Mail Slot #30, Little Rock, AR 72205–3867,
(501) 661–2301, 24 hours: (501) 661–2136, Fax: (501) 661–2236.
Captain Steve Dowling, California Highway Patrol, Commercial Vehicle Section, 601 North 7th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811, (916) 843–3400, 24
hours: (916) 843–4199, Fax: (916) 332–3154.
Captain Ron Prater, Troop 8–C, Hazardous Materials Unit, Colorado State Patrol, 15065 South Golden Road, Denver, CO 80401, (303) 273–1910, 24
hours: (303) 329–4501, Fax: (303) 273–1911.
Edward L. Wilds, Jr., PhD, Director, Radiation Division, Department of Environmental Protection, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106–5127, (860) 424–
3029, Cell: (860) 490–3211, 24 hours: (860) 424–3333, Fax: (860) 424–4065.
Lewis D. Schiliro, Secretary, Department of Safety & Homeland Security, P.O.
Box 818, Dover, DE 19903–0818, (302) 744–2665, 24 hours: Cell: (302)
242–9318, Fax: (302) 739–4874.
John A. Williamson, Environmental Administrator, Bureau of Radiation Control,
Environmental Radiation Program, Department of Health, P.O. Box 680069,
Orlando, FL 32868–0069, (407) 297–2096, Cell: (850) 528–4151, 24 hours:
(407) 297–2095, Fax: (407) 297–2085.
Captain Bruce Bugg, Region 4 Commander, Georgia Department of Public
Safety, Motor Carrier Compliance Division, 317 Highway 11 SW., Monroe,
GA 30655, (770) 464–1797, 24 hours: (404) 635–7200, Fax: (770) 359–5853.
Laurence K. Lau, Deputy Director for Environmental Health, Hawaii State Department of Health, P.O. Box 3378, Honolulu, HI 96813, (808) 586–4424, 24
hours: (808) 368–6004, Fax: (808) 586–4368.
Chiyome L. Fukino, M.D., Director of Health, Hawaii State Department of
Health, Same address as above, (808) 586–4410, 24 hours: (808) 368–
6002, Fax: (808) 586–4368.
Lieutenant William L. Reese, Deputy Commander, Idaho State Police, Commercial Vehicle Safety, Hazardous Materials, Meridian, ID 83680–0700,
(208) 884–7222, 24 hours: (208) 846–7500, Fax: (208) 884–7192.
Alaska ...........................................
Arizona ..........................................
Arkansas .......................................
California .......................................
Colorado ........................................
Connecticut ...................................
Delaware .......................................
Florida ...........................................
Georgia .........................................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Hawaii ...........................................
Idaho .............................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Jun 30, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Part 73
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
Same.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Same.
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 126 (Thursday, July 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38148-38151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16086]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[License No. Stb-401, Docket No. 40-6563; NRC-201-0241]
Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Approval of the
Mallinckrodt C-T Phase 2 Decommissioning Plan; Mallinckrodt, Inc.; St.
Louis, MO
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
approval of the Mallinckrodt Inc. (Mallinckrodt or the licensee)
columbium-tantalum (C-T) Phase 2 Decommissioning Plan (DP), Revision 2,
originally submitted to NRC in May 2003, and resubmitted on October 14,
2008 (ML083150652) with revisions on June 3, 2010 (ML101620140). In the
DP, Mallinckrodt is proposing to decommission grade-level and below-
grade building slabs, paved surfaces, and subsurface materials affected
by former C-T operations, at its St. Louis site. If properly
implemented, the DP will lead to the successful remediation of the C-T
areas, their release for unrestricted use, and the termination of
License STB-401.
Below is a summary of the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by
the staff to support approval of Mallinckrodt's Phase 2 DP. The
complete EA is available through NRC(s Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS), Accession No. ML091960322.
Environmental Assessment
Introduction
Mallinckrodt has been operating at the St. Louis Plant since 1867
producing various products including metallic oxides and salts,
ammonia, and organic chemicals. From 1942 to 1957, Mallinckrodt was
under contract with the Manhattan Engineering District and the Atomic
Energy Commission (MED-AEC) to process uranium ore to produce uranium
for development of atomic weapons. In 1961, pursuant to 10 CFR part 40,
Mallinckrodt was issued a source material license (License No. STB-401)
authorizing the possession
[[Page 38149]]
and use of materials containing uranium and thorium isotopes. Under
this license, from 1961 to 1987, Mallinckrodt extracted C-T from
natural uranium ores and tin slags, and purchased and processed
materials for C-T production.
Radiological contamination at the site resulted from MED-AEC and C-
T processing activities. MED-AEC contamination is being remediated by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under the Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). USACE developed a preferred
cleanup approach for the MED-AEC contamination, based on the data and
findings presented in four documents: (1) Remedial Investigation
Report; (2) Baseline Risk Assessment; (3) Initial Screening of
Alternatives, and (4) Feasibility Study.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
Mallinckrodt has requested that NRC approve the Phase 2 DP, to
support the eventual termination of License No. STB-401. Before the
license can be terminated, NRC must be assured that the areas of the
Mallinckrodt facility associated with the C-T project meet NRC(s
release criteria stated in 10 CFR 20.1402.
Mallinckrodt elected to decommission the C-T project areas of the
site in two phases. In Phase 1, Mallinckrodt decommissioned the
buildings and equipment to the extent necessary, to meet NRC's criteria
for unrestricted release. Phase 1 of the decommissioning project was
completed in February 2007. Phase 2 will include the remediation of the
building slabs and foundations, paved surfaces, and all subsurface
materials to the extent necessary, to meet NRC's unrestricted release
criteria.
Proposed Action
The ultimate goal of the C-T project decommissioning is to
remediate those areas of the site associated with C-T production, to
the extent necessary, to terminate License STB-401. Phase 2
decommissioning activities will include the remediation of the building
slabs and foundations, paved surfaces, and all subsurface materials.
Most of the decommissioning activities will take place in Plant 5.
However, the wastewater neutralization basins in Plant 7W will also be
decommissioned.
Mallinckrodt will conduct its non-NRC licensed activities while
decontamination and remediation are performed. Mallinckrodt selected
the following decommissioning strategy: (1) Remediate remaining floor
slabs and subsurface soils and systems by decontamination or excavation
and disposal followed by a final status survey (FSS); (2) remediate
former wastewater neutralization basins by decontamination or
demolition and disposal followed by FSS where appropriate; and (3)
remediate sewer systems affected by the C-T operations. Mallinckrodt
has committed to conducting a FSS consistent with the approach
presented in the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation
Manual, to the extent possible.
Mallinckrodt will determine whether decontamination and FSS of
individual materials in place is preferred over excavation and offsite
disposal. The Phase 2 DP is based on the following preferences: (1)
Excavation or demolition and disposal when it is cost-effective; (2)
decontamination when it is judged to be cost-effective compared to
disposal; and (3) decontamination or removal of selected contaminated
areas of pavement and subsurface material to site specific derived
concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), to reduce the volume of waste
and therefore minimize the cost of disposal.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The remediation approach proposed by Mallinckrodt provides for the
systematic remediation of the C-T process areas at the Mallinckrodt
site. This approach provides Mallinckrodt the opportunity to remove
contaminated subsurface C-T process material from the site, and release
C-T process areas for unrestricted use. The ``no action'' alternative
is the only alternative to the proposed action. The ``no action''
alternative is not acceptable because the C-T process areas contain
residual contamination that presently exceeds NRC's criteria for
unrestricted release and these areas must be remediated to protect
public health and safety upon ceasing operations under 10 CFR part 40
requirements.
Affected Environment
As stated in the Introduction, MED-AEC contamination at
Mallinckrodt facility is being removed by USACE under FUSRAP. USACE
developed a preferred cleanup approach for the MED-AEC contamination,
based on the data and findings presented in four documents: (1)
Remedial Investigation Report; (2) Baseline Risk Assessment; (3)
Initial Screening of Alternatives, and (4) Feasibility Study.
Section 2.2 of the Feasibility Study provides an evaluation of the
affected environment surrounding the Mallinckrodt facility. The
findings in Section 2.2 of the Feasibility Study also apply to
remediation of the C-T process areas and the Feasibility Study is
incorporated by reference. The following issues are addressed in the
Feasibility Study: (1) Land use and recreational and aesthetic
resources; (2) climatology, meteorology, and air quality; (3) geology
and soils; (4) water resources; (5) biological resources; (6)
threatened and endangered species; (7) wetlands and flood plains; (8)
population and socioeconomics, and (9) historical, archeological, and
cultural resources.
Environmental Impacts
Remediation of the C-T process area subsurface material creates a
potential for radiological environmental impacts. Radiological
environmental impacts that could result from remediation activities
include exposure, inhalation, and ingestion hazard to workers and the
public. These hazards could occur during the excavation of floor slabs
and foundations, soil, and sewerage.
Mallinckrodt has committed to perform work activities in accordance
with a Health and Safety Program as described in Section 3 of the DP.
The Health and Safety Program will consist of: (1) An Industrial Safety
Program; (2) a Radiation Protection Program, and (3) an Environmental
Safety Program. The Radiation Protection Program will contain controls
to monitor exposures to workers. Action levels have been established
based on 10 CFR part 20, Appendix B. If action levels are exceeded,
Mallinckrodt will take corrective action, as necessary. The Radiation
Protection Program will keep exposures due to ingestion and inhalation
as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) by controlling and
monitoring airborne releases in work areas, and by utilizing
respiratory protection, as necessary.
Mallinckrodt will implement an Environmental Safety Program to
monitor air and water effluents discharged during decommissioning.
Mallinckrodt will routinely collect samples or take measurements at
locations on-site, site boundaries, and off-site, to determine the
extent of environmental discharges during remediation. Environmental
sampling stations will collect continuous samples during demolition and
decontamination activities to verify that there are no significant
adverse impacts to workers or the public. NRC staff will evaluate
implementation of the Environmental Safety Program during routine
inspections to ensure that Mallinckrodt is adequately monitoring
effluent releases.
Mallinckrodt has committed to minimize the production of
[[Page 38150]]
contaminated liquids. Phase 2 decommissioning activities will not
involve the use of significant chemicals requiring treatment and
disposal. Mallinckrodt expects minimal use of water for dust control
during soil remediation and demolition of paved surfaces. Mallinckrodt
will not generate free water during dust control. The most likely
source of potentially contaminated liquids is stormwater from active
remediation areas. Stormwater may contain contaminated soil particles.
Soil management activities will minimize the exposure of contaminated
soils to stormwater. Stormwater in active remediation areas will be
collected and stored in temporary, above ground tanks. Collected water
will be sampled and filtered, as necessary, to remove the solids, and
analyzed to estimate the concentration in the water. The concentration
will be compared with 10 CFR part 20, concentration limits, and the
total inventory discharged will be calculated. All contaminated liquids
will be disposed to the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD)
following confirmation that MSD specifications for sampling, analysis,
and pre-treatment have been met.
Mallinckrodt has also committed to monitor direct radiation using
thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). TLDs will be placed at various
locations around the perimeter of the restricted area to ensure that
direct radiation in unrestricted areas does not exceed the limits
specified in 10 CFR 20.1301.
Mallinckrodt has established action levels for air and water
effluents based on the levels provided in 10 CFR part 20, appendix B,
Tables 2 and 3. The action levels for environmental air, effluent
water, and sewage are 0.75, 0.6, and 0.6, of the limits, respectively.
If action levels are exceeded, Mallinckrodt will take corrective
actions.
The Mallinckrodt site is located in an area, which is completely
developed with no pre-settlement vegetation existing. Land use within a
one-mile radius from the site is a mixture of commercial, industrial,
and residential. Commercial or industrial properties in the area
include McKinley Iron Company, Thomas and Proetz Lumber Company, and
several railroad properties. The USACE Feasibility Study states that
there is no sign of federal or state designated endangered or
threatened species present at the Mallinckrodt facility. The
Feasibility Study also states that the Mallinckrodt facility does not
contain any historic buildings. Further, available data indicate that
there are no archeological sites in the area.
NRC staff previously performed an environmental justice review of
the Mallinckrodt site for Phase 1 decommissioning activities. That
review concluded that Phase 1 decommissioning activities would result
in an insignificant risk to the public health and safety, and the human
environment (see ML021230256). Because the scope of Phase 2
decommissioning activities is similar to the Phase 1 activities, no
environmental justice impacts are expected from the proposed action.
Air quality and noise impacts will result from excavation and
transport of waste. Mallinckrodt will use appropriate dust control
measures during excavation. These activities will be sporadic in nature
and short in duration, and therefore, will have minimal impact on the
surrounding community and environment.
The Mallinckrodt site can be serviced by road, rail, and river
barge. Interstate 70 (east and west) can be accessed within one mile
from the site. Rail lines from the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy
Railroad, the Norfolk and Western Railroad, and the St. Louis Terminal
Railroad Association, transect the Mallinckrodt site from north to
south. Any waste to be disposed of offsite will be transported from the
site by rail. Mallinckrodt estimates that the volume of waste to be
transported will be approximately 59,100 ft \3\. This volume of waste
will require less than 50 rail cars over an 18-month time period.
Therefore, the impact of transporting waste from the site will be
insignificant.
Agencies and Persons Consulted and Sources Used
Much of the information contained in the EA was taken directly from
the Mallinckrodt DP and the USACE Feasibility Study. In preparation of
the Feasibility Study, USACE consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the State Historic Preservation Office. Since Phase 1
decommissioning activities will be occurring at the same site where
similar USACE actions are also occurring, but with a much more limited
scope, NRC has utilized the input of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the State Historic Preservation Office by reference to the
Feasibility Study. NRC staff provided a draft of the EA to the State of
Missouri for review.
Conclusion
Radiological exposures to workers and the public will be in
accordance with 10 CFR part 20 limits and will be ALARA. NRC finds that
the DP contains sufficient controls to keep potential doses to workers
and the public from direct exposure, airborne material, and released
effluents, below the 10 CFR part 20 dose limits. The staff also finds
that the remediation alternative proposed by Mallinckrodt minimizes the
potential dose to workers and members of the public, and other
environmental impacts.
List of References
1. Mallinckrodt Chemical, Inc., Mallinckrodt C-T Decommissioning
Project, C-T Phase II Decommissioning Plan, Revision 2, October 14,
2008, (ADAMS No. ML083150652).
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Proposed Plan for the St. Louis
Downtown Site, April 1998.
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Feasibility Study for the St.
Louis Downtown Site, April 1998.
4. NRC, Policy and Guidance Directive FC 83-23, ``Termination of
Byproduct, Source, and Special Nuclear Material Licenses,'' November
1983.
5. NRC, 10 CFR part 20, ``Radiological Criteria for License
Termination: Final Rule,'' July 1997.
6. NRC, Environmental Assessment Related to the Approval of the
Mallinckrodt C-T Phase 2 Decommissioning Plan, for Mallinckrodt
Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, June 2009, (ADAMS No. ML091960322).
Finding of No Significant Impact
Pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, NRC has prepared an EA related to the
approval of Mallinckrodt's DP. On the basis of that EA, NRC has
concluded that the proposed NRC action would not have any significant
affect on the quality of the human environment and does not warrant the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has
been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.
Since the EA finds that the remediation of the C-T project areas of
Mallinckrodt's site represents no significant risk to the public health
and safety, and the human environment, NRC concludes that there are no
environmental justice issues associated with the proposed remediation
activities.
The aforementioned documents related to this proposed action are
available for public inspection and copying at NRC's Public Document
Room at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
20852-2738.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John T. Buckley, Senior Project
Manager, Reactor Decommissioning Branch, Division of Waste Management
and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and
[[Page 38151]]
Environmental Management Programs. Telephone: (301) 415-6607, e-mail:
john.buckley@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of June 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Lydia W. Chang,
Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing
Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection,
Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-16086 Filed 6-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P