ML092660296
| ML092660296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000925 (SNM-0928) |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML092660275 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9508280040 | |
| Download: ML092660296 (74) | |
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF A PROPOSED DISPOSAL OF URANIUM-CONTAMINATED SOIL AT THE CIMARRON URANIUM PLANT Docket No.70-925 License No.
SNN-928 March 1994 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 9508280040 941104 PDR ADOCK 07000925 C.
CONTENTS:
LIST
............O IG E.......
LIST OF TABLES.'..
1.0 PROPOSED ACTION....
- 1...............
o....v...
1 1.1 SUM9ARY OF THE SOIL DISPOSAL PRQPO$AL.
1.2 NEED FOR THE PROPOSEM ACTION AN AtRTIR.V 1.3 PRESENT CONDITION OF SITE...............
6 REFERENCES.................................
13
2.0 DESCRIPTION
OF*THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT..........
14 2.1 SITE LnCATION.............................
14 2.2 CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY.....................
1 2.3 DES4OGRAPHY AND SOCIOECONOMICS................
17 2.4. NEARBY LAND AND WATER USAGE.................
21 2.4.1 Land Usage.........................
21 2.4.2 Surface Water Usage..................
21 2.4.3 Groundwater Usage....................
22 2.5 WETLANDS.................................
23 2.6 LOCAL BIOLOGY AND ENDANGERED SPECIES..........
23 2.7 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY AND EROSION..........
26 2.7.1 Surface Water Characteristics...........
26 2.7.2 Erosion Potential.......................
27 2.8 GEOLOGY.........................................
28 2.8.1 Geology.................................
28 2.8.1.1 Regional geology...............
28 2.8.1.2 Site geology..................
29 2.8.1.3 Structural geology............
33 2.8.2 Mineralogy and Geochemistry...........
33 2.9 HYDROGEOLOGY.....................................
34 2.9.1 Regional Hydrogeology...............
34 2.9.2 Site Hydrogeology.
".35
- 2.
10 SITE GEOCHEMISTRY
......... 42 2.11 RADIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND........................
43 REFERENCES...............................
44 I
Eage 3.0 EXPECTED ENVIRONMENTAL INPACTS.................. 46 3.1 POTENTIAL FOR GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION........ 46 3.1.1 Model Parameters........................
46 3, L.,2 - Conclusion..........
48 3.2 POTENTIAL FOR INTRUSION, DIRECT RADIATION
- EXPOSURE, AND INHALATION OR INGESTJON. OF.
URANIUM:.....
9 3.3 POTENTIAL RADIATION DOSES FROM EA OVING...,.-
i 3.4 POW.r IAL-tONRADIOL0OICAL IMPACTS.............
52 REFERENCES.........?..:
4.0 RECOIHENDATIONS FOR IT!
PROPOSED BURIAL....................
'44-If APPENDICES..............................................
56 A.
GROUNDWATER PATHWAY MODEL INPUT AND PARAMETERS. 56 B.
DOSE METHODOLOGIES USED.........................
62 C. AGENCIES CONSULTED
..................... 6 State of Oklahoma Assessment of the Non-Radiological Hazards Associated with the Proposed Disposal of Uranium-Contaminated Soil at the Cimarron Facility, Logan County.
t' ii
LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Cimarron Site Vicinityz 2
I.3...........
1.2 Cimarron Site map 3
2.1 Cimarron Site Stratigraphy......
2.2 Cimarron Site Topography and Well Locat ions 36 2.3 Shallow Groundwater PotentometrHc cSur
. 38r 2.4 Deep Groundwater Potentiometric Surfae-+,*..
40 iii
,.':ý.:LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Average Monthly Temperatures Near the Ctarron
,r 22Average Monithly Precipitation At and B.:tb Cimarron s)t.....,.***~.1-.~;~~
2.3 Average 1o46thly Wind Soe-st and Dfre-North Centý,A'l Ok~o-a,..ýýý;-b!,-,
2.4 Plants and" Trees Observed at the Cimarron Site.....
4 2.5 Nauntals of Logan County...
25 2.6 Depths of Groundwater Mon1itoring Wells.............. 37 3.1 Potential Radiological Impacts of Earthmoving....... 51 B.1 Food Crop Ingestion Parameters for Atmospheric Releases
...................... 64 B.2 Committed Dose Equivalents (per pCi/g) to the Lung.........................................
64 iv
1.0PROPOSED0 ACTI -ON 1.1 tolARY OF THE SOIL DISPOSAL PROPOSAL The C Imarron Urani um Pl ant, -owned by Kerr-McAee Corporation,.--was usedl. for the...-
production of enriched uranium fuel for nucliar reactors between 195!;and 1975. The Uranium Plant is 1oca,
-on theNuth side of the:.CiMarero iver in central Oklahoma, abogt. 10 kilometirs (6.mies) south of* theitown of-Crescent (see Figure l.1."T d plant has b*en inactive since 1975.
Kerr-McGee does not plan,to conduct any future NRC-licensed~activities in the Uranium Plant itself, or elsewhere on the Cimarron property.
They aim eventually to terminate their Nuclear Regulatory Commission license.
The purpose of this Environmental Assessment is to evaluate the environmental impacts of disposal of uranium-contaminated soil on the site.
The soil disposal would be a principal step toward decommissioning of the site and license termination.
In the course of operating the Uranium Plant, a-considerable amount of soil outside the plant was contaminated with low-enriched uranium.
A detailed discussion of the volume of contaminated soil. and the uranium concentrations associated with it follows in Section 1.3.
I-err-McGee has proposed-ihat approximately 11,000 cubic meters (400,00 cbi fet o onai-a~ olb permanently disposed of in a burial cellI on a nearby part of the Ctimron site (see Figure 1.2).
Kerr-McGee's proposal is to digi aip xlmtlly55**S1160 163 meters (535 fet) l.ong, 'and'3-mete~ feet) deep.twie soil w:*ud be placd in the bottom of t~is pttand covere wit h
If the actual volume of soil placed in,,)
it of theslkl 00 cubic meters (400,000 cubic fet, th tcknesV4f C AM "on alte1o0 layer would be a little over 1.2 meters:,(4 fet), leaving 1.8 metert
'. feet) for-the-clean soil.cover.
As explained in "Section 1.3, 11,000 cub t meters (400,000 cubic feet) is a conservative :*tmte of the volume of co, aminated soil around the Uranium Plant, so the actual thickness of the Con t1 nated layer may turn out to be less.
The way the excavation of the pit is planned, Kerr-McGee would also have the option of4 m
'kin*
Te:*
i-'ov...
e
' volume of contaminated Soil to be less than 1LO00 cubic-meterts. 00ý:,000cubic 1
% N 0
I I
Etdd
~1-~tt ~i:
nF.-
4,*
7 4.
ON*
),
~C
,r Crescen 1;"
f4o 714 SW IWUS~~~
i.4!
, u,
I t tn ty a
2
A4'4 Pltoiu Plan ffif Sewsp Lagoo" g
'~.,
Prop seSoi
~v It
-I i a
Figure 1.2 Cimarron S ite1k&
4
S t)j.og the length would probably rIeai 163 meters (535 feet).
The
- t.
.',-*.'*v
, 4ý Wf 4
hodii.
p!.!
- .vteCald a derlying
- ceol, a-dhi~
a v6 id'V !tuue
-. 1 c t~e1 e~
ify its locatio"!
T'e disposal cell would be located on the high pa rIdg kilbhýr (one-third of a mile) northeast of the Uranium.
- ,M~~
the h
~lly ssalo
~iV cn i"~r deep) 'on he, rd tpthpit 4uld be ecavated into thq underlying rock, The sidei ndii o h
!d~ sosail Cell would thus be formed of the sandstonsanst t
constitute the local lIthology.
The'top of the groulhm w",
wud be, at its closest approach, about 6 meters (20 feet) below the bo tom of the disposal cell.
NRC policy on onsite disposal of uranium-contaminated soil pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2002 (formerly 10 CFR 20.302) is described in the 'Branch Technical Position on Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium or Urantim Wastes From Past Operations' (46 FR 52061, October 23, 1961).1 The. ccptabip method-tfor disposing of uranium-contaminated soil,on an NRCl-l*us t:eon.the concentration of uranium in the:soil, ýand to sIm*kxtqm n 1 lsty:
i n
lung fluid.
For sufficiently low concentrations (.lo 30 picocuries of uranium'per gram of soil), It 1 a
z special measures. The soil may be left in place withlo t
'-fr future users of the site.-ý. For higher concentrations, St"i3.
taki"to isolate the contaminated soil from the human envi
- t.
oH at er NcGee proposes to disposO of at the Cimarron UraniumPl to-lowest c q 'yoAf c amination, Just above the I require Ions. This category Technical Position as Op~ion 2 soil, which forenih form, or noVt e thn 250 pCi/g if the uranium can
- 1171 s-N6!
oos to dispose of Option 2 soil onn accordance with thi prescriptions of th ItTtu
- . In generallterms, the main prescriptions eh 4
S* (l1.)t*
- h't t*"*n "** sh-n to* be acceptabi In Its topographical "
N
( 2 W. C 10 d
s0 1
46 ad:
mned 1
6 i#st1 1 2 meters! (4 fr) be 1 ow
-thesurface; (3)t..that the disposal site be selected totminimize the likel-ihood of A4, p
ai thl to b. e MO-)WW 4Cci Ycst~ances: 'of-appoddtpsaNR-may p r~is tbe'liddittonilý t,,
i,,
'; 1.1,* NEED7FOR'THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES The uranium contaminated soil at Cimarron is almost entirely within 0.3 to 0.6 meters (I to 2 feet) of the surface.
People working on-the stte-(or potednkial-l~y" ltvtigon~tt in'the future) are mei likely t')6eep oed unnecessarily to radiation from the uranium if the"contaminated
-oil is left where it is.
It has to be assumed that the Cimarron site, if it is ultimately released fii urnretricted"use, might be used foi -row p-cult vat-4on.or-
- gratng, vhfh 'are maor a ctivities nth 'are..;A pr n
. onsfHctiob'df`1me %tort may take place onwtheWsit:2l o
or he~tfici 46ul b6 more' prone~
to distiwbv6crifian I "A" 'i
""at 4.a1.2meters (4 f f*ce 1l* an coverm a
t Removal of the contminated soil from the site for disposal elswe i ds~a posý1bie,. t tdWh Th
_M~~~
thaepehveo al erAh stuie. e con
',t
~d sii
( stectwon fo.detamu 1 s)"- contrai nst onlay t
nc1 u
he Relmoabolefte c ncthteotbifns ifror the h* f*p d
spostl e
.sý,"
, Th' e**tro
- I
'l-c oe posi'iyeý W
6'ao IK~-4e irlL Nsr5~
5
.oo othe contIated soil in coiercialrari gv9and,-versus onlyh$04;f~ot todisoose of+It on~si*e.!.
F~oy the,, v lof soil in
- ivqe*94hjL;*i alcos*. ainu1 d be. $24 amt 1 ipj. veri~s*,$4 ioupn,a*i~
.Kerr-SHee.s un0t cost figures.
It is't she' NRC staff" s opinion that Kerr-McGee's Unit co4 se OT.
PRO pfýc, ria ispA,~
A oUnit'
!w6 from
$ $ r:2pCubic foot, with $30 per cubic foot.being a fairestiate for coj m
0te s1J f tp under, dissi.
s % shco 9f ie disposal, $0.1 per cubitc foot is equi val ent. to about, $3,. per.c.ub.ic y
which is a reasonable estimate for the earthmoving itself, although the costs of special engineered features that may be required (see Section 4) and the costs of site investigation work required for the onsite disposal would be-additional.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the cost of onsite disposal would be less-than the.cost of disposal at acommercial burial ground by around two orders of magnitude (something in the range of $10 million versus.sq0thtng in
.,the range of $1Q00thousand).
-t, R, istRC.o. toatslightly radioactive !jstes, ncl buried 4,n9014e
- f. Ah
.,1l icensee -can. sat i sfy the.ýgener,;l -o i
-SecttIon
- 1. or *batever additional codtos*.
ol~e!
h~ee
- ...*,...:,...>*. ~~~
~
~
~
~
~
4M
+...
- ,+**÷.
- !?:?
er~~~~~2.V' d,
a dtos R..
..ne mus~asph 4it 1,cal burial is preferablo.-to 1
othees Ai csadntgofa hundred times. is a,.~d.
9 fg consjld,,.e eQo 9 tdisposal alt ernat,,
,peorab tq*o r
.o.
erci*..bu
- -.6,u d
1.3 PRESENT CONDITION OF SITE J,.
ei* z-p LIn on, zhe tI mwjl-44 T r seyer.
cations nthe Cmiron sit9 e
- 4 wi th u-am-2r o r radi ive subsn eT nuclear fuelj6 b
-b "at,
- on_,
-+ 'a i ia mixed 6xi,
tf9S f " el
- *Ip,ora. p-th a s
?1,,,p r..
+rb,
'i l
R...
6
4;. "*;?*'* *
" oP li*elons t
oes fea uresz f the sAMSite,9141 O fidth' Owl1.
oftheRIoltme ated soio o
that is i the t
u t-l v
d0sposA lbe tosessed..Itsoud be notedth t' tlsotou daeta wre sumit~ted Inae saly
~cr pndebe ou4Wn thi dssubet, vh~ch 1myhv Amey-'-aau9 ffgical surve4 was onfused pe~opefolowngthmssatter~ nthe~ NR ulcDcan oa h
of the coe ntration of uraneid in the sorleeso -that it could e as crained thatonste, 8
diTsposal, hse potental yer pproetra ted 6'-
n!ttr*l ss ugiitt ate of the volume of contaminated soil so that the e xtviroiental iofut1`frn hsite dciosposal could be assessed.
It should be noted that sm. incorrfet survey data were submitted in early correspondence on this subject, whichl'tiy'have confused people following this matter in the NRC PublictDocument Room. -The incorrect data were contained In Kerr-McGee's submittals of June 29, 1988, and October 9, 1989.3" k.4 These data were retractedin.Kerr-c"ee's submittal of February 1, 1990, which also provided new data on the extent of uranium contamination in the soil.'
The data in the February 1, 1990, submittal wev*Aabthl¶f
- 'collectingý soil samples from 36 locations around the Uranium PI a ffrm drllqdý boreholes at each of the 36 locations and took a total, of 392-s su*l
- sapes, ranging from the surface down to 6.1 meters (20 feet) belowgrad te, geerl y at 0.3 to 0.6 meter (1 to 2 foot) intervals. Of the 36 borehole, )0 were d.ýrilled.Jn a,four*-by-four: gvid pOattern W,~a uIt 4&
o the purpose, of,ýcrbttosc~ivig,the~tatller 110~
andth~ar t
swaii 1 ag hin;1 "I Al392.Iollsampe -w-.
VFlvebyag tcW-U tS4p the.- Cimarron fteA The7 gammAspecttmt' 0f60%W" contraictor,0 OWa W k RdeAsiated:U00t Wlvt"r purpeses0of musrnura~t Doiu
~
o 4"
.o with an al pha-!spectrometry system at the Kerr~e 7
Of 4ZPOi*
p
-520 came from'depths more*.thin 0.6,mstersl2 feet)below the suff
.*Four.of*
theose Ww. Initially registered -s containingbr *!than
- : ?
30 g
f wýr*.*6l',
bsed biagai-speruhb
'kThenoigh***les~wre found to actually contain less than 30 pCi/g.
These results strongly--indicate that the uranium contamination is mainly in near-surface soil,-within S The re suits of the sample analysi also indicate thatmostof the UraniUm contamination is in the 30-100 pCI/g range; thatis, in Ithe range corresponding to Option 2 of the Branch Technical Position forl soluble uranium.'
For the 72 samples taken within 0.6 eters (2 feet) of the surface, the results can be sumarized as follows:
Uranium Concentration Number of Samles 0-30 pCi/g 49 30-100 pCi/g 16
-over 250 pCi/g Th sl, Ir#',?;#,-,t'o-,0-30 pCIg rag are cps d 44d 4WmesrAa*A ino hqOpio ippilC Thego
..U oQ4n A
range If the uranium can be shown to be insold 1"*:,.
- 1.
on of the21 Option 2 samples is approximately 70 pCi /g.
he ampes.containng
.,over 250 pCi/*g are e Opt..
n 2 d e
n soil.- -.-tM
-.*"t a
site. tati mighk,b y*e for unrestri~e use v
I~rr-~
hMMýOest alls~l~onamnat4 e~evlsaboveOption 2 40~ 9eios i,4e~te The lug jldso~l of)e0r,11.ng1p pj~ihafet4w 4i0sto ft~ ~dctgoyo ~e 4td~yipJ abj%~~sd 8
' Tje*'4d~i 49p 20 randomly located boreholesfican be us tOiestiuate the J.frac.i of the sur-face 'area,-f the: s i te that. s contami naite,..Slnct the
- 6-g,!rdpatterR.boreholes were drilled in an area of known contamination, the samp! s
- fr*m those holes are not useful fo"tmiattng.t6e extent of contaminato
-n.Of the 20 boreholes located4!at random around the Uranium PqV't*4anl umiim covtentrattons Ibog The.area IS4'ti hkA tt-t bli~os werce ;dftw"A 1ncloded'ttolw a
ie~
1ago A
IFW space b16e (se tute4e)P rd Oftbs. p
,-;s49,O000 m2 (200,000- ft') are cuptied-'by th e s.*uures -and
ýponds, thelelyesvý,Ieaving 37"000 mi 2 (400 000 ftt) of potential -area from"'which to,draw, random borehole locations.
An initial survey aims to estimate the extent of contamination In a given area by sampling a fairly small number of randomly chosen locations.
Statistically, this can best be thought of as 'a procedure for estimating a binomila! probabilIty, p, which is the probability that any given saipleh selectedsfrom thesubject area will yield a posttive:(I*e.,
-int~nated) result:. t)This *s :abinomial problem because !there-",,-are "o'hW ti *s..r"'*'
i nterest'at, the moment:
contaminated, or -uncohtmtnatdil bIt,, 1*-
ta*,
tei best estimate of the value of p Is slmipl-y:r."I'l a,
io.
Ft. S.
M4 04b`,A:'
whery4A e-3the suber! of posi t ive :sampie *rsftsdltild W -if tA R
s aMpl bt.i0-.fi K6hNeMGeW si 20z Irandoinll~ce
-1 bettiOI u
p' c*
.W t*
IY*64 teký,,
2P ge."..
N t, The.ý- uncerta hty of -4a bi nomil Al' pOtbibl I Ity' e*IUA64106i
.1
=-
f
.4
- e¶
- i. : )
Ai1:-
Al hf.46 9
- wherp, lsptbe*rnu r.of samplesv as before, and&.qIs the 'ptObab ttty,:of 'a negative p~sul
!aq.e.,
q - I-p).
For the, present-examplet:
- .*,*;~i*'.,*'*..**;*-.*r-*r*::;*:*
-zA~~
-iini i.*74Ir tc ~
((04*0!),/20) 0-L.1 This means thaotat thai: 95 percent..(or..2o) conf4dnce evel,.. we.
say that 3700.2z*(40,000 f~t',) and, 19,000 2z (200,000 ftZ).: *If~ieehoose~he upper i
litmit to be.conservative, and assume that* the
- top 0.6 meters. (2*feet) of this area have to be removed, we would get a volume estimate of 11,000 cubic meters (400,000 cubic feet)
To recapitulate, the correct way to view this figure is to say that, based on the evidence of Kerr-McGee's 20 randomly located boreholes, we are 95 percent confident that the volume of contaminated soil contained in the area from within which the borehole locations were selected is not greater than 11,000 cubic meters (400,000 cubic feet).
This figure does not. include any deeper contamination that might-be. found around -the, old pipelines, as discussed above, any, contamination that, might be 4found outside the area chosen by Kerr-WcGe, for random..sampljngq or anqywconVm OhtePs*Ii that might be found under the Uranium.Plant itself....,,
t." 1!
Kerr-McGee's submittal dated May 15, 1990, contained somestIdItljonal information on the extent of contamination.
Kerr-McGee took newi saaples at two depths,, bet en the surface and 0.3 meters (,foot)b.w,**4.e..a..
and 0.6 meters (1 nA,"ndZ t
Uranium Plant.
shosbmttl t~hwipo~
n locations and indicate where the samples were found to containmethf 20 pCi/g of uranium.
There is no explanation of hpw
.theý,plA oato ns were chosen, but.
distribution appears random, ý j th leeAhe I
have been drawn from the same area around the Uranium Plant and Iagoqr P-74 was used for the earlier sampling program (reported in the February 41, 1990, submittal).
The maps show that 17 of the 50 locationtpi ainq re than 20 pCi/9 between the surface and I foot below, and that 6 of the:50.lOcations contain more than 20 pCi/g between 0.3 and 0.6 meters (1 and 2 feet) below the surface.
Following the formulas used above, the fraction of the area"
, 10
coýMW44-~fabdiie 20 %pC1/g iftO.34 inth' U~~1~
i
.2i b
oe l ~
~`ed st
~
ith the ~eutb 1~~~iv u~ydt, ich Ker*.,e ufuther` ttatsd in theVlates't ~uii ttWAV
`th d"t t
(
W1 t
i AW io f.
Y.21,'I~
iWies(
feet) bI
ýiýdW 1 O0.ubic was presented, but It is consistent with a oonservAl0' tbfothe earlier survey data.
Kerr-McGee also thinks there may be another 2700 cubic meters: (94*5',00cubi1c feet) of contamintated soilo deeper than1.2 ml ters (4 feet), mostly located beneath the Uranium Plant building; this material is not included in the 11,000 cubic-meter (400,000 cubic-foot) burial addressed in this Environmental Assessment.
The water solubility and lung-fluid solubility of the uranium to be buried in the disposal cell is important.
First, water solubility will affect the extent to which buried uranium ultimately gets into th* groun ti,-
The calculations in Section 3 will show that, I
- lf-ach 6fihe*th ii er highly solub! e in water, It would take an exti l
h tib 1rMiificant concentrations of urani um to reach the gr-*tis-influ~lence ~on organ doses trough _exposur
`Wtir, the"-- "l enug-nguid so ublity detemi maxi c '
i can be classified as optiofn tn 1.
f an ifon 2). otheBranheed tehnicaverel i
on def(nesthe sotion toa,
&K to
- determined to be in the 100-250 pCi/g range, Kerr-McGee would have to show, using a method approved by the NRC, that the :uranium is at least partliy Insoluble in lung fluid.
ThIs obligation is specified in detaltin Section 4.
As a last point, it is,important to discuss.the eidence :that !the.*onlly,
radioactive contam ntein the i
oil under-discusst io W fii uranium.
t
- eonly, 11
,**.*ioativ sbstance pwcesse at the Cifron Uranium Plant, was enriched urn~~
nl,~Je rd~cW.substanC9 Pvceeday er on or..n~ear the i4 a~ l~onum.Theonly license r10o4~~essaCe teta uranium or, plutonium ever present at Cim*r in,sog!
lu anttt, Was a modest mount of thorium from Kerr-IcGee's former Cushing, Oklahoma, plant that aS:bI*
ed Cimat r~n.t**T..us, thorium.d Plq*ntm of covrse.,:
4hi~;diAJ@~.~a rd~s.aethe o@
qn AQjcy v vn a n.hfts; other t~taa u4~y~at~ul, n ri~
p.l be prosn i6 4
he It~hot.Ould go into the0o41~lPQS el Thorium was never processed on the Cimarron site, only transported across the site for burial in trenches.
All of the low-level wastes buried at Cimarron, thorium or otherwise, have been disinterred and disposed of in licensed low-level waste disposal facilities.
Kerr-McGee willnot place any soil in the disposal cell that contains thorium in excess of Option 1 concentrations (10 pCi/g).
Kerr--cGee has stated that plutonium-bearing materials were never buried at Ciarron,. and there is no plutonium containation in. the gsoi 1 that. would b..
tr.1,
ý As..
,iatd 4laced in the onsite.disposal cell.'....,
on..........-
VI-V..
Universities.
.,analy..Zed.
sever~l soil dm! wtr s.
.the diite~r!d._ Iri.
- g*round for plutnimi.
found npne.5 U
!-t taken any s... les
-the actual soil that would.be pl%
,..Ine..',,,l c..
In 1ight of, th.fact that Plut im was processed..
,.,y in heousie is 1~... Req t
_s*it i4 t*Iis respect
-t i n-ec t o n.
....~
4:,0 0
- o a r
.o i.*
- . /
- i i ;, : ! ! -
am t
.* 0; 12
1.0 REFERENCES
- 1.
Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium or Uranium Waste*s*F*
t Operations, Federal Register, Vol. 46,.No. 205, pp. 52061-52063, 42* * $,equoyiht9ueojs Corporatiop... Request AformA.4epse n
V Li-cense-No.
- i *¢eose BO., SleF-Ze, *Doske foro.
7-5,*Un, o 9
- .4
- 4.
Cim~arron Corporation, Provision of Additional Information RequeSted by
- NRC, License No. SN1-928, Docket No.10-925, October 9, 1989.
- 5.
Kerr-McGee Cororration, Provision of Additional Information Requested by NRC, License Io. SNM-928, Docket No.70-925, February 1, 1990.
- 6.
J.0. Berger, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Letter to R. 0. Hurt (NRC)
Concerning Cross Check of Kerr-9cGee Samples, August 31, 1989.
- 7.
Cirarron Corporation, Provision of Additional Information Requested by NRC, License No.
SNN-928, Docket No.70-925, Nay 15, 1990.
- 8.
S. A. Bicag, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Letter to G. France (NrC)
Concernig Confirmatory Survey of the Crmarron S
antm
, Aunuars31, 1989.
NR'C',
License' No SNN928 Docket:
No.. 70-25 May 15,! 99.0.-
- 8.
S.
A.
W l
Oa Rig Asoiae
- Unvrste, Lete to G÷,
Frnc
(
N RC)*-:,o 0
a.
0...
Y
- 13
2.0 DESCRIPTION
OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Cimarron site is located on the south side of the Cimerron Iver** in Logan
,County*.Okl ahoma;!A0 ýýkilometers (6 miles)_ south
.fthe*'tio t'
t (see Figure 1.
1).
Guthrie lies1 It k
Uom rs (9~
to~tees;n~
edge of ý-ithRk0-1ahomaCi ty in4etrmll-4tin area-0
- bIs) t6 physiographic province.
The topography is characterized by low., rolling hills, incised drainages, and floodplains.
The elevation of tiae site ranges from 290 to 310 meters (940 to 1010 feet) above sea level.
The dominant geomorphic feature at the site is the Cimarron River floodplain, which is approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) wide and trends east-west. 2 2.2 CLIMATEAND METEOROLOGY Logan County has a continental climate, with long, hot, dry. sumers and.short, mild, dry winters.
Skies are clear to partly cloudy most of the time.
In most winters the temperature does not drop below -18 degrees Centigrade (zero degrees Fahrenheit), and snowfall is light and melts quickly.'
Average temperatures in Logan County range from a ]oW of, about 2!C- (35WF)-1) in January to about 28"C (83"F) in August, and the temperature AMve".a
.0Vr the whole year ranges between 16* and 17*C (60- and 62"'F).5 ',The average-susme temperature is 27.20C (80.90F).6 Average monthly temperatures tfori the two cities nearest thd site are given inTable 2.1.
Guthrie is the Logan county seat, and Kingfisher is the seat of Kingfisher County, located directly west of Logan County.
In 1988, Guthrie had 232 days above freezing and Kingfisher had 243.s 14
81ý Vl
-jTabl 2.1 AVrA(k MONTHLY TEMPERATURES NEAR THE CIMARRON SITE
.=,-
.4 C-A ve a May Jun Jul Aug vg IF Mi pMa y
epOc Nv ecA GUTHRIE' N*',nmal 364' 49.81 61.21
.31 77.9 83.1 82.1 74.11
- 3.
49.3 40.0 60.
ii'i
- ..:* 41
- 49.
60.W 694 78.6 83.7 82.4 74.2
,&aro.:
N.dto,*,
or Cr
.o.
mmmNOTE" i
a min Crescint was not available.
144.
'22Q 62.9_1
.9 9?
0 4
r.
'4.
Typically, the temperature reaches 38"C (100"F) for about 10 days during the
- sumres, and do-s not fall below -18"C (O0F) for two winters out of three.
Daily temperatures fluctuate groatl,--as i ItJp-i"cal f continental cimates.'
The'coldest temperature reported in the L4gan CountiSoi1 Survey, which
.reflects over 55 years of climaticdata, was-31C (24"F) and the highest was 460C (116-F)..
Precipitation at the Clmrre*Factl Ity habe estiae basedon...
measurents taken at GuthrwHO; h Is1VlobImtev: (9miles) sist of the site, and Kingfisher, which iS 34"il1Q0moters (21 mies)., st.
easurements have been recorded in Guthrie and Kingfisher -for over 95and 91 years, respectively.
The total annual precipitation averages 77.11 centimeters (30.36 Inches) in Guthrie and 70.36 centimeters (27.70 inches) in Kingfisher.'
Annual precipitation decreases as one moves westward across (Clahoma.
The eastern portion of the state is considered humid, with an annual precipitation of about 101 centimeters (40 inches) annually.
Western Oklahoma is nearly arid, with a total annual precipitation of about 38 centimeters (15 inches).
Logan County lies near the center of the state. 'Thee t annual; precipitation at theCimarron ýFacilIty caý beexpectd
- fall between the averages for Guthrie6' to Athe east,: and Kingfi'her, tp tI:
wes.
Basedon this, the long-term average iecipitation'>t the ste s:Uld b ten 68 and 76 centimeters (27 and 30. inches).. -Precipitation.eASu et's at-:the_ site have been Orivately ýrIecorded since'1978. `,The ten-yer rage recipitation at the Cimarron Factiltyis rorw as99. 1 centimooie Oie).
2 This is over 30 percent gpateý't~s eý-ected JAsd on: t
' '0o4 et Sevice data.
IThe differen4* mtit be due q s$o
~t-tvr vM *:p or measurement methods.
toy.terUIrecitRitat1on aV at, Facility are still pected to; fatllbetween' --.t or.......
and Kingfisher.
The amount of precipitation *#tj Yesc:fsIdorm It mont.
Only 3.8 centimeters (135ý nc ~s~o ini Ieee and 2.S centimeters (one Inc)` of
,ipitatutmh1 t11.1",
Iu4M k*
e;hse.
the driest months.
The wettest months are4niomally S*a:Rer u4a, witha average of 11. 2 centimters (4.4 inches) And1M6.5 cfltU
!t*V5(*iflgS),
16
'4:
0 respectively.2, 5 The peak annual 24-hour rainfall event averages 6.3 to 7.6 centimeters (2.5 to 3 inches)- -An this,4art:,of. klah!**
Table 2.2 summ Harszsaverage precipitatipn recordi for the cimarrov tlity and for Guthrie, Crescent, and Kingfisher.
1Th*irest iiear recotid inn the Logan County Soil Survey had only 31 cent metei (13ý inches)o¶precipitation, and the wettest year had 99 cent9$eters(3* Inches), jphich-4,not such greater than the average.
In most ly~
p, lng-isY 3s occur the su
- r.
The lowrelatlVe humidity causes i gh eyapotrat*t~on raItP The closest site with records on wind! seed Ii
'Will RogerS Airport. in Oklahoma City.
These records indicatel that the average wind speed in the area is 20.2 km/h (12.6 mph),
and it typically blows out of the SSE.
Table 2.3 lists the average wind speeds and directions at the Will Rogers Airport.
The wind blows out of the Pouth-southeast for ten months of the year, then switches to the north duy ing January and February.
Continuous high winds are common from March to June.'
This is also the time periodin which most tornados occur. 8 Logan County is located near the center of an-area known unofficially as "Tornado Alley."
The county has experienced -an average.of ialmost one tornado per year from 1970 to 19.87.
'From, 1950"'to 19801, the tottl nbr of-tornados was 26.9 It is difficult, to'measure wind spedds in torn becausew-of their relatively small size, extremely 1tgh.11nds, A-ndshort *Ora1*o,.
Based on the extent of damage from severe tornados, howev,6,.0ind spfedsn thenfunnel!
clouds of tornados have been estfiated ati 481 o kmh (3001uphV Winds'in severe thunderstorms can gust up to 113 kA/h, (70ap~ i.. J 2.3 DEMOGRAPHY ANM) SOCAOECPNNCS-Between 1970 and 19.0,0 he ton O
26,881, an increase~ of Austtivi 3 eren pewyar:
r'.~1~
90 h population growth rate T4as*
condI
,The g
urat. fro 1980.to 2000 is predicted to beo. o;'7 0
oO per t per Pyear.sThicoq ars to the growth rate of 0.3 percent'per-tear pojectd fbr the tf, stae during the same time period."
Over 42 percent of Logan County's 1980 popuiation of26,6lived in Guhrie, the largest town, and 6: percent lived in Crescen,01 'the second largest town.
17
1P co-'4 Ta l 2-2
- MOT, PT I
AM NE, TH-CIM/Ro Z--
UTabe.2AERAEMNHYPEITTOA NDNA HCMR6 iE N4n g-- 1,--0.911 0.601 2.011 2.60-. 5.42.1 3.961 2.e41 2.381 3-9'1 2o
- 201A, i 0f.i.-08!
1.3'1 1.1*6f 2;42f 4.9)41 3.761 2.571 2.391 3:601-2.44 f 1.631, 0.5127;_70 C
f AV9 M:"
0 2.01 2t 6050:4 5.109 2.401 2.3804.401 3.70f,',
14
-1G.-Yi '
1.00, 2.,,o. 3.40l; 6.051 40
.8 4.4
- 3.
2.7 I
- 44 AL
'4'
-V A
Table 2.3 AVERAGE MONTHLY WIND SPEED AND DIRECTIONS IN NORTH CENTRALOKLAHOMA
-Febuary lroS 3
March South-Southeamt 14.9 April South-Southaost 14.8 May South-Soutos 12.9 June South-SoutMeast 12.5 July South-Southest 11.0 August South-Southes 10.7 September South-Southeast 110.
October SouthSotBs
.ovember
-, South-Southeast*..
A....
. "... Source: Per al communidco with Ai1 l.
- ..t e.
'~.
t
...i/.-- *.
.. d :::-
....- : * * :. : *.* * ".* :.: : *,.' *:4 17!:
- **,),. * *::...; :* -*
.i : :
'.:.: '* i*, -::'. * ", *.
':i o ** :-
Y 19
%-A The remaining nine towns and villages had populations less than half that of Crescent and together totaled Just over 7 percent of the population.
The rest 0(44.3-percent) of the County's population lived in areas outside thestowS and Villages.1 There were a total of 10,569 housing units in the countyin 1980.
Most (79 percent) were owned by the occupants.
Loganý County Is within comuuting distance of 'klahom Ci ty andts.onsidered "ipa-rt d
iklahoma Cityi-etropol Itan Staist1l 1 Aa.l*
ab t ecade
~~ ~Tin't~ 'A t~r part he":~ny but
,new..housing construction. in recent years has slowed.l utn p;to ib~ers 1occastionally call Logan County real estate agents looking fO,<hew houses on 10-acre lots in subdivisions; but most subdivisions are small, with small lot sizes (about 1 to 2 acres) and poor roads.
Sales of existing houses are slow, so the rate of new construction is low. 14 The county does not have a zoning ordinance, a land use plan, or subdivision regulations.'s Much of the economy of the county is derived from agriculturie According to the 1987 :USDA Census of Agriculture, the county has 92&5farmsý:,averaging 379MAcresoin size. The vast majority of.*these farms pi o4 5 #ta.3wheat, and graze cattle between-plantings. 1, A total of 439 *bus*ipe*..* r
,stered In Lopn County in 1987; 66 percent of the ".pvpJ
"'un
- ,S ole.
These figures do not include self-employed persons, such as farme*r!s"41any of the County's residents apparently work outside the County.
Transportation in the area Is primarily by road, although two rail:.Iiines-,
owned by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, pass..throuVh 17
.I4.
The Cimarron Facility Is served by two state highways. Re s74 i*)i The, site is located near the intersection of State Route 74, whtch
- .-t 2nd south, and State Route 33, which runs east and west.
Average*!i ratrtf.ic counts at this Intersection reveal that about 3,000 to 4,9000".N00Mle use Route 74 per day, and about 1,000 to 2,500 vehicles per day, use Route33.
These figures are typical for rural highways in this area.
Health care facilities in the County include a hospital in GuthOie a
clinic in Crescent.
One airport In Guthrie serveso mallplas, and Will 20
RogfersAirportinh' Oklahoma City serves large aircraft.
T*he Countyhas no lit#.ry-reservations, or state or federal prisons.' 9 01 1toil, resourcesJ, 9n Log Ct
.cuu ounty are!.,n the city of
-Guthr ide,:,hi wS the capital when OklahoMawas a territory, *.and later became th
~
t L
Downtown Ghrie ?as' bthIen restored to' its'aprnc from.. t":,.
.ad early igos..The d amt area is.n.the Nathtnal nes i
n the oidty fnclude several mn-ade.lakes near Guthrie, smlf p and Crescent, two recreational vehicle parks, and a golf course on Route 33 west of Guthrie.19 2.4 NEARBY LAND AND WATER USAGE 2.4.1 Land Usage The area around the Cimarron site is mainly rural.
Small grain cultivation and cattle grazing areithe predominant uses of land in the area.,Within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the Cimarron Facility, Some land is being developed for residential housing.
Along the river north of the site, a few houses are being builthen bluffs overlooking the Cimarron; Rfiver." To the
,.*o.h fthe s,.. e; reslderit~al lot*s.- on. a new golf course are' forsale aio,tat..Route 33.3 tihrt 'residence, is a farm located 0.8klmee, southneast of the si~e.
(0 2.4.2 uriaceaWiersage i'
In the vicinity of the CImarron
- taciity,
- he'Cinrron River is no
... to suppl.y.'
drinking water because of its salinity.. The Cimarron Ri,*q-.
high' concentrations of naturally occurring chlorides "de
-Slt lIains area appOroximately 160 kilometers (100 miles) upstream.. r
- th SCimarron Faclltt.
.The principal sources of usseable surface waterin 'the viiit f e "r
"V are smail tsha ippoupdrqn,6 vciniy of the Clmarron Facility
- r.
sl eservotrs th
- tryou, These arn used.to. *ae.!vsok"."
w 1
o-
'et c
.,I
,i V e 0
.c'
, -ii",.,tt."
21
- 2.43 Go atrJsage jTheprincipal source of groundwater in the area south of the Cimarron River taI I f~
tion itlliess thn6 mtrs
~~~-h nea th d
Jfabr~~
-t
~~a~o.
~ e "q
(
t) ovh *9 f the Cimarron River,,# dpsti c and i cu1turýa.u-s main groundater* from,t a
n,_errac the' Cipa T
rr Qn, Arco d
06ý nOW 14te*
, e'.~arntvr, alluvium I. te.-.ip ntYo.
bf:ei-rrn t
Most wells in the area provide domestic water for individual houses. 3 Water and sewer services in the cities and towns are provided by local governments.
Nearly all of the water used is groundwater.
Private residences use either private wells or connect to a rural water district line. For sewage disposal, most private residences rely on septic tanks and drainfields.
About 70 percent of the people in the county are served by priva~te wells, and the.
remainder use water supplied by the towns or rural water districts. _The wells are typically 38 to 92 meters (125 to 300 feet) deep. 13 There are eight water systems in Logan County,,.mainly seryn, toprs:In dv l
1 s trA 1 1 towns. "In add1tion, there are three rural. water i..
dsed.rv areas.
The rural water districts are nonprofit water
$r VI&I' than 10,000 water meters each.
The districts get ther" water their own wells, although they can purchase water from othier dtr i
systems.
People buy water from the dis 4ricts if they do.,.ot have
.u.
groundwater on their land, if their groundwater is of poov'qualiy '
their grou~pdwater is too deep,to dil11. economi~cal ly.,
The amount of water :that cin bei supplied by thdnp, rg)i productivity of theft wells and the diameter., ofthr p some of the disstrfcts will not serve
] users.,
h restrict the nuhbe~r of new customers they can serve.
The
- i.
4,
- o. it hookup to the rural water districts in LogVaniCoUnl, ils.f0 This limits the amount of new building that-UO.'
one.
be served by private wells..8 22
2.5 WETLANDS SThewetlands on the site are:confined *to. the.Seeps and,prOns in'-the draws and to the two reservoirs on*.the sit.e.
Th. rsevoirr
-4aresigned for a maximum.elevation of 293 meters (960 feet) andqhadwater tian elevation of approximately 292 meters (959 feet) on July!7,, 1990?;.ResOoir
ýNo. 3 is closest 7to the proposed,-burial;.rea And hbas.; s1ate4.soage capacity of
-36,000 cubic meters (110 acre feet)...
The margins of these wetlands are vegetated with easternred cedar (Juniperus Virginiana), black willow (Salix nigra), and American-elm (Ulmus americana).
No vegetation was observed in the flowing water of the draws, but pickerel weed (Potomogeton sp.) was observed along the margin of the reservoir.
The edges of the reservoirs are grazed by cattle, and their characteristics are more like farm ponds than natural lakes and ponds.
2.6 LOCAL BIOLOGY AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The Cimarron site was farmland prior to its present~use, --an. most of the property is still used for grazing or, whea cult.yattn.ý.
The are as.tha.t will be affected by the earth moving -and buri-al].dactiviies;ar*
lmiarilydisturbed land.
Much of the land near the proposed d. sposalve1l*, I verd wiwth Bermuda grass, interspersed with native grassqs such as-J)141e bluestem, timothy, and gram wgrass.
Trees are invading thelgrgasslad* wi th eastern red cedar being the dominant tree.
Americanelm.i ack.,
i o* and:gretn ash a4re also present.
The draws ar~edominatedb f4e-ern
""'.Aiemiicne el*mand black willow, with occasional black walnut, post *oak, 0and 4q0.-ng1ai*,* A total of 25 species of plantswre, ildentifid6dg tng of the site July 17, 1990 (see Table 2.4).
b Small mammals are evident on the site.
A striped skunk den was: identified in one of the draws, and there was evidence of pocket gophers in th6e area* below the bluffs.
Table 2.5 identifies mammals known to be prses*t in Logan County.
The Cimarron River is a typical middle Prairie river, with very,hjihsaltnity.
The salinity originates:from salt springs about 160 kilometrs (100 rni1*)
23
Table 2.4 Plants and Trees Observed at the Cimarron Site Corn Cockle (Agrostemma githago) luf'al Gur (Cu rbita'foc6 ds1.)
'8la~k-eyedSusan(Rudbe kahi t)
Primrose (Oenothera sp.)
'Bull. ThsiT (CrimVulgare)
Ma (Eustoma gt'andifflrm Greenbrier (Smila sp.)".
Spiderwort ve rchj(Betula nigra)
Black*Cherry (Prunus serotina)
Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila)
Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
Post Oak (Quercus stellata)
Redbud (Cercis Canadensis)
Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos)
American Elm (Ulmus americana)
Black Walnut (Juglans nigra)
Black Willow (Salix nigra)
Green Ash(Fraxinus pennsylvan ca)
Quaking Aspen (Populus'treauloides)
Little Bluestem (Andropogoh scopnr~us)>.
Timothy (Phleum pratense)
Grama grass (Tripsacum dactyloides)(BouteloIis.'p)I
". -Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans)
."Rd~ssan1re:(Elaeaghus angustif0ti)",
j.. -.
Ba'" on field observations, July 17,1990 *&*
rY;*;, *:>*
Rsana Ba~~~~iid~~4 f
1dbevtot jt 24
~k~h142~i ma ou Logan County 1.
io short-tailed shrew (Blavina hylophaga)
~
a$.Shriew (Cryptotis parva) e
~~rn;oe, (Saopus aquat tus
.. RdBat.(Lasiurus borealis) 4j,
" stjrn.Cottqnt!. (Sylv4 114s;, fo.1 danu$)
- tbtteen-ln ed Ground Squirrel (Sper"phllus trId cel1neatus) 7.: :.4i.ktaIled Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludoviclanus)
FoxSqu"rel -(Sciurus. nigra)
.Plians Pocket Gopher (Geomys bursarius)
Hi'spid Pocket House (Peroguathus hispidus)
Ord's Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys ordil)
Beaver (Castor canadensis)
Fulvous Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys fulvescens)
White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus leucopus)
Deer Mouse (Peromyscus moniculatus)
Hispid Cotton Rat (Sigmodon hispidus)
Eastern Wood Rat (Neotoma floridana)
Prairie Vole (Microtus ochrogaster)
Woodland Vole (Microtuspinetorum)
House House (Mus musculus)
Coyote (Canis latrans),
Racoon (Procyon lotor)
Badger (Taxidea taxus)
I.
Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis)
.. bcatF rufy;),
-SOURCE; Cifte JackD*,.
. Tyl r,, ýyan !:. Pl-,
,areS.
Mammals of Qklahoma.,
Untv~rs:ty of Nopn OK. 1989.
-4 C'*,
25 I
..*:i *..-
- , .:2 5:*
i*,* :
i*
upstream. from the site.
Heavy use of groundwater for irrigatron in upstream areas has reduced the river's base flow.
It has also reduced the amoul.t of flooding in the-spring and has 'resulted in increasinginity in the water. 22 Types of fish in the Cimarron River include'innows, of the-amily Cyprinidae, which comprise about 70 to 80 percent by number of the Rver's fish population.
The other 20 to 30 percent are s**ad river carp, suckers, buffalos, and catfish; as well as-- game fish
- -i~asw$.
`Iiss, white
'.crapp~les,*"add-sunfish."
No endangered species have been specifically.ienti"ied near the site, although the site is on a Whooping Crane flyway. Peregrine" Falcons may also feed at or near the site.
The wooded areas near the river may provide nesting sites for Bald Eagles and Least Terns.
Prairie Mole Crickets are likely in areas of nativ', grasses that have not been heavily grazed.23 mhe Cimarron River was home to the Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi), which has threatened status in Kansas, New Mexico, and Colorado and concerned status in Oklahoma.
It is expected to be listed as threatened in Oklahoma in the near future.
No Arkansas River Shiners have been seen in the Cimarron River since 1981.
Reproduction in this species is triggered when the"river floods, which rarely occurs due to the decreased water flow as a result Of heavy groundwater withdrawals for irrigation upstream. 22 2.7 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY AND EROSION 2.7.1 Surface Water Characteristics The proposed disposal cell is located on the top ofa loc1.ridge."Drainage-in the vicinity of the cell is eastward and westward toward the sideo**sb*, t' ot ridge, at a slope of about 4 percent.
The ridge also slo to I
sh at about I percent.
The disposal cell, which is ali'ned withi t' topography of the ridge, would be 163 meters (535 feet) long'andSS (180 feet) wide.
The final shape of the cover will generally conform to the shape of the original ground surface (i.e. a gentle grade-of a nominal 4 percent),:except for minor modifications to the cover shape and the shape of the adjacent ground surface to promote drainage away from the cover.
The disposal cell is located well above the floodplain of the Cimarron River.
There are three 26
s ;!¶eseroirs located, on the Cmarron site that:- sipound-relatively small vOjtis f*vtr The.d sposalce1-1 l.be located-Wso that It.Vl, nort'be affected by flcoding in the Cimarron Rivoror these eseroirs, J
Kerr-McGee proposes to stabilize the uranium-contaminated il in a trench 4*#~d e ~ari,~ d-i.
Iht~e sa4$nefvko*or tio Ottn thOagOmi.ae to W I
.'it bp Vedbeo
.the iel 4
of.thi frmation.
bTh contaminat lmso1l w111 hen be o red by at least 1.-%2 meters, (4 -feet) of clean.soil andseeded with awv4eetative cover of bermuda or other permanent native grass.
Kerr-McGee evaluatedithe-erosional stability of the soil cover using the criteria developed by the NRC staff in.
the Draft Staff Technical Position "Design of Erosion Protection Covers for Stabilization of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites.*2 Kerr-McGee e'aluated the erosion potential of the cover and the area surrounding the cell to determine if the cover will resist erosion and isolate the contaminated soil from the environment.
The evaluation used two methods.
The tractiVe forcemethod, as discussed:. n the, Draft: Staff Techn i cal Positton; was used toevaluate c:over stability during the occurrence of the probable maximum preciptattorI;vent.
The GLEAMS model was used to evaluate sheet erosion over a, log 'period of time.
The tractive force method was used to calculate the maximum osofo-f tbý-'cover that would be safe from gullying during the probable maximem
- p ciptatiaon event-The cover was assumed to be 61 meters (20t:f:i *ftt)wiJdo, thdrinage to the east and west sides of the cover.. Potentil
ý]gull ersion:*
a*s evaluated assum itg no vegetation on.the!,,
to4viiOf1 s
indicated.thtithe coe old be sal fh ioeý'~W$
percent."-,'ssumingothe.*.presence. of IVegetati th bi"itSlilw*.tlc"l ated by Kerr-MckGee'to 'be' aprokcimately: 6-ecn.~Aayi fse eo4On performed with the GLEANS model indicated that approximately i.60"e rs (27 inches) of soil would be removed by sheet erosion ina 1600-year peri od.
- Since the Cliftrron fite a be-- Ieleased Afor Un rtri dder1It:S*t poT1ýb conrotb 4fWt."Iednd it iot 27
S 0
disturbances to the-cover, or,-. the cover icoul d be :altered in -some othe.way by
- humaui actovitias'-.! Ker4IcGe's.,erosion estimates must thereforebe-viewed as representative 'of curr~ent:condi~tions.-
It should be emphasized that there are several features sof-the.disposal cell that are conducive to long-term stability:
-Disosl ofo~anated:.
soil wil I :be:-bel ow-gaei-a4ltveysal The cellIs not. usceptibleakto latral rostoa 1!w acent drainages ortoffsite floodit g, s-ince eroso oniunlikelyto occur* In any
- directiohnother than vertically downward,, due to-:the: presence of thiss erosion-resistant material.
The upstream drainage area to the cell is minimized by locating it on a topographic high area.
There will be little or no effect from offsite flood waters reaching the disposal cell area.
The cover will have relatively flat slopes.
Therslopes.can be~designed to be resistant to :both gully and sheet erosion, using standard engimnering procedures...,,
2.8 GEOLOGY 2.8.1 'Geology 2.8.1.1: Regionial geology:
- 4*.
- -~
.The Cimarron.site,.slcated in the 1entralLow$*s of."
Physiographic Province,.:a generally "level, fetureless plin.
e
&i n
sedimentary-formations, of Paleozoic -,and Mesozoic.age.The
,ovtI~
n o*f*A*f Central Lowlands that includes the site is locally,referre4d-to as t.i,!*he: Central Redbed Plains..,
Subsurface rock units in the central Oklahoma region range in age from Precambr'ian toa,
- Ci.n.
The Cambr i an: -to, fiPerpj aq geologic h 1t.
- tal Oklaho*ma ischaracter!,odi by: periods of.. marineknd 28
Sby.extesve erosion.
A widespread unconformity his 4rute 4
v.fr m on
- rtth rgion. This has..,roouced a 0*atcrq-j9-oqe Ac -In the t-region consists o-P40$ta*a.
'and a'
-,JI "W10 lunderl Cimarron41 rngth 66shallow
~ O~&~I
- 6 itately underlIyij 1
e 1iMar ro
- a~cti s'~,~
i~rJ11u tatz Is, t 1, fi gton frain s
".~~~
~
~-.,ý 'i",'--*'*.,:
A.*..
that were deposited from a wes:*aing'tii
$s mIhese clastic units are characteristically interbedded',and of limited lateral extent with rapid facies chanes.t iOutcrops of the Garber Sandstone form escarpments overlooking the Cimarron River; outcrops of the overlying Hennessey Shale underlie the more gentle slopes farther to the south.'
Along rivers and streams,-Quaternary terrace and alluvial deposits have formed., These deposits consist of unconsolidated gravels, sands, silts, and clays.
The deposits generally range in,1}neSS*,"
3 to 15 meters (10 to 50 feet).
Locally, they may be as much -.,s 30 meters (100 feet) thick.'.V..--.*,'
2.8.1.2 Site geology The predominate soil layer at the site a reddish-from.0.to 2.4" meters (1 to 8 feet) thf&k; Where this soil type6's1 present,
- d.-ek.,'
I "ery.
fine sandy,. silt'.ly
..il occts ~~..san stoneefutdi~A Oy4t~Ireo m ~so~~
1.-a silty san*Isoils occurr qmo usoIs.'
The S~a
- tones. agd siltstones of the GarbeSroomatioe~kberSaSIone) cotu theshllow bedrock at the site", The'-sam nUMs* 61 mete (200 feet) thick in the facility area, bel1O *
- i:,on formation.
The Garber Sandstone at the site cons~s
~~ 'thre sanstone.
tr eaae b aesof IMaiey SfQI ittn 45t~hS (see Figure.2.1). -Using the stratlgraphifd4AtflIcatlofl sce f3..
Grant and Associates, :the lithologically similarFigure -2.1 sandstones are rs 29
A m e " N o mat WIN.,
SANOSTONS "S4W 300 M 395 MA 280 IV 275 Ph 270 P 265t 2601 MUOSTONE fBew 90Ft 900 Pt SAONSTONE "6C`
ssot 4-S
~.~ ~
- .44 4
fi Flu
~
/
~~;~7, Cteaf'ASttbSt~ttI'~Y fre~
"d
'Sts it1g10111-i Wr~zit' ZJ..ttI 9)~.~,4 4~~
30
- designated, from *illoest:to' deepest, SIanditones A,:8, aendC.
'Sim larly, thet ntervt*'n1sg stston~e*-br mdstbnes
- desegnated A*udstnies "A
- nfid B. The discussion of the stratigraphy and lithology of these strata, and later ref.reft cesthy rogeolog c and c~hemical properties,; s e keid'tofthis classification.*'-*
"All" thieknesses and "e1evafns-are proximate.
-* ds-&"'.A:i*d~1i uppe**
permost'
'dandston is u to' 11.
(* feet)thick.
Te. w ft 4
h i s stindstoiA occurst at ei ev
- tonf (70- feet)
Mudstone A: 'This"mudstone layer, which separates: Sandstone's; A':and B, ranges from-1.8 to nearly 6 meters'(6 to nearly 20 feet) thick.
Sandstone B:
This sandstone is up to 9 meters (30 feet) thlcK and lies roughly between the 282-and 291-meter (925-and 955-foot) elevations (msl).
Mudstone B:
This mudstone layer separates Sandstones B and C and ranges from 1.8 to 4.3 meteirs (6 to 14 feet) thick.
Sandstone C: ' This sandstone may not have been fuliy onetradeddurng 0
the Ja"esI. Grant and Associates'investigationh. *f-pre ence' (#f a a:'
s I filt-st6 ohe' mudstone layer was not verified at the"dett~ h pe atedb the siewe'lls; however, 'ti layer is at least m ers hit`'And contain's hintetrbe~ddesiltson~es'.
These strata are inferred to have been deposited in a fluvial/upper.deltaic system".; La~teVl dcis, changes are~
ani bf ~
rO "64h~d~d~t~
, d is'cofit iuoiiýsmk6s and s lton 6
The three sandstones encountered during this investigati on can bil described as geneal ly fine-to 'very fine-grained, we11 2
- ot th;a
'riable silt:
content.
The estimated silt content ranges from less than""1O prcent-up to 50 percent.
lntergranular porosity is generally good, though it varies with silt content.
The sandstones typically are weakly cemented and friable.
The 31
V,.
ng agj. s appear tq;.be tcalcite ad hmat~te; however, silt and clay-sli arD may]~ so con~tri buk t c en~a interv al s are froqaen 1y conglojeratic, wi th gypsy. atid poi 1y*t~alt.
providing additional intergranular cement.
These intervals were encountered ATq a
fth* b a
v assoi ate t
w4it
- ough, intervals are 0.8 meters (2.5 feet) or lessWin thi I.,!*:.
either sandstone or mudstone and the clasts are predominately mudstone.
Patches of sandstone.clasts also are present, These congl~gerattc intervals commonly possess a dissolution cavity porosity.
The dissolution-cavities may have formed through the dissolution of lithic clasts.
The presence of these dissolution cavities cannot be attributed to clast dissolution ýy drilling fluids because the dissolution cavities often are lined with euhedral calcite, gypsum, and barite crystals.2 Separating the sandstones are fine-grained,silty and shal 1
- s.
These beds are referred to as mudstones by James L. Grant and Associates.. Desiccation
,cracks
.in,the mudstones were observed in several bo*,*.,*gsn*
I
)
pis might represent.flood plain deposits.
StratificatiQon wi~,
e largely absent ad they lack the fissile nature ofs jsjtiq*units
.typically are poorly" consolidated.
The mdstone
- core-s..
I*
more like very Aiff to hard sandy silt or cly than rock, ev.n t;da¶JtSreater than 30 meters (100 feet) below ground.'
Enc psulatng tahp astone lyers areeb omefro lesý than 0.3l centimeter 0*.J nches)tooyOr 1M.IRw..
thickness.
Theseo a ers are tentn zones.*
This phenomenon is commonin redbed format onis a,'d. inotuniqe to the site.
In th'e. subsurface at. the facility, the thickn esSqf t -heluish-gray on
!ýs 3ý an y-rich layers is directly, roportional to the thicknes of the st!
h l ayers-th.y bound I-j.
32
0;..
2.8.1.3-Structural geology Of particular importance to the central OklanIoa U gio is' period of "uplift and erosion that occurred during the Miss.,issippian and Penn sylvani.an, ages.
Thi s 6ri of actiity-prdce thenrth-iirthestt.tre ning. normal faults, anticl inal structures,Ad 4........ t.ht comprise..
e femahag*U 4.
Thie
.Because. th&'Nem1a iiRidge.
ee"as
- d
- oatio*64'fr1h te.ei'sy1van1an age, it has had no significant effect on the overlying Permian geologic units.
The strata underlying the Cimarron Facility are argely undeform6d.
There are no faults or surface lineations'reported in the vicinity of the Cimarron Facility.
The general geologic structure of the site vicinity can be characterized as a gentle, west-soutnwesterly dipping homocl ine.1 2.8.2 Mineralogy and Geochemistry Selected rock samiples from onsite drilling were "analyzed for mineralogical and chemical parameters. --The mitneralogical analyses that quarz and
'feldspar*a re tht predominant minerals of the larger-slzed"fracti o
Kaolinite and montmorillonites dominaite te ine -rftion in nearl etual proportions.
Minor amounts of calcite, iron oxides, and iron*.h deswere identi-fie6d'and are probably the cementing agents. Z`
'Cation e. xchan ge"c, acity
,'(CEC)
- r. 1g.
from-. 2" to
,"'V:A t
- per Sltter {meqiL).
Thd~maJortt of saiiplitsikd CCs lesV t an clay m~i~ e i~nsbl fr ci 4to"khng.capaiy0 adenit fi*
ea
.S
- mnor onf Ues.
hWe mos preval ent eX¢ch eaare divalenint.'
Cal' cetmnd magnesium'are ahe s Potassiumiand sodium are Alspresent, buttheir concentrat-0 ar out an orde ofmaigiituid lestthan calcium an nes~ un.2 A"
33
.9HYDROGEOLOGY
,2. 9. J.*e ionalo I tldreolo
~rounater' ithe. central Qkl ahoma region. occpýsprinipll ipthe Permian-aged arbe~W litThraoofn on; aquifer.
sh~a~ý Andstone w tilIn h
,arber.101:
ngton t.higher in Rh.
h h ntrsl hP4h opare. on and decreas'esG,,to:,the north.
The combined thickness of the Garber and Wellington formatiop0 "s is-aprxgty I8 to.20mtr 6~~
P~t Recharge, f the deep portion of the Garber/Wellington aquifer is primarily through precipitationand infiltration in outcrop areas.
The principal recharge area for the deep portion of the Garber/Wellington aquifer :is an area lying generally north of the Canadian River, south.of Guthrie, east of the Canadian County line, and west of Shawnee.
Groundwater in the deep portion of the Garber/Wellington aquifer flows primarily to the southwest along the regional dip.
The points of discharge of the deep groundwater are outside the central Oklahoma region.'
The shallow groundwater of the Garber/Wellington aquifer generally flows laterally toward streams and springs where Jt d i'ars to the'surface. A minor component of f e
Al dpid kage partially recharges deeper confined aquifers.
in-adto to the Garber/Well1i ngton. aquifer,, Qq aterry-ago.d teor~
and alluvial deposits are locally important sources of groundwater north of the.
Cimarron River.
These deposits consist of lenticular.-uop s,
.sands, silts, andclays.
Well yields of 13 to 1 liter
,(
250 0 aii o p~er"' m'nuto) are ciomon frog these deposits#,j~
terrace deposits near the.town of Crescent fQpw soua~
l,.
Cimarron River and contributes to its base. flo*.* Recar *o.f 4*e.9 4 r and alluvi al aqu ifers also occurs through, prec ptaton a nf b
- ver, water levels* in the alluvial aquifers are co*n,..y.aint4 0d :-,,
st.r ep.,and rivers. 2 The Garber Sandstone is the principal source of groundwater south of the
- Ci marron River near the.Cimarron Facility. The groundwater In the.Wellington Formation is.
of -poorqUality in and around the facility.because of its 34
1;T salinity.
Hydraulic conductivity values for the Garber Sandstone range from 1*..
.O'to 1 69. x, 10 3 centimeters per. second (cm/sec). 1 The Garber Sandstone becomes thinner and.gressivdlyoqre**siltyý and cclayey north of Oklahoma County.
A corresponding~decrease in eability is associated with this facdes change to a finer-grained Iitho',i;iy Bause of 7
r theJenticular nature of the'Garber Sandstone, water quant andua1ltyican
,vaty greatml~vovr relatively,short distances.'
The effect4ive6thickess
,f the
,Garbe*,r
- adtone' qvifer-.ýs limited by the presence of bracktsh-and salty waters A!tdepth.,;:-,' The :basi of, the fresh water in the Garber Sandstone in southwestern Logan County is reported to be at an elevation of approximately 210 to 240 meters (700 to 800 feet) above mean sea level.'
The Garber/Wellington aquifer generally has potable water, altaough the water is usually hard to very hard.
In the central Oklahoma region, hardness and dissolved solids generally increase with depth.
Nitrate ranges`-frolm0 mg/L to 100 mg/L with a median of I mg/L.
For wells -screened in.tfii Gar*e r/Wel1ington aquifer at depths less than 61 meters (200 feet), below! qudý d'l aefacen the*
area near the Cimarron Facility, nitrateplust i-'i., "
3' 63 W/L,
.tth an average of about 15 mgl.f,,,AKN to.:.
to32 mg/L have been reported from six wells., n the '
0,2., q..fer near the Cimarron Facility.
The average nitrate co et qa,,fp th)2 x wells i s 12 img/L Groundwater from the terrace-deposits on the north side of.heCimarron River is of gqod quality.
.atii"f alth l alluvium along the C-,* "
n1 Ai.*orthl.a
""....."a*dj
-an, a
id idan Rivers is generallylfair to poor b se of the poor qua1ity. (salinity) of-the river water.'
2.9.2 Site, Hjydrogeoloy Data from 24 osite wels wre us o charitter ize't Nineteen wells were screened in Sandstone A and one in Sandstone
- ý These are referred to as the shallow wells.
Four were screened i nSadstone C;. these are referred to asbd 6 400.
TOj Goa:*h
- ar*..
gure 2.2 and identified in Table 2.6.
Shallow groundwat'eroccurs.-
dnd 35
0 Fl gur.~L2
,*~
~,
36
1Table2.6 Depths of Groundwater Nonitoring vells Vol eDth-to B9ottom 4fV Scren
~
fni~
1311-40.0 ft Sandstone A 1312 35.0 ft Sandstone A 38.0 ft SandstonerA 45.0 ft*
Sandstone B 27.0 ft Sandstone B 32.0 ft Sandstone B 1317 18.0 ft Alluvium?
1320 38.5 ft Sandstone A 1321 121.6 ft Sandstone C 1322 35.0 ft Sandstone A 1323 126.8 ft Sandstone C 1324 35.0 ft**'
Sandstone A 1325 45.5 ft Sandstone A 1326 42.3 ft SOii stoneA*
1327 39.0
.ft 1327449.0 ft 1328 135.0 ft 1329 45.0 ft S
n~d 4
1330 38.7 ft An i
1331 22.2 ft San-o'.,A 1332.
116.0 ft i...
Sandstone C 1333 32..
.t Sa andstone A 133t 20.0 ft i
SandsonA i335 40.0 ft Sandstone-A 1336 28.0 ft Sandstone A
........................,....... / :,.., * * '.
- .:;.*. :.,.: *,.:SI C,
37
0 00
~
'~ ~ \\
No.
1 'Rosen J
Re\\
-A0-1A3W:;'
312\\
10,,
\\
'0
"'~'N 1tjI2~~::~aI~Sao Di
.con.
Mggs*
Kroerr-Mcnee Figure 2.3 Shal low fodwtr Potentiomtric.Surtac~e 38
partially.confined conditions at the site.
The depth to water in-the shallow
-wells.ranges from about 3 to 9 meters (10 to 30 feet) below ground level.
riqu-e..
Iis a Map of the potentlometric surface of the sha1lw gr.oundwater Shallow groundwater flow is strongly influenced by ito'd" surface water bodies.
Flow direction is primarily.north-nort TO..a..
P.r. n
_Rter O.A ncised drainage and bluff overooking the-et rie' odpaih>
i ** t*'i~iofl nces.
The gradient averages approximately 005 percent f i-.e~,pt
- wh6re ift.sepens.as a result of proximity to discharge areas.
Seepage
-faces are presentl:along the steep slope just above the southern boundary of.ý:'
"'the"Cimarron River.floodplain.
In the vicinity of well 1334, seepage occurs at an elevation of about 294 meters (964 feet) with standing water occurring
.in a marshy area at an elevation of about 293 meters (960 feet). 2 In the area around the proposed disposal cell, below thelsoil :and.sapdstone, there is.a layer of resistant mudstone at a',depth-.of about 148 tO,2.1 meters (6 to 7 feet), dipping to the east.
After,,heavyri.r ri 1 r ater perches on this mudstone layer and -travels
,t44*Thp mudstone layer directs seepage.acros-the.",
ae U
At the northern end of the soil disposal ce 1 there is an access road leading from-the cell-to the-1
- the site:(see.Figure 2.2)".
This access road is exca#OW;
.e(
the bottom of-the disposal trench.
Observation'of the ro:
C 4.4 at it is st-the topographically.lowwold of the trench, and
'all
- ~ precipitation which falls h filnto the.trench in t the rod it hec~ut, if simply backfilled like the rest af~
~ i act as a preferential pathway for flow of leachate from the
- i Cl" te surface.
Seepagerof water out of.the cell on to.the sr unac.table uaf n
will require that Kerr-#iEcie take measures..to blok Athe. fl0 theb~cfilted, oid u.
AAcly-dan wOuld-Wine' r Klb
.further discussed in Section 4.
39
J J..
"v Plant.,
\\
N"
~*
.~-07 vow
/
Prow I0 w
.~
K Fi gure 2. 4 Deep IAWMWater Potentiýtrlcltrfwe 40
,t.Salstone C. also flows.-to the, no'th-northwest-ý.- FTigure 2.4 Is a
-map t*
-Iintltomtrl*sur-face !definedl.byý the deep -elis 'n sai~sto e C.
~~T I jt
~~~irxmteO 4,014 erc.t
-~
h
- eep, 411ud1tf nera the Cimar ron aaljv m
o.trbutestit.'bae low of the Cimarron River.2
- Thehdraulic¢onductivities of the Garber Fomation sandstones generally are itabeepoorlycvementq and o WIQ~ 6 _0ý C
si~ ~*IA~.y pesntinthe..sandstones. Inspection. of outcropsat the site and cýore sampl.es revealed minimal jointing,-Indicating t-that theefect..of fractures on hydraulic conductivities will be low. 2 The hydraulic conductivitis of Sandstones A and C have been measured by slug test methods.
The.hydraulic conductivities of the shall.ow aquifer range from 2.41"x 10" -,cm/sec to 5.7 x 10-3 cm/sec.
The hydraulic conductivity of the deep aquiferýranges from 1.39 :x 10"5 cm/sec to37,.06.x 10-4 cm/sec.
-.; A stahdardwater*,quality analysis was performed-on a: sample.of groundwitgr from Well-1324i, gving the following results for major*1ons
.11 Ca 'rvr",
715mg/
ei~vf Clý',4 i /L Mg 37.2 mg/L HCO W- ýM*-g/
F 0.6 mg/L N03-N 20,'
g/
KJ
ý
~
.j' 03 gISO Na ~
~
~
40.1 ýmg/I -)'v
.Ttieit$'
ui ent from aldlia*l :ty R
l4 rnde
.1 V&tis aed i
sn1,Adg" fconcetratlo is 'oV"jor Aion's.
-;,1
4nJn 989, ~pH 4nd,, speti fi c' c
eldu tnede A u
mero groundwater :sampi of' h ;vl 1 U
frnm I.
in locationskno wto have been contaminated With yuranium c
,o
--other cheicls ro the Uraniutm' Pl ant. Haturl "Iback-ru~
OWN11~
estimiat by c o rsiderIg only :samples fromn wel iun ca
- ~41
M *.*:Host g
ndwater;samples ;from *-such background wells, both shallow and deep, i~hav*4a -p*4of.be~teen
- T7.0 and 7.54... Speci fi c conductance s -around 4S0' b* iii c!om b qs9$t nteter (iOmhoS/cm) for saiples fo
- the-4hal low ba7 round iiwels
ýd ibqtween A2000 and :3;000 pmhos/cmwfort.h deep background wellIs.
2.10 SITE GEOCHEMISTRY 0, eocNO.c :f.rs
-,,Oat coul increase U'ani-m mo,.il. t consideredfor 4"00, -(dcon thUc~tbil1 ty;,of th.rpedsI 1 4 *a1 xei Th geochemtstry-Of this-*flt.'can be divided 'into ztwo parts,the geochemistry of background :areas and the :geochemistry of areas affected by past plant operations...
Natural groundwzter in the shallow water-bearing stratum beneath the site has a relatively homogenous chemical composition.
Calcium is generally the dominant cation; bicarbonate dominates the anion field.
Fluoride and nitrate are minor constituents.
James L. Grant and Associates did geochemical modeling to identify possible mineral/water reactions that might -control the solubility of uranium in the site groundwater.... Results; of themode]ling,,-ý indicate that naturally soluble uranium in the site groundwater occurs primarily as uranyl dicarbonate and tricarbonate complexes and aqueous uranyl carbonate.,
-2High concentrations of nitrates, fluorides, sulfates, or bicarbonates in.the groundwater would increase the complexing of MUranhi by these ions.
UrOu_00 complexes are not sorbed onto the soils as strongly as uranim iutons,
,Additioiklly.4ýpnereased %coWtition between ur~atum4enssu
- fo a 1imited nuilr of-sorptionasites :inn iimpacted.runwte
'he' concentration of uranium ions in solution. - These factors 'wi33
- t'te in a si nificant waey to the leaching of uranium from th i,
in the proposed disposal cell since these soils do not contain the concentrations of i--ons ior.complexing ýligands *that were. present ip,i ther, pl t ýwýe I e
thataffected the -groundwater i n the !contami nate4; area$
g,W
.I
.:1,
- 2.
~
1 42
2.11 RADIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND Grat Kqond ssctenc 1 Kr-cesc trtr1ntftel Ied 28 groundwater monttorkg wei*s aroun the o
te re these we1 s w~erq",I oct nea thepi roposed, soi dis.4
$posal, cell (wel oobrti)Z44-4
- 1325, ah 3
'if5
- id cani b** Vsed for radiological' baVk otdi*d' For all three.:backgroundwells, gross a and gross-B6countsi-h fino
ýater-were
-`
IN~, -ditecton mits (10' p i/
and, 2OR*
e~eyu ater in all three background wells was analyzed for naturally*oCcUring thorium and uratiU.
Thei thoriliu,-232 co6iCentratio'n hn the "atW
- iV
- hree wells was the same, 0.004 pCi/L.
The total uranium concentration was also measured in groundwater from all three background wells, but there, appears to have been a transcription error in one of the reported values (well number 1335), so il is best to use only the other two for an average.
The average total uranium concentration (i.e., U-234 plus U-235 plus U-238) for these two was 1.60 pCi/L.
Grant and Associates also took soil and rock samples r, various depths. in several of the boreholes drilled for install Ing I
theiroun&Atr-46Mtortng wells.
Three sapes were taken from he well O
eand can be used as background.
The average Th-232 concentr1nh tbe:samples was 0.47 pCi/g.
jThe average concentrat~ion pq,,f
$4 qp1$,
(U-S5w, not measured, but-is by far the smallest contribtor to','4 iv tA i a4Matural uraqium sample) was 0.56 pCi/g.
Frm,tjhe, repor$ !Exvqp§uro,.f tý, POpu nlpo 1n e.$ ~
Cat frcb YNtturtl.8ack~V'ound Radiation" :byih"'~ ~~a~I
.Protection and Neasurements,6 it can be conclUded backgr6und radiation
- exposureto:
an individual *nOk
,about 100 mrem/y, composed of about 37 mrem/y from:costl1i r
ati 30 mrem/y from-externil ý,.terrestrial radiation,,.-and abRtA a
35t
- f ib l
emitters, exclustveof4 exposure due to rad0 ni ai}iTh*eoure of abo~ut-4100'rt/yma be mdiid y as' imuch as1im~yde ature of the home and other buildings which 'eop Ot:
c p.
Exposure tom h asd 200 ret/y eff ctive n
os e
eq ivalenT.
r:
doorua much as 200 mreu/y vft It V dse-equ va en.
43
3/4 a
2.0 REFERENCES
- .9 S/Uoyah
- ..
FUels:ACorporation,ý Revision! of Request,. forý License Amendment,
.L*e~se:.-
928,*, Docket, No.70-925, June
,, 1988.
2.:
&*v-L 'Grant and Associates-Inc.,-Site Investilgation. Reportfor-the Cin~arron. Corporation Facility, Logan County,....Oklahoma., Septe"br 12, 1 98C:
" :.. -1989:, *-*'*:i*-': ~~~........:
Ž:: :
. 3.. 1. ga6n Land Associates,. Inc., Ciiarron Ial *Ity Closure Re;ponses S" -t6NRC
- Quetohs, ay 10, 1990.
- 4. Personal co'municatIon with Axel Graumann, National Climatic Data Center,
.: "Asheville, NC, July 19, 1990..
- 5.
National Climatic Data Center, "Climatological Data Annual Summary:
Oklahoma, 1988," Volume 97, Number 13, 1989.
- 6.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. "Logan County Soil Survey," SCS Series 1445, Number 7, June 1960.
- 7.
U.S. Department of Commerce, "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States," Technical Paper No. 40, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1963.
8; Personal communication-with Arlen Chitwood,*NationfalW eather Service, Oklahoma City, OK,.:July-13, 1990.
9.. Personal c Mi tion with Gaudencio'Rivera, :i.atoui ca
%ather-SeiMce, Juy13, 1990.j
- 10.
U.S. Department'of Commerce, Bureau of the 9Census,"0 Censu6 of Populi0n and Housing, 1980," Summary Tape File :3A,-Washingtdn,; DC,*:*19824*.
- 11.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Coda*Bu*1
- is Patterns, 1987," Washington, DC, 1989.
-12. OkI ahoma Depiot nt of Caierce, ::"Pop*l ate on-Pr tt*etir !wd.
.i a nd Its' Count. es.; by-.e Aget and -Sex, and' for Its, C i eOK,
- 13.
Personal. commuiication with.Thomas-Stambeck, '.'Logan County.
a
-Department, Ju',j 13, 1990.
- 14. Personalt communi cation: with Dana Dunagan,- Century: 21 i,*Retl :-Estate, and Shirley Pqrter, Porter Construction, July 24, 1990.,
- 15.
Personal c.a.
iomnication.with Kim. Ellison,- Logan: County Com.issioner,'*s Off ce,. Guthri.e, OK, July12, 1990..
- 16..*:.* Personal ;conu.*ic(t1op, with David Ranek, Oklahoma State Blard of Agriculture, Okiahioma City,..
, July 13,1990.
44
K -
0
- 17.
Personal cou=unication with Craig Transportation, July 13, 1990.
- 18.
Personal communication With mint y
Association, July 11, 1990.
- 19.
Personal communication with Buddy July 12, 1990.
Womack, :Okl ahoma Department of Boyd 01yh, '60A Rural Water i sstrict Johu'son, Crescent City anager, 2d*V
- N~'~na1! co~i t1atiton. wfth Re t nf D
- kson,.G~th*.f~ 1ty **Ier[' s. O*ffice,
.~ ~ ~.'
Inh~
q
- COK, J uly 12 J1 9O
(
e.2 21 419.
atei Viir A&Iasi**
ahoma, C 22., Pe'sonalcoummunication with Jim Pigg,
- kTahoma State Depa"rtment of' Health, Oklahoma City, OK, July 139,1990.
- 23.
Personal con..nicatlon with Allen Ratzlaff, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulsa, OK, July 24, 1990.
- 24.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft Staff Technical Position, "Design of Erosion Protection Covers for Stabilization of Uranium Hill Tailings Sites," August 1989.
(This staff Technical Position was, published in final form in August 1990.)
25.
F. N. Davis, et. al., "GLEAMS User Manual, Vprs.ion;I1,8,55, ',U.S.
i.. -
Department of Agriculture ARS Southeast WatershfeidResearch' Laoratory, Lab, Note SEWRL-O3O19OFMD, 1990.
- 26.
Nitio6nal Council On Radiation Protectionan' iasu-*Imn i,"*xourebof
,.the, Population of the-United States and Ctnida.fro6'NAit 1.1iS iId Radiation,'
NCRP Report No. 94, Natiop)
Cp I,
lppqR4a to rt ion and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland, Decr 36, 1987.
an
- a
- y
,-:,.*.3";
.9....,.....
0*/:;'
- j- !..
7c i-*:.
- 's..*', Y
- .,2
'-p Z~sts.r;.w...S.
2..~.i.2~..
~
t..
45
3.0 _EXVECTEDQEkMVI"PIMETAL IM~PACTS
,3.1 OTENTIAL FQR GROUNDWA;ER* CONTAMINATIO#
3.1.1 el Parameters,
_.The pss ibiltiyý that the uran.Um-bearing so.i % h b iI 4At the, SCimarron' s i te could cause groundwater contaioiatfon waM'$l
.formi ng a conceptual,odel of the ocal g4noate ydroloun Ar he movement of water and dissolved uranium toward the water tabli.*-- The'iTRANSS computer code was used for the simulation.'
The most imp.rtant.parameters of the conceptual model are presented in detail in Appendix A and briefly described below.
The soil disposal cell, shown in Figure 1.2, would be 55 meters:(180 feet) wide by 163 meters (535 feet) long.
The long axis would be in the north-south direction.
The disposal cell would be 3 meter (10 feet) deep as. excavated.
The contaminated soil would be placed in the bottom of the cell to a maximum thickness of 1.6 meters (5.2 feet) and covered withclan s tuhe surface.
The shallow water table lies an aver.ge+ofabot+6,-mstdis..
(20 feet),below the bottom of the cell.
Approxpmately2,,
Mftljters 4,+.
(4.8 inches), of water:, will be assumed. to i nfiltrate through!tb
.e+over every year.1 The water will move at an averae i
ti+p;
+tyear (1.71 feet/year) downward in the unsaturated zone.
The shallow groundwater beneath the disposal cell flows to the northeast at a velocity of 3 meters/year (10 feet/year).
The maximum inventory of uranium that would be placed in the br1ia, ell Is-estimated to be 1.9 curies, which was calculated assuming an averii uranium concentration in thecontaminated soil of 70 pCi/g and a conservative ivolume estimate of 14,000 cubic meters (500,000 cubic feet).
It is assumed that the uranium in the contaminated soil is 100 percent soluble and that the movement of uranium in the groundwater is retarded only by liquid-solid partitioning interactions.
The partitioning effect is described in terms of adistribution coefficient (hd), which was determined in this case by laboratory +measurements performed by, Kerr-McGee on samples of soil from the Cimarron.site.`
46
NeakiriW06&
of the uranium Kd iwas based on fve samls taken-f
-romarund the site-4Ib4 thIles wereip tken rfvi five diffe t
6 9
6s usned'to Insa11 the 6*
tw'iml tool* we1113 The f i vied 4e11stl id13ut
- ItS, 13 1134, snd 133a"e M
pdgur s let to he ro thse o106 isol*e11'ai*"Proma339 tb th lower oftheost values, 339 m L/g, 33s "ra wel (1336 s-the blated I~e tftl dowgahtfo akildvs~~ae from Wf SS coneiit at 661 of !ni ftPe a do Miu I i4" that probe b nt p
prdsic tioo vte revfrent coni th leachsee soflad soael te sampble fr cneVll 1321, lhated justs upraiep t fromdsin the b floe6d waste water pond, is closest to the proposed soil y
isposal cell and' probably best represents the conditions that would apply to the soil disposal. The.sample taken from hell 1321 showed a ord of 2,263 'L/g in one measurtment and 2,830 d L/g in another.' The analysis in this Environmental Assessment used the lower of those twponvalues, 2,253 eL/g, forpurposes of maki'.the best-estimate prediction of the movement of uranidm leaichatetwad1l thewater table. For conservatism, the analysis was repeated using the lowest measured Ks dvlue,
- 339g mLfg -even thoughithis% val e roaif ly
- ui reletthe coditop*oi at they bral
-l(S iiWoet)-1d.
IV s
oo:..
analyses are discuss~~~~~d in he conclusiosb!w le4via~lui~I~
the bWalkdniity (1.9 gCmx) and -the porosity (0.33) -*tl.
thrvey ation fato r, w h a: measure o
WIN I ii dissolved contamination through a particular soi-Wil be roti~i~t liquid-solid partitioning effects.
The direction of shallow groundwater flow was determine b'
three poiot" A~o~mO I
h~
el t~t~h The ire'sults. slAW ".I"~
th w
fOw o s
t sa1 so soilI di sposl c0l1 I'si i~~y exactly t 6W
&*IeSt.ffhtirdc a
p1 urn that' tS approkiimtiely 155 mete (5
'feet')ie FOr h purposes, 0f isrprte fkI V-e ttike~ft~aafVi def~das stirtin-it' th waiter Vable andAfna 0tl trea domeiticf, ov~r.
1coplte in theu6`10b a.7.~
suvY, to' likatel and cibew well dV6VtSid thin 47
if tbcj
.facili Td.
+.p4ptJ a+.er/N+ limgton
.....+..t-+,
,,, +":t;+
aL r:.~
~
so
.s t
+
oo the aqui fer 4+ the f+ttyPml to0e);eM sicnarton ntAruder the domltc 0w.ells fou ed in a grorter~fl0p.velof
ýhpa1M m qe IWR ssumedoo i
- t 4~s.p tfi0 t/y ad trve dost~anc dof~ a 0.3 s ters(l pot)
Th e otana 1
inl~ ~
~~s~9~~t)of000ur-.-~n~
n PJ.
.fto of non-tjpoding mi Atnlenses., thenl ~ theefCtv, p*nso4b sanedstone,,portion -of. the aquifer for the typical Gerbr/Welington int0ruder wellI i s 20.2 meters (66. 5 feet).
Travel time within the aquifer, to-the_
scenario intruder well would be 0.1 year, based on a groundwater flow velocity of 10 ft/yr and a travel distance of 0.3 meters (1 foot).- The -ontaminant transport code was run to simulate an absorption controlled release to a typical domestic well, installed in a worst case location in.thedown gradient direction 0.3 meters (I foot) away from the edge of the soil disp*os 1 ell.
The simpilied one-dimensional contminant t, qpr q w+ j to modele hUm l~cng,and subsurface igratipon& of"m opil disposal c1.
l
...The TRAISS model is a coyvct l.d,
- j.
Vram thahs~ bon-modified to: allow for ratatver4~
f~
simulate-ads Jonpo (L). solubility. In wator,ad,,"
ne aio d~~o barrier co..teolled releases.
3.1.2 Conclusion concentrattJ!* of.?, qj*aim tha~t might be
,!i uranium will be inch slower-than the downwrd mOVemlent ofl infiltrating watter conce groutnda+ter iojuaIe welqd pf-
-,.t prediced w)t
~
~ ie I ftr Ibudti 1c Oorvel,_.wul s ti+@
- +*++*
.. Wý VY7 the NI
.. 48
eS
- 13.2 'POTENTIAL FOR INTRUSION,: DIRECT RADIATION -EXPOSURE AND INHALATION -OR AING
.1TON OF i..NIUN 1,
.r
-,'of NRC policy on the disposal of soil contaminated With low `con~entrations of
-uranium pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302 is described in the 'Branch Technical Pos ti t
n Dist'posal -orOnsite *Storage of Theium orUraniUmWastes F.~m Past Operations
-' For enrtiched" iuranium, which'.is *thtiatei~1'pf Att ce~*t-the
- 30- p*c*dV'4*
if drantium, *p. lvaioW, *ot1i ~(pCit*Y~)*ld~l ibtreure a~ny specal dsposl;sucha ;
so ilscould Ib V eftVin -place, evenonthe surface, without restrictions on future land use.
The"Branch Technical Position refers to this situation as Option 1.
Under the terms of the Branch Technical Position, soil contaminated with concentrations of uranium higher than 30 pCi/g cannot be left on the surface.
For concentration ranges of up to 100 pCi/g for soluble uranium and up to 250 pCi/g for insoluble uranium, soil must be disposed of in the manner described as Option 2. This would require that contaminated soil;bed-buried under: prescribed conditions in a location-on ":the, site,shown :ito beW.4 eptable in terms of its hydrological ; geological,..and iete6rOlogtca)--charcAt... ttcs.
As--
a inimum, the contaminated soil would haVe"tob#.c6¶eed.tMttt O2* s (4 feet)"of ýclean :soil. If contaminated Soil Ti A ý.tfiO tt into 0 range is buried in accordance `wtith the'coivtsAd1 io of thf
- qrli '4, M lI1 Position and 'other conditions which the NRC itaff kaylp~e' r*b
- IW' review"of thi-ci rcumstances, the burial area cOuld berfM e
iodr" 6 3W7 unrestr'ic ted ute.
e`49 4.'
I n e4tabill tishA di sp640:options and `uranium c Br~ic~
ecnial~Psiio, heNRC~ staff ci1tl
-kti members 'of the 'pubicil cou6ld rial I s~ially
- VWcpted 6
,~
cont aimi nated soils-bu r~itd lmder' Option 2-conditi-Ns CO s'ciI~ai cons!dre dssuet ierdltion,; doses 40 494
S.:.f~e' eisj to *another TXhe possiblitty;.that.,theproposed soil disposal at Cimarronýn will. contaminate the groundwater with uranium has been evaluated ieparAtely: and is -discussed In Section 3.1 and Appendix A of this
- .;n the c~lculat~ons one for the -Branch. Technical ositt n,.the staf,
~o~c1d~ #bt-*o Aotin~te4soil burie~iudr.Otp niin a
least 1ý-mps '(4iý~t eo the 4Vf~)wud~o xoe~ny ebro tepulct irect, rdatn. Tbc-jbigher. ocnrto~o ruimi the OptionvZ soilwould be compensated by the shielding provided by the 4Cfeet of
_coverngisoil.
The-same 1.2 meters (4 feet) of covering~soil would essentially eliminate the uptake of uranium by food or pasture crops and correspondingly reduce the amount of uranium that could be ingested by consuming food produced on the site.
The possibility of physical intrusion into buried contaminated soil cannot be excluded if the site is released for unrestricted use.
In an extreme case, someone -could remove the. clean, cover, soi I from the -bur i al,., l ocat ion, *d4ireKtly
- exposing-the site's *users to the Option 2 soil,and.the risksthatiA]vas i., ntended *to,prevent,.., Calculations -done for.the Branch Teqnical Ppst$Apn
ý.showed !tthat -.even,such an extreme i0ntrusi1on ito -Juie Qpt!pn 2,oi1 d L result iAn an -annual critical.organ dose of.no,.mre than l,7Qmll]) t*
whch is equivalent-to a total effective. dose equIvajent,--(TEDE) ýpfj, uraniumnsoluble in lung fluid :to 20.mil for insoluble uranium.
e TEDEs are-well,bejow tbe dose allowed by 10 ZFR Part 0Q*o*.eq*
ers the public.
Based upon an average concentration of 70 pCi/g of disposed of in the burial cell, the expected TEDE will be, under 7mlle without rgard to-solubl]ity, Such odose is sd be i....
compared to,.doses ifrom, natural background-,radiatio9, !des.ti:4 2.11.,;To reduce,the likelihood of %wadvertent intrusin IA soils-buried.. at. Ci arron, the NRC. staff will reqUirp that the ld..tl*. ibe.
amended to record the exact location,- uranium concen~ration, n
]**.f buried Option 29 soil* *
"dtat cairns-be. pj;fced. on hecorrs p,,tI
.. ri al area.. These precauti o
.*f wo ub consis tet w n.h 5 t.1bn.. i Position0'sa 4nuj
<t at thedisposa spulde cn I.awyIa
!if1~~5~9e LkeJRt~
tj~f trusion Notjfijaii on 50
p1acOment of cairns would not constitute'A r~stritOtion6h Adfu1t*rets*or ownershipof the land.
These requirements are described further in Section 4.
~3~3~POTNTILýRASIATI0NO0SE FROM ARTHIIOVINS~
Duripogn he-oiir'ei-of disposal "operationsAtt4wi1lb U-stb-14rs.
i r4iiM tli thiAs Acwl0pi0f"~a~~tFtadt
,Report ti tti will accoqanyany license Amndments isid 0'
tfii rron; Faci lity.i
- For. the,purposes of thisls Environmental ;Assessmet.t; -the e potenti al dose to-the nearest resident (0.8 kilometers to the southeast) 'dUd.eto blowing dust was calculated using the new GENeration II radiological pathways and dosimetry model (GENII) developed for dose assessment at nucl.Ar facilities and contaminated sites. 7,8 Assumptions and input parameters are presented in detail in Appendix B.
Table, 3.i*shows that the major radionucl-ides contr1buting tob daste'i, 1Kte site. ctanup iand generation' of -airborne dU~t~s afr UY 4,-
i3*e
- ttal e f fei-ti ve dosei equival ent (TEDE) ý-from a'all*or'ans
- j.
% tI 41 0" 1
-At cleanup from resuspension of radioactivity in the Sol,was cal*cu*latdt 0.67 mrem. The doses in Table 3.1 are quite small comaed' tothe :iýannuaI doses frr*, natural background radiation described in Section-2.11.
Table 3.1 Potential Radiological Impacts of Earthmoving I
- Concentration (oCi/o1 Maximum Commite Cuoul'Alve Committed Dose Equivalent
- EffectiveDose
.W"r.e.1Jm..
,to 9Aent (Mrem.
Uranium-234 55 405
,054 Uranium-235 1.2 0.1 0.01 Uranium-238 14 1.0 Total:
5.6 0"67
- . 51.
- 3. 4 4ýPW wA&N0WRADIOLOGICAL. IMPACTS!*
se.
thel
-In high concentrations, uranium can cause chemical toxicity effects onthe
'kidney due. to. depositing t~t,,r etal4 w_0 JO*
9.'The current NRC standard for uranium exposure of.occupational workerstis based on a
.toxic!
standard of 3.mi crograms. o-fri p
gr
- d.
b, Af ra working 1 ifetioe~V
_AM~~t~h~
p!O~ttvs~$c ip Zhe dsoal of uranium*C6 dgipt$O Iuyi \\l1 k~qot pase4 esurabl e el.1evation of uranjuw condentra~jpfi~tgo~dae for thousands of yearse.
Toxic effects from ingesting uranti oUidtrqiafre concentrations of: uranium in. the groundwater of.hundreds ýof picocuries :per liter, while the analysis described in the previous section-has shown that the uranium concentration will not exceed background by as much as 1 pCi/L for over 100,000 years.
According to Kerr-McGee's submittal, nonradioactive toxic substances are not present in the uranium-contaminated soil-"
Kerr-McGee Is responsible for satisfying.all Oklahoma State Department-of Health jeg&1.ttWonst.tlttIng-to the non-radioactive constituents of the proposed bur4alv.jhis
'gosblltY s included In. Section:4, among the. recommended c dtionod.10""
burial.:
- ..A M
52
1..................es
,,c*.,
t f r,,
It e
for the
,*i>t*¶qmFcgaqyLogs r 12-1989.
V lft.oa
.s gaspopses
""to 1NRC Guest ons, Nay: 10, 1990.
3oC SC Sl CT.
K ncaid and A. E. Reisenauer, A SIq fe Noel for
- OW W"
-i,NA r-RllAdiolo!a Ell esuiiw
,-+,~~
~
~~~ D.+
11N leyer
..*, o i;}.As s t=,~
e ronmn tov&se Anaiysi s, "NUR j" kR*ik2 U"S. Nut a&
latory
ý.Coi s s ion, 198LC~~1 U
S-Di-spo*sl Or Onsite Storage of Thorium or :Uraiuým Wastes FrOauPast Operations, Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. :205, pp. 52061-52063, October 23, 1981.
6.-,zSECY-81-576,, "Disposal or Onsite Storage of Residual Thorium or Uranium (Either as Natural Ores or Without Daughters Present) From Past Op4mationsOct.otr5, 1981.
7.,Aaier.B.*,
.PNL-65... manford '
v s it D.sq r a Prjet
-IitSattawe Pa~ffic-Northse~st Laboratory~ i,,-chhti, 0
wt moq-u'.
A.'
f, "fro ecmqctstioningi,ý ZviS.- Nuclear 1601at wxý1IV~~-52
- 9. Eve, 1. S., O.Some Suggested Kaxiv.Jum Permissible S ingP4Ii
~f Uranium,, Health Physics, 10:
No. 11, 1964.
- 10. I~nterna~ttowt`.Cw $0salowl"1adio Vtcal-tdtp~~~~
1 ~
F s-, "
sor attrn tvislo License N1~
9 O "Al 53
4.0 01KIM0 TIONS FOR CONDITIONS ON THE PROPOSED BURIAL Based -on the analysis presented in this Environmental Assessmentthe MNC 1t~~
- I I~h ltics for the ýV n lrni~
aot~
'by erNc Crporat&,b i*~
~
~trz h
d4
-'o NOR 0-talminatod Sel l on the*..
so
-4 foll owing conditions.e k1ti OF.
t 0!
(6000 cubic feet) of soil contminated withI lo*
°n e
c
'uranium in the h
Pcs1 tion' Optio
~ oncent#'atio '
ran6 in~hl tio described in their submittal to the NRC of October 9, 1989.
'The Branch Technical Position Option 2 range is up. to 100 pCi/g for soluble.uranium and:up to 2S0 pCi/g-for insoluble uranium.
Radiological surveys submitted to the NRC to date show a maximum of 11,000 cubic meters (400,000 cubic feet)-of OptiOn2 soil on the Cimarron site.
It is possible,.however, that a. tionilOption 2 s.6.may beound inth co e f uure decommissioning activities.
NRC staff analysis has show that proposed*tpose celwihutyvvw
,eý~a~
s ý ris Aolmp publ ic. A.,limit sf14 P400'-ocubkt feet):,would, allow: the-,c'a 1 icssd t modest quantity of additional Option 2 '!so1 mr-..
lit'snatou.-*
If..
concentration of oil, coqio ndsinthelsoil if, question must be, determined r
2 material sha be ascertained by the o r"""a:
Enriched Uranium Limit (pCi/g) - 170/[(F.)(O.68) + (I-F,)(2.0).
where F Is the insoluble fraction, i.e.,. either the fracti
- of 'V classified material If the Kalkwarf method is used or'the fttionotf 54
uranti. in the U(IV) oxidation state if oxidation state analysis is performed.
- '\\
U For cases where the above, equiton resultv inI-alt't*ii) I
- ,'han 100 pCi/g (i.e., when the soluble fraction exceeds 75 percent), the limit 4~P 4I~
avrked~fo~ dsposal inf-th tiIdiog3ct
~ph~zU~t~tA W41~nc M6r.o, platbatiuý.~ S6: cot4",I"i ~M i
U. pCi f.7:.1plutonium (above background) per gram of sothallottipltdIn the disposal.-cell.-.
- 4.
A relatively impermeable barrier, such as a clay dan, shall be placed across the access road cut at the northwest corner of the soil disposal cell at project completion.
S. Both the soil placed in the disposal cell andithe cover,,,atertialshall be compacted in nominal 0.3 meter (1 foot) lifts to reasonably minimize subsidence, and the cell.cover shall be contoured, that provides adequate drainage consistent with con Iginal shape of the ridge.
A permanent vegetative cover shall be'- prtly reestablished to help minimize erosion potentf*!4&f)0" a v periodically monitor the disposal area for subsidence,-esios'.lm, ad status of.the vegetative cover for at least S-years, dr problem noted.
Any additional measures necessary to"prev*
0 of determined problems shall be undertaken.
- 6.
Notification shall be placed on the land titlet.o.:dpp
,a-
`urvan ui-contminited' soil h"'
h been' lWie T66 Wit
- e Vo' use avier4e u'ýrtnium c~in~tit'tih id~c1b1) soil.
This notification--s !ot to.s be
..sale or future use of the site. Furthermore, cairns -prmntimakes)"Shall be placed at the corners of' th 60 disposalI6tJu2 completed.
55
ThRe C, staff used a one-dimensional contaulaht..*
rasiport lled TRANSS to sOMU'late the-leaching and subsurface migration, of, OrnMiiumifrom the -proposed soi 41 pos l
vcl At-TRANSS aodel 4sW4 conicpwtv ransport prW.1 that asbnadfetoalsm at odoe(K~,),
solubility, and -concentraktioný- ýor: diffusiow-barrierý-conroled -releases. In this case, the model was used to simulate an absorption-controlled release of uranium to a typical domestic drinking water well installed in the down-gradient direction one foot away from the edge of.the sol disposal cell.
The parameters used in the TRANSS model simulation of the soil disposal cell are listed and discussed below.
- 1. Groundwater velocity Th:.e value is be-nternally cal culated from: st0raml aIn
&0travel tim. data (seel.. rameter,22)..-.
N-..
- 2. DIS~anrsion coefficient
.iJ.
The input-value is,0.1. which mans that we assume hatt1tAher
.:is jittle dispersion'..
- 3.
Retardation factor. R The i nput,,value*
Is.,,calculated from the equatiooR
"(/),
4 hr p is theavrae "r-bulk.
density: of th4aeraA..9gm
,p s~e~~oi L 0.33, and K d, is the distribution -coefficient.
- 4.
ReleAse tim.!
off
-the 6anfaminset inventory i
The input value is zero, meaning that we assume the contaminant is instantly available for leaching.*
56
- 5. To&tanl ventory of the contaminant--
- The *J p i
This i
was calculated by.assumi ng::n aveiage--*.
tasoilcontanation concentration of 70 pCi/g ý(e Sectdin*n 3'of'h Ithis report),, multiplying by the average dry bulk density of the soil, 1.9 g/cm3,
and bya-conversion factor of 28,317 cm3/ft' to.get.3.-7 x 10 pCi/ft3*:'
'..Mul:t.iply. 3.77; x, 10 pCi/ft, by a maximum estimate of 500,000 ft" of contailnated--Jsoil, (see Section 1.3.1 of this report) to obtain a OtotaiV inventory-of1.9 x, 1012 pCi or 1.9 U,1ute.
- 6.
Radioactjv, half-l1fe of the contaminant-.
The input values are 2.5 x 108 years for U-234, 7.1 x 108 years for U-235, and 4.5 x 109 years for U-238.
- 7.
How long the Inventory is allowed to decay before release The Input value Is zero, corresponding to no decay before release;-s.:i*:'..
- 8. hhfl~ine-len.gt This parameter,,! wil be,taken from streaml I netinfoi*atIon -(seOtt 011012).
- 9..Di ftaftca (L) from the- -bottom of the disoalel Ito h a~'tb The input.value is 20'feet the, average di staince "frog t:i*.b*ttbin'*b disposal cell to the water tabl e.
ii 7
i*.,,:.*: * :*,'/.,
- ! /;,,..*** : * :,,,,.. * **.5
- 7.
- 10.
Travel ime. T. in the unsaturated zone,:,,,_
The ;t*pkv us Is 11. 'Lyears calcul.ated from T.* L/vy 'here I s the, velocity.,4nh the 'Unsaturated ze,~e.
v
-(rG 1.71 feet/year Where:!-
r -
Infiltration rate -0.41 feet/year i>.
e - moisture content (whichcan conservatively be estimated**tO:
equal the field capacity) - 0.24 for sand.
- 11.
Type of releoas We are assuming an adsorption-limited release.
- 12.
Effective porositv alona the flow oath The assumed input value is 0.33.-
- 13.
Cross-sectional area through which contaminantig]um fe ns*,
The input value is 33,915 ftz.
This is the width.of
,the tminan.plu.
normal to the direction of shallow groundwater flow (510 ft - see page 47) multiplied3by. -,thei :effective thickness of-the, aqufer (66.5 ft
- 14.
Volume conversion factor (cubic feet to liters)
The input value is 28.3? 1/ft3.
- 15.
Plan view area throuah which infiltration contacts waste The input value is 96,300 ft'.
The plan view area of the soil disposal cell was derived by multiplying the length of the cell (535 ft - see page 1) by the width of the cell (180 ft -,see page 1).
_.58
.16.
iW thickness of the waste 5:
The4hputvalue is 5.2 t~~fee This, was derived by dividing the maiM volume
- o.
- f. soi lfMbe I
briedW(SO0,000- ft ')- by -the pan*vtewar"a ftliewaSteF(96,0O
- 11.
Steady-stat.; infiltration T h e i n p u t..
.. 1 O A V
- 18.
Soil water content resulting from the "steady-state infi!*yatitn The assumed input value is 0.3.2
- 19.
Limiting solubility of the contaminant inventorY The input value is zero, meaning that we assume that the waste inventory is 100 percent soluble.
- 20.
Number of streamlines In the saturated zone The input value is 3.
- 21.
Length of each streamline in the saturated zone The input values are 0.9, 1.0, and 1.1 feet, based on a well installed one foot from the soil disposal cell.
- 22.
Travel time for each streamline in the saturated zone The input values are 0.09, 0.10, and 0.11 years, calculated by using the equation for pore velocity, U - V/n, where VP- (K
- h/x) and n - 0.33 (porosity).
The hydraulic conductivity, K, is 4 x 10'4 cm/sec.
This is the highest value of K from the three wells surrounding the soil1disposal cell.'
The change in water table elevation, h, over the change in lateral distance, x, is called the hydraulic gradient.
The hydraulic gradient wasfdeterminedby
- f.
59
measuring the distance from the 974-ft pater..table contour-to the 972-ft water table contour ý(see Figure 2.3) along the direction of shallow groundwater flow b*en.Oeki$)t 0sl
.dsposal cell. (northeast)..: The-value for the hydraulic
- .rA*i,*i pt*ys rifeet 4ided by.250, feet, or 0.O0B.
There.fore* V -ý.'(4 x-10-4 cm/sec) *0.008 - 3.2 x 10-6.
The pore velocity U - V/0.33 - 9.7 x 10-6 cm/sec
- 2.75 x 10-ft/day -
10 ft/yr. Dividing the length of each streamline by the pore velocity gives the travel time for e
- 23.
Probability weiaht for each streamline A&,the saturated.zoe The input values are 0, 1, and 2.
Qy 60
APPENDIX A REFERENCES
- 1.
C.S. Simons, C.T. Kincaid, and A.E. Reisenauer, 1986, A Simplified Model for Radioactive Contaminant Transport;-the TRANSS Code: Battelle iPacific
- Northwtst-Laboratory, PNL-6029, prepav;d under U.S. o;epartnt of Energy
.Co tact.DE-ACO6-16R10 1830..ý:
2 4JsAL-Grant and Assbeiatts., Inc
- ~im~~on C~poraion i
f tityp Log
.an,oity, m
- 12. 1989.
- 4.
4~..
,~-..(*'*
v.' ~
- ~
..- ~,*'
61
0 APPENDIX B DOSE MNETHODOLOGIES USED The new, GENerat i on II'.(GENII) radiological, pathways.- andd~oSimst r~ymoadel developed by the Battelle Pacific Northwest"La'bra"tory"for radoatlo, pathway
-model :nq and dosimetry.. estimates. for, the-,, Hanfordli ;Washj
'ng,*.,,-*sitte a--A;empl oyed
~'- fot
~lsasessnei. 1 1'e EIIcd ha's" inc~toortia
-Jof 7theidel ing approaches used in the AIRDOS-EPA and NRC GASPAR and LADTAP..codes, but has updated the models to employ the latest internal dosimetry models and risk-based dose conversion factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 25 These models account for inhalation in air and pulmonary deposition of radioactive particles and uptake from the digestive system following ingestion.
No data on the particle sizes of uranium-contam'nated dust were submitted by Kerr-McGee, so this assessment conservatively assumes a 1 micrometer aerodynamic median activity diameter (AMAD),
as recommended by the ICRP.
GENII incorporates the ICRP guidance on uptake of ingested radionuclides from the digestive system.
Also included in the GENII output are conservative estimates..of the duration of exposure to an infinite plume (8800 hours0.102 days <br />2.444 hours <br />0.0146 weeks <br />0.00335 months <br />) and external radiattionfrom radioactivity deposited on the ground (4400 hours0.0509 days <br />1.222 hours <br />0.00728 weeks <br />0.00167 months <br />), and inadvertent-Ingestion of soil.
Ratios if uranium radionuclides were estimated from a serites of measurements made by Kerr-McGee and reported to NRC in.February -1990.11i-The contribution to total uranium activity of the various uranium isotopes".were estimated for U-234, U-235, U-238 to be about 79 percent, 1.7 percent..and 20 percent, respectively.'
These ratios were used to estimate the.co"ncetrtons of each nuclide in soil from the unit concentrations assumed for:theC I" U calculations.
The potential radiological impact of dirt-moving operations on the nea.est residents (a farm located about 0.5 miles southeast of the site) was assessed by computing an annual source term based on conservative assumptions:of atmospheric entrainment of radioactive particles from dirt as ittis dug up, piled for storage, loaded into dump trucks, transported to the*-burial;trench adjacent to the site, and emptied into the trench.
For.this screening.-:
62
assessment-, anaverage aninualI resuspension rate (,including 'tim when no work would be done) of 10'9/sec was assumed.
Resuspension rates during actual dumping of soil intoi dump,,trucks or into the burial trenfiWould have higher rates of resuspensionribut, would. not be continuous 24.hours.perday for every day of the year.
The value assumed was the geometric mean of a series of experimental measurements. 7'6 The depth of soil from which material might be resuspended was assumed~to be about 5 mm from an area ofibo t'1o,o00o m2 (the approximate area of the pwoposed burial trench).
The bulk oVI dansity was assumed to be about 1.9V`I ci. For a unit concentration foVK' Mh nuclide of I pCi/g of soil, the annual release per nuclide would be ab6u t 2.7 microcuries.
Resuspension and deposition on crops during a 904ay growing period were included in the calculations.
Animals were assumed to get 0.3 of their feed from stored feed and 0.7 from fresh forage.
The
,Ih"an consumption rates for food pathways are shown in Table B.1.
The release value (2.7 microcuries of each nuclide per year per pCi/g) was used as input to the GENII code for each of the various radionuclides present in the Cimarron site soil n order to'calculate the'comittted effective dose equivalent (CEDE) for the proposed earthmoving.
For purposes of screening the
- potential 41pact. a*conservative atmospheriW4 dtIersion xIQ valaWfM O" s/W, for transport to the nearby farm was assumed.
More realistic x/Q values would be about 10 percent (or less) of the assumed value.
For one yeo f
earthmoving, committed 50-year:dose equivalents for the lung (th "0.
significant organ dose) and nuclides of interest for an assumdi QCg of total uranium in the soil are presented in Table B.2.
f
'C i
The CEDES for each nucilide were calculated~ usnth retols -A.'dd weighitli§ngftoin,5 b
in'w~
d to gsttnieiibt itE Mum i n,. sM1I `1o eaM tbý wgV 06e toa.cm ttii would'bi priiily'tQyfro V434 '(82 peorcent), - ith wli 1a External exposure to uranium deposited on the gvOfUto suru' !as i
all ila Aid, but Was tooý smal to affect the radiological tui**t "assitii t.-
V-
ýIn11t 63
T.-*fabje*.
4 polL.pi Ingestion Paramters: forA.#.sph ric-R1 eases
- j.
k
.-Jo 00%.
_qo I.
bad,;,+
I.*-+
-"n++
04V.".,
g
+"
A++<+'+*
'OAU
~....
.- + +I...-i+
+,
CerAls
.80.
Meat 80
+.
Milk 270 Poultry 18 Eggs 30 Table B.2ý Committed Dose Equivalents (per +pCi/g) to the, Lung:.
+/.*.
fir" jjId CoIim tted,50-vr Dose jEouIjaIents fifgii e ianotmem)*
0U238 7
- Values are in simplified format; 8.1E-5 means 8.14x10'5.
A ~ ~ - comnyu mode empoyed, by ENI fr r~
radjoacptivt 4eo1e nth ufc f
glta e arthuov ing., i s called.0 the *Ass-loadng moodl.
For ýt~, Vp J, a
the anualpotntil si~r.. ew was es~tjqtekt eaot2~1
~ e year of each urnis.
t sotp pe pigo cit tie p h F m2 ed
.pJ,po e
+, *
+
e...
z
-o...
q4, m
. :::+,
+++++++*+,+++
area was assumed to be about 10,000 ml (approximately:100,000 -squar.'feet., -the best estimate of the area contaminated to Option 2 leveils)", 'With a1 resuspendable depth of About 0.5 cm, a bulk so~il'-densiyo b~ 1. gm, and an average annual resuispension rate of about 10' pe icod(tpalo 64
resuspension rates from soil).
The annual release per uran:um isktoe'kover the.year per pCi/g of soil4 would be:
(5 i~t) {O9/s) (3:1StX 10'syr)~'3W er s )
- ~' *V tO*x' p0:/:
t ',* " "',
t
.d6..
N. Fu"&;'*.
et/r e.
3-trr<d' Ak
'"1
'S 1 '4.,~'
'Fri 65
- 1.
Napier.
- A., PNL-6584, Hanford Environmeital Dosimetry Upgrade Project; S.GENII Hanford.Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System,*
- 2.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, ORectinendations of
'the International Commission -on. R*4 01og.cal-ProteHnion*,;ICRP PublI ration 26, Pergamon Press, Elmsford, "NY, January 17, 1077.
- 3. Inter ntin T.Commission on Radiological Protecq.ion,, :,,.IA it$,;,for Intakes of: :
Radidnuclidesby-Workers," Publication 30, Part 1i (hin ing Addendum),
P erkamn Press, Elmsford, NY, 1979.
- 4.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, "Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers," Supplement to Part 1 (Including Addendum),
Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY, 1979.
- 5.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, "Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers," ICRP Publication 30, Part 3 (including Addendum),
Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY, 1981.
- 6.
Kerr-McGee Corporation, Provision of Additional Information Requested by NRC, License SNM-928, Docket No.70-925, February 1, 1990.
- 7.
Cimarron Corporation, Letter to D. Hurt providing air sampling results, License SNM-928, Docket 70-925, July 27, 1990.
- 8.
Healy, J. W.,
"Review of Resuspension Models," Transuranics in.the Environment, W. C. Hanson (Ed.), U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/TIC-22800, 1980.
66
0 APPENDIX C AGENCIES CONSULTED.-J The Oklahoma State Departient ofHealth, hiS.been.uiconsul ted on several aspects of.this Environmental Assessme*.t,*
o0stlpsely-On the questiono;.of Which topics are directly under the Jurisdiction of the0 State of Oklahoma.*
The State' h azards:ofijon-radiloactive,constituenktsi-of tMe buried so6I, which Is pabished in itsl:'entirety: below.: i While published as part of the NRC's EnviJromental Assessment, the non-radiological hazard evaluation was performed entirely, by the State of Oklahoma and covers topics that are not directly under NRC's jurisdiction. Since non-radiological hazards could have a beawing on the acceptability of the proposed soil disposal, both the State of Oklahoma and the NRC staff believe that this material -should:be included In the Environmental Assessment as a convenience to interested members,of the public.
6 4,.
- ¶~4 2"
i" * ":,;
9 J
C
., ~
67
".. io STAME OF OKLAHOMA ASSESSMENT OF THE NON-RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS ASSOCIATED`' *,;,.
WITH THE PROPOSED DISPOSAL OF URANIUM-CONTAMINATED, SOIL ATITHE CIMARRONFACILIY r.j.
Thý vt W h
en tooe o
which thisl ehVt ronmentik lt It" ssmi-Oumst i
- directed InVolves the removal' of large amounts-vof uranim-contaminatefd *soil from the` near-surface from various areas on the facility and pla-cement of these contaminated Soils into a single, large landfill structure,. also
- . ocated on the facility property.
In effect, this proposed action would identify and collect contaminated soil and congregate it in a central, single location on the facility property.
Since the proposed action calls for the disturbance of soil at the surface and near-surface (no greater than about 30 feet below the surface), the only non-radiological hazard which can be-.considered*'to. be reasonably involved is that associated wivth ground water and, more specifically, that ground water for which there is some small but reasonable probability of a deleterious effect to be caused by this proposed-action.-
As discussed elsewhere in this document, the population.density in' theý*
vicinity of the Cimarron Facility is low; it is reasonable to antl.iLpate that both the number of persons and population density will increase vwry slowly over the foreseeable future.
Some change of ownership in existing'ýubdivision developments and others which may be started is expected. ýEven W.,lth s*iUchhslow growth, the lack of adequate potable water supply could'be the'sigl st-...
important element in any future increase in either sub-divisiton* d*.e.lnt-or population increase.
Certainly, dependence upon ground.water s:upp exclusively could have severe effects'.
There is currently some e"ris ce by rural water districts but with limited capacity to supply and distribute the water.
There is a possibility that surface potable drinking,water supplies could be developed by impoundment of rain water, but it is not likely that this would satisfy the demand fully.
68
0.
'Cons*derationwshould be given to the quality of the ground water available fromtheBa*-. be-rsandstone (Garber-Wellington aquifer) and alluvial and terrace i.depsts overla.ying the Barber-Wellington in this area.
Some ground water at or very near the Cmrn Facility may have a degraded quality due to the presence of sulfates, chlorides, fluorides, :nitrates, or dissolved solids in moderatet' to rather high concentrations but still meets primary drinking water stansar
- -'such ground water is either currently being used for water supply or may be' u.sed
- for 1
such purpose in the future.
Thus, our assessment must be concerned with the affect upon near-surface ground water from non-radiological chemicals associated with the uranium waste.
It would appear that the most likely, and perhaps the only, non-radiological effect would be that related to acid wastes, such as nitrates and sulfates, upon ground water which is used for drinking water by the majority of the population adjacent to the site.
Oklahoma State Department of Health August 31, 1990
.4 69