ML19331C522
| ML19331C522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/18/1980 |
| From: | Wu G NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8008180663 | |
| Download: ML19331C522 (34) | |
Text
s-uq
-fpkl c cuc UNITED STATES E'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
n
- E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
%....b.o a'UL 181360 i
i l
MEMORANDUM FOR:
File WM-39 THRU:
Hubert J. Miller, Section Leader Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch FROM:
George Wu Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch 1
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH DOE ON REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM Date and' Place June 25, 1980; NRC Offices, Silver Spring, Maryland j
Attendees See Enclosure 1 Purpose This meeting was requested by DOE to discuss the status and schedule of the Remedial Action (R.A.) Program and to allow NRC to provide guidance to DOE in coordinating future actions under the R.A. Program.
Summary l
Attached (Enclosure 2) are the minutes for the meeting. The minutes were read and signed immediately following the meeting by the lead participants. The important points discussed and agreements reached during the meeting have been summarized in these minutes. Attached also (Er.clor:res 3 through 8) are the materials made available during the meeting by DOE :nd NRC staff.
George Wu Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch l
Division of Waste Management l
l
Enclosures:
As stated cc: with all enclosures D. Groelsema, DOE R. Campbell, DOE-Alb.
M. Tierney, SLA l
l wasias M3 t
ENCLOSURE 1 v
a
. Name Organization Telephone No.
Michael DeWitte Sandia Labs FTS 844-8359 Donald H. Groelsema DOE /NE Local 353-5221 FTS 233-5221 Martin Tierney SNLA FTS 844-1280 John McKiernan SNLA.
FTS 8442316 George Wu NRC/WMUR FTS 427-4088 Hubert Miller NRC/WMUR FTS 427-4103 Jack Rothfleisch NRC/WMUR FTS 427-4536 Ross Scarano NRC/WMUR FTS 427-4103 Ray Cooperstein DOE-ESED FTS 233-3639 Steven R. Miller DOE-0GC, HPS FTS 252-6947 Bob Strickler DOE-EV FTS 252-4597 Laura E. Santos NRC/RES FTS 427:4356 Don F. Harmon NRC/0SD FTS 443-5910 Bob Barber DOE /EV FTS 353-3548 Randy Scott DOE /NEW FTS 353-3984 I
i i
v ENCLOSURE 2 Meeting Minutes 1.
DOE /NRC interface is to be as described in attached NRC handout (Enclosure 3) and as elaborated on below.
..[~
~~
2.
Specific meetings to be held.as part of Remedial Action (R.A.) Program.
- Technical Meeting / Site ' Visit - DOE /NRC (State) and consultants before finalization of Remedial Action Concept Paper (RACP) to:
Agree upon scope of alternatives determine site investigation needs (detailed data aquisition at primary disposal site beyond reconnaisance level, data gathered on all sites)
- Scoping Meeting (NEPA-CEQ) - when RACP is finalized and where EIS is to be prepared.
DOE in some cases may propose for NRC concurrence not holding formal scoping meetings Public Meetings in connection with NEPA-EIS process, if held.
3.
Specific points of formal concurrence as currently known are marked up on the attached flow diagram (Enclosure 4).
, 4.
Comments on RACP (Canonsburg draft)
- Should capsulize NRC regulations (provided in draft final form during meeting for DOE guidance).
Evaluation criteria should, in particular, include consideration of criteria established in regulations.
NRC intends to utilize its impending final regulations at the inactive sites. DOE reserves judgement as to the applicability of some of the regulations to the inactive program.
v
_2_
~
5.
A meeting between NRC and DOE will be held soon (within a month or so) on the DOE plan for remedial action at off-site structures and contaminated open lands to discuss at least the following:
- DOE procedure for designation of candidate sites
- Sampling methods and protocols for determining where remedial action is required.
Points of contact':
J. E. Rothfleisch (NRC) and DOE-NE-EV.
6.
A generii health and safety plan which includes a radiation safety program will be submitted by DOE to NRC; NRC will concur.
In the radiation safety portions, unique site specific differences will be concurred upon in connection with concurrence on the R.A. Plan.
NRC involvement in audit and certification functions will be established a.
in detail at a later time and will be defined taking into account the internal DOE audit and certification functions to be performed by DOE-EV.
Schedules - The attached schedules are tentative schedules
- for the remedial 7
actions.
It calls for remedial action concept pape~., for four sites being prepared in fall of this year.
This would mean, under the agreed upon interfaces defined above, that there would be at least four NRC/ DOE technical / site visits this calendar year.
It was agreed that NRC would be involved as a participating agency in a.
the DOE NEPA/EIS process.
DOE will within about 60 days formally request NRC participation.
- This is for disposal sites only. Off-site cleanup will occur on an independent, accelerated schedule.
~-
8.
Infonnation exchange -
- NRC provided the following wring the meeting Regulations'(2 copies) - NRC draft final not for release (not attached) 7
.." ERC Participation' D5scription (Ehclosure 3)'
. Safety Evaluation Report (White Mesa) (not attached)
FES (Shootering Canyon) (not attached)
Mill License Package (as described in attached) (Enclosure 5)
MILD 05 User's Guide (not attached) 50W for assistance on structure and open lands cleanup (not attached)
- NRC to provide the following NRC Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) Title I Program P1an (within several months)
- DOE supplied the followi.ng in the meeting UMTRAP Schedules (levels 0 + 1) and Flow Chart (Enclosure 6)
RACP (draft) on Canonsburg and RACP Outlines No. 1 and No. 2 (Enclosure 7) i Activity / Deliverable Schedule (Sandia, June 3,1980) (Enclosure 8)
., -..,... ~,
,. ~, - -.,
,. ~,..,.,.,,,,,
s v
4-
- DOE to supply the following:
. - EIS Style and Format Guide E_IS/EA Scope' and Content Guide * -
. NEPA Implementation Plan
- Site Characterization Plan (Generic Plan)**
. (Disposal and Processing site)
-kinds of information
-depths of information
-time phasing
-for what purpose Disposal Site Qualification Criteria Document **
Tailings Removal Criteria f
- NRC Concurrence
- NRC review and comment
S' '
ENCLbSURE3 v
NRC PARTICIPATION IN TITLE I - REMEDIAL ACTION PRDGRAM 1.
Early involvement by NRC in evaluation of alternative renedial actions.
Prior to preparation of RA Concept Paper NRC should participate with DOE and State in discussions of viable alternative actions and suitability of alternative disposal sites. This might involve an early site visit by NRC to inspect alternative sites.
2.
Review proposed Concept Paper and along with consultants assist in defining scope of the EIS/EA. The Concept Paper should serve as the basis for a public scoping meeting held pursuant to NEPA procedures.
3.
Review DEIS/EA and provide input on res'ponses to comments as appropriate.
4.
Review FEIS/EA and concur prior to publication.
5.
Review Preliminary RA Plan and provide co=nents as required.
RA Plan should follow appropriate NRC regulations with respect to tailings stabilization criteria.
6.
Review and concur in final RA Plan (no concurrence in detailed design which will be reviewed by NRC for information only).
7.
Review and concur in DOE Radiation Safety Program to be conducted during implementation of the RA Plan.
NRC will audit performance of Radiation Safety Program.
8.
Audit an'd Certify compliance with EPA standards for disposal sites.
9.
Review License AppTeation submitted by Project Office.
10.
Issue By-product Material License to DOE including conditions for monitoring; maintenance and emergency measures.
3
,w
~. ~ -.
m
~. '
MAJOR ITEMS IN NRC INYOLVEMEh7 IN REMEDIAL ACTION PROGF).M A.
Designation of off-site structures requiring recedial action.
Need for working up interim procedures to obtain required data for ccr::parison with proposed EPA standards.
~
B.
Selection of required remedial action and evaluation of remedial action perfor.ance.
r C.
Sufficient survey data to provide basis for concurrence that remedial action program has -been satisfactorily ccepleted.
~
5 D.
Issue license for possession of byproduct =aterial. --
.(' l
- O' c
e
\\
e e
ENCLOSURE 4
~
)
STATE / LOCAL./TRIDE/0WNER/PUDLIC COORDINATION
.q
,_._.3_.._.-...---_,-4----4---------.
EXISTING l l SITE Cl-IARACTERl7.AT10N DOE PUBLIC I
I 1
NRC REVIEW MEETING l
DATA l
l AnD j
RA I
l
, CONCURRENCE DES ISSUED FES e
e CONC E PT,l g y PDES g
PUBLIC C0ftlENT..
PREPARATION AND EIS/EA AND PFES 1
f PREPARAT10tl ISSUANCE d
=
l BY 00E (NRC tlRC REVIEW l
}.RA ASSIST AS-At{D ItEQUIRED) c'VICllRREtlCE
~.PLAD'l
~
' 1ECittilCAL iSCOPING1 MEETlHG
' MEETING l DESIGN IIRC/00t l
(State)
NRC REVIEW I1EM,qDIAL AND CONCUR ACTinN.
AUDir
'..UMTRAP
~-
I ACTIVITIES FLOW CHART I
CERTIFY l
I i
l
/
I bLICENSE LIMITEDllRCl l 0VERSIGilT/
l INSPECTION /
b*-
. AUDIT (RAD SAFETY)
S(JR E)lfLANcE.
NRC c
UMTRAP 4/00
7/2/80/t1 ENCLOSURE 5 v
Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch Mill Package Branch Positions -
t 1.
Uranium Mitt Taitings Management, dated May 13, 1977 2.
E..p2 oration for Design and Evatuation of Uranium Mitt Tcilings
~
Retention Systems, dated. January, 1979 Co TEN:ts of Applications for Uranium Ore-Buying Station Licenses.,
N 3.
' (g _],
dated., February 8,1978 F - gr. t.
...... a v,.- _
dated June,1978
.~ e n
4.
Bioassay at Uranium MiLis
~. a.-
,.- z....~..
..~~..._..n_
- t :
y MD _
5.
Suggested Contents of. App 2ications for Licenses Authorizing SmcLL; m
..;._5 SccLe or Resecten and Developnent Processing of Uranium Ores,
?
dated February 27, 1978 g :m m-6.
PreoperationaL Radio 2cgicci Environmentc1 Monitoring Programs for Uranium Mi1Is, dated January 9,1978
~
7.
Operation =2 RadioLogicci Environmental Monitoring Programs for Uranium Mills, proposed Branch Position (draft) 8.
Interim Land Cleanup Criteric for Decw....iss*oning Uranium Mill Jites, dated May,1978 Regulatory Guides -
1.
Egs;Lu1atorv Guide 1.132 - Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants 2.
Reauiatorv Guide 1.138 - Ichoratoru Investications of Soils for Engineering Analysis and Design of Nuciect Fooer Plants 3.
Reauiatory Guide 3.8 - Preparation of Environmental Reports for Uranium Mills 4.
Recuiatory Guide 3.11 - Design, Construction, and Inspection of D:~bankent Retention Systems for Uranium Mills j
l l
5.
Reauiatory Guide 3.11.1 - OperationcI Inspection cnd SurveiIIcnce of D.bankent Retention Systems for Uraniw: Mili Tailings 6.
Regu1atory Guide 4.14 - Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in EeLeases of Radiocctive Matericts in Liquid and Airborne Effluents from Uranium Mi22s 7.
RequiatorY Guida 4.15 - Quality Assurance for Radiologicc1 Monitoring Programs (Ec: nl Cperations)--Effluent Stre==s and the Envirc. ment
- 8. - Reautatory Guide 8.22 - Biocesay at Uraniu= Mills
1 l
Additional Items Included as Part of Mill Package 4
1.
Annex C: Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material.
~
2.
Task RH 802-4:
Calculational Models for Estimating Radiation Doses to Man from Airborne Radioactive Materials Resulting from Uranium Milling Operations, j
3.
MILDOS User's Guide, NRC,1980.
(
i l
1 O
l l
(~,
p i
STATE / LOCAL / TRIBE / OWNER /PUBLIC COORDINATION v
9
_3_._.____._.--_.__,_-._-
EXISTING l Ii SITE CilAitAC,TERIZATION
=
l DATA l
l 1
RA I
l I
CONCEPT l EIS/EA i
I 1
RA PLAN i IJ l DESIGN _
M pi
~
1 I REMEDIAL
~
ACTION UMTRAP
' AUDlT f CERTIFY ACTIVITIES FLOW CHART l
l i
.l LICENSE t
MAINTENANCE &
i SURVEILL.ANCE UMTRAP 4/80
S S
9 9
9
.4 f
v
. 4 c
_s R.
A e
>_ g g
F.
gE.
x
-e
't Q
g G
~
~
t b
g
~ 2L m
ei n'
FL i
l' QW lEb 8
_;o F_
n
=
et l
_i w-M eR 4
E g
2
- 2:-
1
(
l9, 2l I
1:
3 W
a o
?L U,-i I
O 3 2[
C-22!
h
?[
~7 t?
$b rj,9,g w
c oi.
yi c
g a
e I
4 a 2l
{
Q LL a
g
--: :-i h
?be j
h (9 tyhh! !!
El 4
3 et y g js Ei hj bj M E id
., n a g t1 et c.
=
W 4.'
3<
E'-. M *T5 E; _* I,.;.N,_. L3 x
E R)
[
e b
h
-2x%.i l' ?
?l1l 0 itl g
CRi i
s
~
EM ls,
oa ta ts rd
- L g
u kEl
~
~ zi u,!
g C
5 5
t
=9 7 y
z
=
/
? 5 5 5 1ya 3'
3
- e i 8
.E
= r z
S
(
ii
- e =g 8 e =
w
=
= : a ; ;
= <
e. :
~
8 i t
i i ! : :
! : : C 5
I :.
5 3 5 3 :
i5 5 I 2 3 3 s i i x h 5
+
m.
e
-e c
g
' j n
r O
O REMEDIAL ACTION PROCESS SCHEDULE FOR SALT LAKE CITY Ak
'{'d' CY 1980 1981 1982 1983 1964 JFMAMJJA50ND JIMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJA50ND JFMAMJJASOND I I I I I i I I I E 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I B I I I q 5 g I I y I g a g u I s 3 i y v v 3 5 3 SI AIE HICOMMENDAllON OF Y
DISPOSAL 58tL(5) llPDAf[ MILL $lf E AND u
T AILING CH AH ACIE Ril AllON u
PHIPAR[ HIMI DIAL ACilON CONCEPT PAPLH (RACP)
(51 ATE /IHIBE /DO(/NHC)
DISPOSAL 511l15)
CH AR ACit HilAllON ISSUE NOl V
PUOLIC AllON Of f PA SIDS 0
~
UPDAi[ & PUHil5H D(15 i
PoullC & AGENCY
)
COMMENT ON DEIS COMPLEIE & PUBL15H f[15 fil'COf4D OF DEC15 TON 0
I il CllNOLOGY DEVLLOPMENT y
(
!/t Cl510N POINT J
PHLPANE DHAFT REMEDIAL
- =,
g o
5 ACilON PLAN
- GE NCY HLVitW
)
(DO[/NHC 11 AIE)
PHf PARE FINAL RLMEDIAL u
ACTION PL AN AGENCY REVit W AND APPROVAL OHCONCUNH(NCE e
PHLPARL DESIGN CONSTittsCTION BID PREPARATION J
EST COMPL JUN 1984 AND CONIRACT AWARD 4
{
HlMEDIAL ACTION 0 OTHER AGENCY MILESTONES V PROJECT Of flCE/ TEAM MILESTONES t
a i
j
o.
4,
8, 1,
o 8,
5 8,
1 s
/
7,
5, 7,
~
2, P
uu 7,
1
- 1 Y
9, T
P.
6 I
6 C
6, E
3,
~
6 K
A 0
L 6,
pO 7
T 5
L
~
A
,4,
S 4
1 5
E
~
~
L 8
~
4 US H 5 D T 4 EN 2
HO 4
C M 9
S 3
N 6
3 O
I 3.
T 3
C ed 0
A 3
L 7
2 A
I 4
D 2
E 3
1 M
2 E
8 R
1 5
1 J
2 1
7 9
6 3
b N
M O
A I
S Y
L R
T G
E
)
A D
G C
N V
O V
R O
B U
I R
R O
L A
R U
R I
U T NM W
N P E R NT A
R S
VI O E O. T G OS T
E
/ P
(
I R
L~
e A
N T
IOI AI I
N E
V MUY T L
u S
T R S & T I
GI Y -
A O C
Op U - T L CS T A L S R V C A
C R
N I
O NF E N R L
/
A C l
1 RE A
I E A E A A EE P P L 1 AS C Z I
K V A p S E ML CR E T
T EETC L IL I
S C E C K N MA I
NI C DT BS C E
I S OC L X I
I L
L E A A Ut K
B - P A C E DL E C F L LNO AI F
I L
F A
T I
O S
NI TOR D MOD G T. T C P I
E T
S' M
LA E
E S
D R
3
!l A
I f**
1
,, j >L2ig
s L
D i P8 N
M6 D
i O19".
O i C
S i TU L
A SJ 48 J i E
9 e
J 1
i MA i M i
\\.
i F e J
S D i E
O i N
N O
O a
T S
S E
G A e
. M.
i IL 3 J N
89J i A
M 1
R M i EA Dr A
i p
U e
. M M
E D
e I
F i
C J
F R
F D
. O O
i
)
C
,N T
F e
E O
i J
E S
i a
. v
. O L
A i
P R
2 J
U 4
i
)
9 J D
1 i
M E
i O
A i
H M
i n
S C
F E
S i
J NO D
S N
i TS i
E S
O i
)
v IL E
S e
Y M
C A
C O
O 8 J i
1 N
9 a
1 i
E R
J P
M Y
. G A
A N
M
. R
. E F
H O
i O
. T J
I u
T D
i
. O C
N i
A O
i 0
S L
i o 0 A A
8 a '
9 J I
1 y
D J
E CM i
f A
i M
i M
E e
F R
J
?
N L
O E
A I
T C
V F
T A
O N
N R
O N N E
S S
E L
P P
O I
L R
A N
I O
R(
D E
M I
A P
E I
A O
T T)
RC T S
[
I D A C P UR S
I F
P D
I A
RD D
E H N O E
E D
PR T
N DW L
M A
NI A
A N/
N P
E E
E I
N D
E H S
I I
V R
L S
)
E A
E S
YI B I
CO I
F IL D U C D E
S C
O T T WT WN G NT I
T L
I
/ E A
O N
(
A EE I
OIA C B
R S C T E
R MP W l
EN D
YI A I T N VS NNIV M
L E
Ti L
E A B
I N U A
GO &
GO R T
R E F
H R P EI SR O P A
E O O D L R C FL UD CT L I R E
l I
T R
C MC P
CE UN A T
LN E P R E T
V LT O T
&N EL E
EAAC N E
E D OO RN C / AO OA T P
A Y N RN YN R RO I
R A EG R SA C
CE L R NI C
D S
E RE S A C PT I
T IM P O
C T
N A OR E L A L
E TP DL E N CA PA U B D BM M C CC ET EO ET E E ND M A S I
T S E RC G D RCGR R ON E TI PA RO A I H S U P UO O E E SD UT PC R( DC I
P U PC C R TD PA A( PAAOP CA R S
S f
)
1'
- lllj{
,i' lg 6
e i
.l i
't J
4 e8 t
v 1
8 8_.
o a
7.
5.
7
)
C 2 v N
7 w
FF I
S r
S 9
1 E
6 C
JJ OO 6
GE w
R 6
P h
3 NR 6
s B
/ 0 RW 6
U(
7 D
5 4
5 E
1i L
U 5
D 8
4 ES 5
HH 4
T C N 2
SO 4
M N
93 O
I 6
T 3
C J
A 3
3 L
0 3
A I
7 D
2 E
J 4
M E
2 1.
2 R
8 1.
s i
J J
2.
a 1.
6.
A 9
J, 3
N M
O L
A I
S Y
A R
T G
E V
D G
C I
R M
N V
O R
O B
U L
A R
U R
I U
NE W
N PE R NT A
R S
OR GOS T
E A
NO AI
. I
/P I
I N
E V
T S L P
T O
I R
S A O C
OP MU I
GI S
L YU I
T
& T U
L C S T A L
S RV C A
CA N
OINF EN R L
/ R R I
1 RE A I
ML C RE A
K V A T S E
L I
CE C K N MA L P S L I
I SO CL X l
I I
I N
OE AA UL E E T C L D - P N Q A F
I G DTDSC I
iOR l
O S
T l
OMOD N
T TCP E
A J
M R
E U
R D
l 1
I L
I '
I
L
.N ENCLOSURE 7 DRAFT Re=edial Acticas Concept Paper for Canonsburg. Pennsvlvania In November 1978, Congress enacted Public Law 95-604, the " Uranic = Mill Tail-ings Radiation Control Act of 1978." The Act authoriced the Department of Energy (DOE) to enter into cooperative agree =ents with the affected States, Indian tribes, and owners of the inactive uranium =ill tailings, in order to establ ish assessment and remedial action progra=s at inactive uranium mill tailit ;s sites. Title I of the Act further stipulated that DOE vould meet all the ra liation standards as pro =ulgated by the Yaviren= ental Protection Agency (EPA), and the licensing conditions and rules issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for imple=entation of the remedial action progra=. Addi-tionally, DOE is to finance up to 90 percent of the remedial action costs, and the affected states will be required to pay the re=aining costs. An exception to this latter require =ent are those sites on Indian tribal lands, where 100 percent of the costs for remedial ' action vill be borne by the Federal Governmen t.
In Nove=ber 1979, twenty-five sites including Canonsburg, Pennsylvania were designated as eligible for re=edial actions.
The Cooperative Agree =ent, which establishes the guidelines, responsibilities, and conditicas fer re=edial actions at Canonsburg, was signed by Pennsylvania and DOE on In order to provide the preli=inary plan of action for the Canonsburg site, this concept paper has been developed by the Uraniu= Mill Tailings Remedial Actions Project Office (UMTRA-PO) of DOE and cencurred in by the Cocconvealth of Pennsylvania.
Site Description The Canonsburg site is the location of the fer=er Vitro Rare Metals Plant, which is situated in,' ashingten County in southwestern Pennsylvania and within W
the Borough of Canonsburg.
Canonsburg is approxi=ately 20 =iles scuthwest of downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The site is divided into three parcels of land: Area A, Area 3, and Area C, as shown in Figure 1.
Chartiers Creek is adjacent to Areas 3 and C.
The Canonsburg site originally was operated as a radiu= extraction plant by the Standard Che=ical Cc=pany f rom 1911 to 1922.
Later, Vitro Corpora icn of A= erica acquired the property and processed the on-site tailings to extreet radium and uraniu= salts.
Fre= 1942 until 1957, Vitro was under centract to the federal govern =ent to recover uranium fro = ore and scrap.
For the next nine years the site was used only for storage, under an AEC contract. Since 1967, the property has been owned by the Canon Develop =ent Co=pany and is called the Canonsburg Industrial Park.
The various buildings on site are leased to tenant co=panies for light industry.
Proceceing of radioactive residues, scrap, and other =aterial at :he Canons-burg site by Vitro and later sterage of radioactive =aterials at the site eventually led to conta=inatica of the soil to various depths. The residues
v contained videly varying concentrations of radium, thorium, uranium, and other naturally occurring radionuclides. These residues have been detected over
.most of the site. Apparently all of the buildings in the Canonsburg Indus-trial Park are either built over or are adjacent to soils containing elevated quantities of radium.
The Canonsburg site, which consists of 19 acres, contains more than 200,000 tons of tailings and contaminated materials.
~
The major vicinity location that was contaminated with radioactive material from Canonsburg is the Pennsylvania Railroad Landfill site.
This latter site is located approximately 1 mile east of the town of Blairsville in Indiana County, Pennsylvania, north of the Conemaugh River and south of the mainline tracks of Conrail (see Figure 2).
The Pennsylvania Railroad owned the pro-perty that contains the landfill during the time radioactive material was dumped at the site. Ownership passed to the Penn-Central Transportation Con-pany Properties Division (now Conrail), but the Pennsylvania Railroad Landfill name has been retained though the location is also called the Burrell Township site.
2 During a 4-month period, October 1956 through January 1957, radioactive material was shipped by rail from Vitro Corporation's uraniu= processing plant l
in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania to the Landfill site. Ordinary, noncentaminated materials later were placed'over the conta=inated waste to reduce the radia-tion at the surface.
Subsequent radiological surveys revealed that the depth of cover over the contaminated material was not uniform and that radiation levels above background were observed at several locations.
i The Landfill site consists' of approximately 9 acres and contains about 120,000 tons of radioactive materials.
In addition, this site has been used as a chemical dump, and it is likely that dispersion and migration has occurred between the chemical and radioactive materials.
The Burrell Township site is i
included in this Remedial Actions Concept Paper due to its containing a large amount of radioactive =aterials from the Canonsburg site.
e Remedial Action Objectives The objective of the remedial action project at Canonsburg is to implement a clean-up program according to EPA standards (Figure 3).
This will consist of identifying the locations of the tailings and conta=inated soils and mate-rials, as well as the transfer of these tailings and =aterials to the desig-nated disposa1' site. The purpose of the project is to allow for vicinity l
properties that are contaminated with tailings and processing sites that are In not designated as disposal sites to be released for unrestricted use.
t addition, by combining and stabilizing all tailings and conta=inated =aterials I
at specified, controlled disposal sites, potential health effects caused by l
exposure to the tailings will be significantly lessened.
In effect, then, by stabilizing and controlling the tailings in a safe and. environmentally sound l
the health risks to the public vill be minimized.
- manner, t
r 1
r 4 5955H
~
Remedial Action Alternatives The basic options available for implementing remedial actions are to undertake no action, to perform stabilization-in-place at Canonsburg, or to transport the tailings to a new disposal site and decontaminate the former processing site. Further descriptions of the options are discussed as follows:
Option 1: No Action This option consists of performing no remedial actions, i.e.,
allowing the present situation to continue with no corrective action.
This option is included mainly for comparison purposes with the other options.
Op' tion 2:
S tabilization-in-place This alternative consists of decontaminating vicinity properties that _are contaminated with tailings by accumulating all off-site contaminated materials at the Canonsburg Development Company property.
The vicinity properties would include all open lands, homes, businesses, churches and other dwellings where the radiation levels are higher than the EPA criteria due to the presence of tailings or other radioactive materials from the processing site at the off-site properties.
The Pennsylvania Railroad Landfill would be designated as a vicinity property and would undergo the same procedure.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would acquire the Canonsburg Development Company property, and it vould be designated as a diposal site. Stabilization of all tailings and contaminated materials would then be conducted at the site, with the buildings on the site being demolished and buried.
If required in order to prevent ground water contamination, a liner system would be placed under the tailings either by excavating the tailings at the site, installing a liner system and then placing the tailings on the underground liner, or using.
an alternate procedure that will be developed by DOE's research and develop-ment program. An as yet to be determined covering would then be installed on top of the tailings and contaminated materials and soils, and this would reduce the radon flux to the prescribed EPA limit.
While all vicinity properties would be available for unrestricted use, the 19 acre-Canonsburg site would become the disposal site and therefore, with the installation of a security fence and monitoring devices as deemed necessary, would be under restricted ac' cess. When stabilization had been completed, ownership of the site would be transferred from Pennsylvania to DOE, and NRC would issue a license for the disposal site.
Option 3: Decontamination of Canonsburg Site and Transfer of Tailings to New Disposal Site This alternative consists of selecting a disposal site other than Canonsburg for the tailings.
All contaminated materials and soils at vicinity properties and the Canonsburg site would be transported by rail or truck to one of the new disposal sites discussed below.
In all of these cases, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would acquire both the Canonsburg Development Company property and the new disposal site. Acquisition of the Canonsburg site will enable the 5955H
_- 3 _,
tenants on the site to be relocated to other loca:icns and facilities which are not conta=inated with tailings. The Canensburg site vill also be used as a te=perary storage area for centa=inated =aterials and soils frc= vicinity properties until such ti=e as the new disposal site is available for receipt of radicactive =aterials. The procedures for decon:a=inating off-site pro-perties vill be identical to those used in Option 2.
The =ethod and procedures of transport of the tailings and other =aterials from Canonsburg to the new disposal site vill be selected on the basis of potential health effects, environ = ental and safety concerns, accessibility, and cost effectiveness. The schedules and routes used in =oving the tailings vill be established to =ini=ize the i= pact on the surrounding comunities.
In all cases, the stabilization pr' cedures and syste=s would be the same as dis-o cussed in Option 2, as required.
Descriptions of the new, potential disposal sites are as follows:
Option 3A: Disposal Site at Pennsylvania Railroad Landfill This option would involve re=oving all the tailings and conta=inated =aterials fro = the Canonsburg site and vicinity properties and transporting the= to the Landfill site near Blairsville.
This would allev consolidation of the radio-active material at the 1956-1957 du=p site. Railroad cars vould be used in transporting the =aterial fro = Canonsburg to the Landfill.
A liner syste=
vould be installed in the large cavity or depression at the site, and the tailings and other =aterials would be du= ped on top of the liner. A cover syste= vould then be placed on top of the radioactive =aterial.
The type and design of both the lim.: and cover syste=s would be deter =ined at a later date.
Option 3B:
Disposal Site I 9
i l
Option 3C:
Disposal Site Y-l t
i i
i 5955H -.
Option 3D: Disposal Site Z Criteria for Alternatives Evaluation In the assessment of the alternatives for disposing of the Canonsburg tail-ings, criteria have been developed that will be used as the guidelines in the determination of the preferred option.
These criteria include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Assurance of achieving EPA standards requirements for 1,000 years.
(2) Vulnerability to catastrophic natural phenomena, e.g.,
seismic distur-bance, floods, etc.
(3) Present and forecasted population density surrounding the potential disposal sites.
(4) Potential health effects from the mode of transport of the tailings.
This criterion will enable a comparison of the health effects of stabil-izing the tailings in place at Canonsburg with transporting, by various means, the tailings to alternate disposal sites.
(5) Hydrology of the disposal site area.
(6) Characteristics, e.g., geochemical, physical, etc., of the surrounding soils and rocks.
(7) Meteorological information of the site locations.
(8) Economics of the decontamination / transport / stabilization alternatives.
(9) Differences in long-term maintenance / surveillance requirements among the various sites.
(10) Land use potential of disposal sites for other activ*. ties.
Evaluation of the Alternatives This.section will be concerned with the assessment of the various disposal site alternatives.
While the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process
.must be completed prior to assigning a quantitative evaluation factor to the characteristics of each alternative, a general qualitative value has been ascribed to each option, as shown in Figure 4.
It should be emphasized that ratings for each option are preliminary at this time, and more detailed analyses will be conducted.
In Figure 4, a " Positive" notation means that a particular criterion seems to f avor that option, while a " Negative" notation means the criterion probably does not favor the option, and a " Neutral" nota-tion means that no determination can be made at this time.
The criteria are in a very approximate order of Laportance, and a " Negative" rating for crite-ria 1 or 2 will effectively eliminate that option.
5955H -
Option 1: No action This alternative involved oc remedial actions.
Since radon daughter concen-trations (RDC) and external gamma radiation (EGR) at the Canonsburg site exceed the draf t EPA standards, Criterion 1, which is achievement of EPA stan-dards, is not met and thus this option is rejected.
Option 2:
Stabilization-in-place This alternative involves using the Canonsburg Industrial Park as the disposal site. This option can achieve the EPA standards, and it does not locate the tailings at a site vulnerable to natural catastrophe.
In addition, this alternative minimizes health risks from tailings transport since it limits the amount and distance of the transport of the tailings.
Nevertheless, this option has an overall negative rating because it results in a relatively high population density surrounding the tailings disposal site. Other more remote sites would be more attractive.
Option 3A: Transport Tailings to Pennsylvania Railroad Landfill This alternative is rejected because it violates the ' criterion that require the site not to be vulnerable to natural phenomena.
The Landfill is located next to the Conemaugh River and it lies within the flood plain of the river.
Thus, the integrity of the disposal site cannot be assured.
Option 3B l
Option 3C f
Option 3D l
l f
5955H
-6.
~
~
Preferred Alternative As briefly noted in the above section and in Figure 4, the preferred alter-native is Option because, more specifically, Future Activities The Remedial Action Concept Paper for Canonsburg is the preliminary plan of action for the Canonsburg tailings.
Before a final decision is made, however, additional activities will be performed, as noted below:
Data Cathering More detaildd data, including meteorological, seismic, hydrological, geocheadcal, physical, etc., is required for the potential disposal sites before assurance can be provided that the currently preferred alternative is indeed the best option.
DOE contractors will be instructed to visit the disposal sites for Options 3B, 3C, and 3D, and gather and accumulate all data necessary to make an informed, recommended decision concerning the best disposal site.
Acquisition of Canonsburg Site Since all alternatives, excluding Option 1, require acquisition of the Canonsburg Industrial Park, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with DOE concurrence will initiate negotiations with the owner of the site to buy the property.
This will enable the individuals working on the site to be a
relocated to less contaminated surroundings in the near future.
Decontamination of Off-Site Properties i
.For remedial actions to commence at vicinity properties contaminated with j
tailings, the following actions must first be accomplished:
(1)
The Cooperative Agreesent signed by Pennsylvaaia and DOE; (2)
State funds appropriated or earmarked for remedial actions; I
(3) off-site properties officially designated by DOE; l
(4)
Temporary storage site identified for contaminated materials until permanent disposal site selected (the most feasible storage site seems to be the Canonsburg Industrial Park);
(5)
Permission from vicinity property owner to survey his property; (6)
Preparation, review and approval of Engineering Assessment Report and design for remedial action for each property; and (7)
Contractor selected by DOE to accomplish off-site remedial actions at Canonsburg.
L l
l l
l l
l 5955H
-7.
l
.-l Once the above actions are com;.leted, remedial actions can commence on off-site properties, and this is expected to occur by late 1980.
On-site Remedial Actions To implement remedial actions at the Canonsbur:g site, the following activities must be accomplished:
Prepare an EIS An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Canonsburg tailings situation is being prepared by a DOE contractor.
The draft EIS is expected to be issued by May 1981 and the final EIS in late 1981.
Acquire Disposal Site -
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with DOE concurrence, will acquire the preferred disposal site following the issuance of the final EIS.
Obtain A-E/CM Services and Perform Design An architect-engineer / construction manager will be selected by DOE by the summer of 1981.
The A-E/CM will use the output,of the DOE research and development program and the draft EIS to develop detailed designs and issue subcontracts to move the tailings to a new dispo al site.
Conduct On-Site Remedial Action Efforts An outline of the remedial action process at Canonsburg is shown in 7 -
Figure 5.
It is expected that remedial actions that will decontaminate the current Canonsburg site will be initiated in 1982.
Public Participation The Canonsburg Task Force will hold public hearings and meetings through-out the remedial actions process so that current information can be pr6-vided to the community, as well as allow the populace to provide input into the decision-making process of determining the best remedial action alternative for the Canonsburg tailings.
e 5955H -
~
4 4
Figure 3 EPA STANDAR,DS FOR REMEDIAL ACTION (RA)
Type of Radiation Remedial Action (RA) Criteria External Camma Radiation (ECR)
RA required if EGR 0.02 mR/hr above background in Dwellings Radon Daughter Concentration (RDC)
RA required if RDC 0.015 WL including background in Dwellings 226Ra 5 pCi/gm 226 Radium Concentration on Open RA required if Lands I
2 2 pCi/m /sec for Disposal Sites Radon Flux, Site Limit (RFL) for Tailings RFL Dis pos al 1
i Legend 1
mR/hr = Milliroentgen per Hour WL = Working Level, or RDC per liter of air that results in eventual emission of 1.3 x 105 MeV of alpha energy pCi/gm = picocuries per gram 1
i i
I 1
l 1
i i
1 5955H
_9_
4 Figure 4 Evaluation of Alternatives Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3A Option 3B Option 3C Option 3D 1.
Achievement of Negative Positive Negative EPA Standards II.
Vulnerability Negative Positive Negative to Catastrophe III.
Population Density Negativo Negative Positive IV.
Health Effects From Positive Positive Negative Trans por t V.
Hydrology Negative Negative Negative VI.
Soil Characteris-Neutral Neutral Neutral tics VII. Meteorological Info Neutral Neutral Neutral
~
VIII. Economics Positive Positive Neutral IX.
Maintenance /Sur-Negative Negative Positive veillance Require-ments X.
Land Use Potential degative Negative Positive Evaluation:
Negative Negative Negative 5955H.
l llIII I i i i ! Ii i i IiII Ii! i li i I
'I !II
' I I I L n i l i i i i i i I 6 i! I i i !..L I l 1 i !I i it I
1i i ti l8 l l l l l ~l l !I I i lli l l i liilI1iiil Ein II i i i
!I i i l i l i i I 'I i i i i ! I i i i l i i i i
- r, ll l 1 1 II Iiii! !Iii i lhi l I 4 IIi!l l ll IM li i l i ! !I IIiii tiII I Ill i I i lI i I i 1 l_elt i
,i-l I i i I f I I I i i I ' 113 I I I I i l iiii! 6 t
l l l 4 1.1 1 1 I l_I(i i i l I lI i i l lil i !,Il! ! i l
R I
l l ll 1l l 1II I i i i I l 1 I I I !_llill I ilill i I
~
i I
i l i I i i i I i i II I II I i l i J ll I i i iU l I i O
l l l1 I I I I II I III I I I I I I l LI I I i i !!! IlI l l 1
I I I i i i i l ii i l i I i i i i i i Il l iI i i.i
! I i i ll l l li Ill l 1l l 1iIl _I I I l _l l 1 i i l]I I i ! l m
g i
=
i i i l iiiiiii liI I Ill i I l' li I!I III l-l i
{
l ll ll llll lllllllll lll l l i I I I l l !
0 l I 1;Il lI uIIII i i lIiilili li1liIIlill
=
1III II i
'i i IiI 1 1 1 I I II Ii t il i il i i iI iiI J
1IIIII I Ii i i i i i l i i ! II I I I I I
II I I II I I I 2
ll1!L ii ii l i l I l.l: 1Iiiliili I' IIIIililI W
I iii I4 11 I{l i ilIl ll l l 11 It lit iI IIIlII i 6 [I ! I i ! I I I i i i 1 h
t; 1
I I Ii i i i l 1,l[I i l i i i il I A
I IIll lll l l l lli l iIil l 1.1 I I !l l l IIill Ii1
-s:
Z
=
lIil i i iIiIi i I i l i I i Ill i I I l l 4II I II I I I O 9
- liliIII IIIII II IIII IIIIII IIl1II IIIII III I i i 6
,1 I I II I !
!! I I Ii iI i !Ii! i l i I i 1 I
~
i <o
~
[# ~'
\\
I !. I i ! ! !!! l ! ! li! !
Iiill IiiiiiiiiliiIil' j
=
I i i i i l_tfl lp?lll*l_1 ii i i Iil i i i i 4 ' I I i il i I i g
II i,1 I Ili i l l I"i i l iI I I I II I i ! I i i l i i i i i i !
i I l '!
l l !II IIII I II II i l I Iii li1 I I I I I t i I W
e l
h l I,1 iiill l l 1llIlI l i liI IllliIIIl l l l l !
e-l ILI II I i li l I iii li i l' i 1I I I I l l II I i li I II l
C'
=
(
i i I i lilii ll IIi i! I I I!I I I i l 1 IIi I I i i i I lI !I i i i l I !l 4I i1!I i iiiiiI i I i 1 I ii ! I i
=
11 ! !I i l
l 11 1l 1 !I I i 1 i iii i 1
-1. I I I l.1 i I y ll i l I i il Iili! !l ! I i iIiiI
! i l !I IIIili i l l I !II I II I II I I l.I I I i !
! !II III II!
i i i:
a
] l i i l i iI l.11 I I ii ii l ii liI i i i i I kii i !i l
W 1 ;l
'l IilIiiil ! !II ll Ii lIil !II I I Il iII l
s a
e s e
E E
5 g5 y
y s
e e
h Z
h h
O e
.U'
=
8'sSi35
,El 0 ejglE s.ir!8 ;;e W
ai ei$l de, t i e # e t
r i,, S 1
5 =E s
.*l3 3 a i Els: =.5'Sig 2 i si5 5,.ei v : ;svl:::
c a
=
l a.,t!B';s a'uls r
as3es e
0 :
v i
- =
y
~. }ly g
2 c
G3 eo r.
a M
O 6
W W
a E
t u O
p c2 e >
d u
4 U
C 5 E E 5 5 E i E 5
5 u
y O O U
E2 g
0 l
al I
~
j Outline il Remedial Act' ions Concept Paper Introduction 1.
Site Description 2.
Remedial Action Objectives 3.
Remedial Action Alternatives 4.
Criteria for Alternatives Evaluation f
i 5.
Alternatives Evaluation 6.
Preferred Alternative
\\
7.
Future Activities Appendices 1
l
.m....
,e v
Outline #2 Remedial Actions Concept Paper Cover Foreward Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables A.
Introduction B.
Site Description C.
Obj ectives D.
EPA Standards E.
Alternatives a
F.
Evaluation Criteria G.
Evaluation of Alternatives H.. Preferred Alternative I.
Environmental Concerns J.
Future Activities and Schedules K.
Appendices
~
ENCLOSURE 8 Activity /Dellverable Schedule Date:
6/3/80 Sandin tintlonal I,nboratory (Stil.A)
Interim Tochiilent Support for the Uranium Hill Tallings Remedial Actions (IMfRA) Project Item Task /Sub-Task Schedule Task I - Plann h t and Studies (AP-10-15-05-0) o 1-1 Support planning r coordinat ion efforts involving Continuing activlty.
other D0li und Federal organizations, State and local governments, Indian tribes, and private owners of sites and properties.
1-2 Prepare itemedial Action Concept Papers (RACI"s)
(1) For sites involving tallings removal:
for sites as direct.ed.
Finnt draft itACP 90 days after State designation of disposal sites.
(2) For sites involving stabilization in place:
Final draft RACP 60 days after DOE / State agreement on stabilization in place.
1-3 Pr pare itemedin! Action Plans (RAl"s) for sites Final draft 60 days after Final EIS published.
as direct ed.
1-4 Analyze DOE /flRC Interface and licensing procc-P!nal draft 10/1/80.
dures r, requirements, and prepare 12IlitA I,1 censing Plan.
l-5 Review current engineering 11 radiological survey Finnt draft generic plans for processing and documentation, assess enrrent site conditions, disposal sites 7/31/80.
and prepare Site Characterization Plan.
1-6 Preparc decision criterin for determinations on Finnt draft 6/30/80.
removal of tallings from processing sites.
1-7 Prepare Disposal Sito Qualification Criterin Final draft 6/30/80.
document.
(
Itca Task /Sub-Task Sch:dulo I-8 Analyze research 6 development requirements and Final draft 7/15/80.
prepare technology development plan that is coordinated with NRC and EPA activitics.
I-9 Prepare Proj ect Management Plan.
Final draft 8/29/80.
I-10 Review Ilcadquarters Cencric Program Plan and Complete,6/20/80.
prepare recommendations for revisions to the Plan.
1-11 Pre; are Public Participation Plan.
Final draft 8/15/80.
I-12
' Prepare Project Quality Assurance Plan.
First draft 6/20/80.
Final draft 10/1/80.
1-13 Prepare Project Safety Plan.
Final draft 10/1/80.
Task II - Environmental Activities (AP-10-15-15-0) 11-1 Provide overall management, planning 6 direction Continuing activity.
for preparation, review and publication of NEPA
)
documentation.
11-2 Prepare NEPA Implementation Plan.
First draft 6/2/80.
Final draft 6/30/80.
II-3 Prepare Guidelines for Environmental Assessment First draft 7/1/80.
(EA) preparation.
Final draft 7/31/80.
II-4 Prepare EIS Style and Format Guidelines.
Final draft completed 5/8/80.
11-5 Preparo EIS Scopo and Content Guidelines.
First draft 6/2/80.
Final draft 6/30/80.
II-6 Prepare schedule for publication of EIS's and EA's.
(1) Generic schedule lncluded in NEPA Tmplemen-tation Plan (Task II-2).
(2) Site specific schedules included in 1.cVel Zero and Level One project schedules (Task III-9).
(3) Specific NEPA BIS /EA schedule due 6/16/80.
. Item Task /Sub-Task Schedulo II-7 Prepare Draft EIS's for Salt 1,ake City, Durango, Continuing activity (delivery schedul's included,
e Shiprock, Grand Junction, Riverton, Gunnison, and in Task II-6).
Rifle (2) sites; support review process; and prepare masters for publication of Final EIS's II.4 Analyze relationships of EIS to safety Analysis Recommendations due 6/30/80.
'tepo rt (SAR) requirements and recommend act ms s
tequired.
II-9 Leview the existing environmental data base, Continuing activity, incorporate requirements into the Site Character-ization Plan (Task I-5), md accomplish data acquisition as required.
1 II-10 Coordinate EIS preparation on Canonsburg site Continuing activity.
with Weston.
Task III - Technic.al Support (AP-10-15-40-0)
III-1 Provide technical capability to assist in Continuing activity.
identification of candidate disposal sites.
III-2 Review EPA standards and associated EIS and (1) For off-site standards, 5/29/80.
provide recommendations for comments to EPA.
(2) For disposal standards, 30 days after EPA issuance.
III-3 Review reprocessing proposals and provide 90 days after receipt of each proposal.
recommendations for actions.
III-4 Defino areas of responsibilities for fSC and Cancelled.
AE/CM contractors.
III-5 Prepare draft Scope of Work for TSC.
Completed 5/7/80.
III-6 Preparc draft Scope of Work for AE/CM First draft 7/31/80, contractor.
Final draft 8/29/80.
o t
+
t s
s n
o f
i f
0 s
od 8
i n
/
v
,a 6
e s
1 r
ey
/
t g 6
e i o l
sl e
u o
l d
gn u
e nh i c d
h t
e. c i e h0s ut c8 l
o s/e c,
l 6 n ns e0 u
o/O i
(i 8 d
r6 0
t/
e l
i Z se 8
Ci1 lc ev
/
!l v/
e.
6 li0 l l S
euf
/
t1 vd 6
t c y
y y
ed cn) t t
t
- e. h n e
e t
i i
i I
jar v
v v
ca
.l ys d u oP! o i
i i
r oed rI p t
t t
norre pN p c
c c
uneih u
a a
a OZuc y,s 0
l m
qs rs g
g g
6 -
d
/
l l l e nel n
n n
e e r A, uia i
i i
e 0
l l t e u
u u
l 3
evv I
l
/
r e. o. s N mrl n
n n
on i
i i
nS e
9 P1 l
1 ph t
t t
l u
cn an
)))
)
eoc n
n n
23 4
r re o
o o
a h
1 C
(((
(
P pt C
C C
t sA s
tP n
n! e e
e o
f,
eN r n
l gb i
O a
ot m
,a u
n d
os n
t p
l n o
ic t.
crge at l
d o
nt l k i
aeh o rt na nr cn e
i t i l
uip oe v
v ct l po i
li tib uandi i
ea nt t
m e.
gs l
d j r ona qt t en end e
i ren dr n
oa ir pn canmi en.
ni i
rp t a o
nd eed l l r
au
)
pe apnl mre al ;o q
t d
r peot rl n m
n st oe c
n f p iri a oaof e cpt m f t ror oC ec t r e
a o
ar ni d s i
t ca a
j k
i i rr tt o
Cs nnn t
gmo yeved s
t N o
ono rnrf t ni nce p
a ut Si r
l nent aion i
T r.on
,m p
I' t
t l
pdf e
es so r
i t
st i
l o ae l
r gml e
l s t s nt n uu i inrp pd c
1 o
d e
c irt cl l
l or r np l
aviom aeH r
al ee aon ic t
t i
nA a pnzf o f
/
sdli C e r, ru jh ppe l
t t
a eyrc k
nnt/
d ed ot ees bi liS c
l e r
rr e u
l es vci t
s on ul il A
n ol pr p
r p;t i n pf l
a i t T
t sd o
( c o
l p sUd nnn o
c nr ei s
yf ra rm n
aad nA ao a t o
r ocr oa, n e
nt l
P f
a r A.
ns fi o f rs gl
,ai ang d
t nl eI n'
nf gt i!
oes ncnnu.
n I s n eu ZN iC t h t
i g S
ml r cs r r ek aiign m ei i
oel oph o m g ni e
d osr t e l
i l er yo pr od pti p
S o onsd l
mfl t p
vn ey p
n pn b
dl nen rr ud uot noid a
- e. a e
ni a
pa snt sica aip rgnr s
I ei f r o) pi e
u int d
nac yd n
an t
zt t n I a rs om d s s leal a panss m
D orit n l l iui i rA l
co l
yl cg t d ao l uai nn pt el vt v voH e eodai ns ps ea el vo oa ofl t vt ept eis mc f
neme dt ri er rtf r n i
f 4
A rid I s P(
Dp P so PI 1 S DsuI a l
2 3
0 1
I 1
1 7
8 9
m e
1 I
I 1
I I
1 t
1 I
I 1
I 1
I 1
I I
1 I
1 w