ML20040A456
| ML20040A456 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/18/1981 |
| From: | Scarano R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Campbell R ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-55 NUDOCS 8201210124 | |
| Download: ML20040A456 (5) | |
Text
NM 40; LU M 012 lj tol - S h DISTRIBUTION:
WMUR s/f ldM'5h l
DEC.18 jg g WMUR w/f g4 WMUR r/f
(
WM r/f Wit-55/KLK/81/12/18/0 NMSS r/f KKalman WShaffer DEMartin BFisher JLinehan HPettengill RScarano j
REBrowning JBMartin Wf10R:KLK MHai s field Ull-55 Richard H. Campbell, Project flanager UtlTRA Project Office U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, New flexico 87115
Dear fir. Canobell:
This letter is to provide, by Attachment I, NRC staff comments on the June 1981 Central Valley Water Reclanation Facility Remedial Action Plan Environmental Report.
This Environmental Report (ER) was provided to us by copy of your memorandum of September 6,1981 to Robert J. Stern, Di rector, DOE-NAD. During a subsequent meeting between NRC and DOE, held at NRC-Silver Spring, MD. on September 23, 1981, it was agreed that this ER would be one of five documents to be reviewed by NRC as the data base on which the flRC world consicer its concurrence in the DOE proposed CVWRF renedial action plan and the exception which would be required from fully meeting EPA Interin Uf1 TRAP cleanup standards in order to implement the pl a n.
The comments provided by Attachment I were discussed between Kenneth L.
Kalman of my staff and David Ball, Uf1 TRAP Project Office in a telephone conversa tion on December 15, 1981.
It is our overall conclusion tha).-the l,N(.,,
m
/ yN" f
/s/
\\
i, '
lbiA DEC:
\\m VD
\\
DIST:
TICKET N0:
OFC NAME :
DATE :81/12/18 1
4 811218 WM-55
20,1 B 1981 l
Wit-55/KLK/81/12/18/r ER should be revised if it is to remain part of the package to be considered by flRC regarding CVWRF remedial action.
Any questions you may have on these comments should be addressed to me or Kenneth L. Kalman (FTS 427-4117).
Sincerely
\\S Ross A. Scarano, Chief Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch Division of Haste fianagement cc: With attachments Dr. William E. Mott, DOE-HQ Robert J. Stern, DOE-HQ Robert U. Ramsey, Jr., DOE-HQ Case Closed:
(33000055020E)
DIST-
/
TICKET fl0:
..yIb1 IbMUR.,yl WMUR 0FC
- WMUR b fer
- 0
!""~~~~.-~~~~~~~~~~~:-~~~~~~~-------------
t At1C :
Ka a DATE :81/12/18
$12/ /81
$12/
/83 f
~~~'~~~~~f~~~~~~~~~l-~~~~~~~~~~-l-----------
i 1
ATTACHMENT I NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON JUNE 1981
" CENTRAL VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT" 1.
Pg. ii, 13:
We feel that the purpose of this report should be to assess the environmental impacts of taking remedial action ca the CVWRF site itself, plus any environmental impacts that may be incurred as a result of interim contaminated materials storage on the adjacent Vitro site, and not to encompass the effects of a delay in CVWRF expansion construction by Central Valley Water Reclamation Facilities Board.
2.
Pg. ii, 14:
Since it is now almost CY-1982, we suggest that the sentence indicating the Vitro offsite EA will be released in the latter part of 1981 should be updated to your most recent projection.
3 3.
Pg. ii, 15:
The sentence stating that "34,000 yd would probably have to be moved in order to comply with the radiation standards" is erroneous since even after remedial action, EPA Interim Cleanup standards will be exceeded.
This was one of the major reasons for regarding this site as an unusually significant vicinity property.
4.
Pg. 11, 15:
In view of clarification by David Ball, we believe that the sentence that begins with "Much of the contaminated material..." should be reworded to read "Much of the contaminated material will be excavated by Central Valley regardles$ of whether the DOE takes remedial action at the site because many of the facilities (tanks, pipelines, etc.) being designed for the CVWEi expansion are to be emplaced below ground levels".
5.
Pg. iii, 11:
The summer 1981 date given for initiation of Central Valley construction should be updated.
Further, to our current understanding, it is possible that Central Valley may proceed with construction prior to finalization of the CVWRF remedial action plan.
e
~
l ll 2
6.
Pg. 1, 51:
References to Figure 1 should be made after the second sentence, "The Central Valley facilities occupy.. " to help explain the layout of the facility.
7.
Pg. 3, 11 and Pg. 4, T3:
We believe that further elaboration is required regarding where, in particular, deeper excavating will be needed.
Perhaps, this could be illustrated by an overburden map showing the depth of planned excavation, superimposed on Figure 1 and discussed at these points.
8.
Pg. 3, 12:
The ER mentions that the contaminated material would be transported by truck or conveyor to the tailings piles.
Since there does not appear to be any way of doing this without crossing the Vitro ditch we are concerned with the possibility of contaminated material entering this ditch, contaminating its flow, and eventually introducing contaminants into the Jordan River.
This possibility would be increased by the use of an open conveyor belt traversing long distances.
In this case there would also be increased opportunity for the contaminated material to dry and for the resulting dust to be blown into the ditch or into the stream on the north CVWRF boundary.
We are also concerned with the proximity of the proposed disposal area to the ditch, i
9.
Pg. 5, 12, 14:
We feel it appropriate to refer to the CVWRF Radiological and Engineering Assessment (REA) but note that in Attachment I of our referenced October 22, 1981 letter, comments #7 and
- 10 indicated that more comprehensive data regarding gamma radiation and radon working levels should be provided in the REA.
10.
Pg. 8, 13, 14, 15:
We believe these paragraphs to be lacking in depth.
The first paragraph equates monitoring dose levels with preventing workers contact with gamma radiation and radon gas.
A discussion of how monitoring of dose levels will lead to the institution of mitigat.:ag measures should be provided.
Further, a definitive summary of other mitigating measures such as protective clothing, breathing apparatus, length of exposure, etc. and how they will be implemented is needed.
In addition, the roles and responsibilities of the DOE radiological contractor need futher definition.
11.
Pg. 9,.11:
We believe that CVWRF remedial action will result in a significant benefit, that can be documented, to that site itself regardless of its close proximity to the Vitro site.
If this
i 3
benefit will not occur, as is stated, then we question why remedial action should be performed at the site.
On the other hand, this action may be somewhat environmentally detrimental to the Vitro site and this should be discussed in a subsequent paragraph.
We also prefer the phrase "no significant effects" to "no dramatic effects" as being less eraotionally charged.
12.
Pg. 9, T2, T3:
Indication of potential adverse effects of interim storage at the Vitro tailings piles should be accompanied by discussion of ways considered to lower the public's exposure to alpha radiation and to lower the emanation of radon gas.
If no mitigating measures can be practically implemented, the effects at least need to be documented.
13.
Pg. 13 (Table 1):
Considerations noted as "The requirements to obtain an NPDES" and " Violation of state steam quality standards" are left blank.
We assume this to be an oversight, expecially with respect to the logistics and potential adverse environmental consequences of transporting contaminated material across the Vitro ditch as discussed in Comment #8.
15.
Pg. 20:
We have several comments regarding Figure 1:
1.
The legend should included " Proposed Structures" showing CVWRF planned expansion facilities keyed to the outlines shown.
2.
The map should clearly show vicinity property boundaries in relation to Vitro Site boundaries.
3.
Features on the map should be more clearly and completely labeled.
l l
l l
l
'L/,s e
FECU-403-203 CLNTRJ.L VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION TACILITY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN ENVIRCNMENTAL PIPORT June 1981 Prepared for Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico Ey FORE, ElsCON & DAVIS UTAE ISC.
375 Chipeta way Salt Lake City, Utah 64108 h
90G&P
/2'f 7_<
O l
SUMMARY
i The Department of Energy (DOE) has been mandated by 1
Congress to reduce radioactivity levels, both on and off the Vitro uranium m:11 site, to below the standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (45 FR 27366), and thereby alleviate concern over possible health ef fects.
The Vitrc site
- . s located at 900 West and 3330 South in the Salt Lake City meticpelitan area.
The Central Valley' Water Eeclamation Board's sewage treat-ment plant is located, in part, on windblown contaminatec land at the Vitro site.
Additionally, some tailings have been used as fill.
The plant presently occupies approximately 20 acres.
Plans for expansion of the sewage treatment plant in 1951 would include approximately 18.6 acres of adcitional contaminated land.
Those areas contaminated by windblown tallings and fill have been designated for offsite remedial action by the DOE as part of its Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program ( UMTFAP ).
This document-analyzes the environmental consecuences of removing the contaminated soils from only those portions of the Central Valley site that are slated for development during the 1981-1982 calendar vears.
The.cro.cosed action would remove
.~;'
contaminated materials from the construction areas and move them to the main Vitro tailings ptles, where they will ultimately be transported to the, as yet unidentified, final disposal site.
Clean fill woulf replace the contaminated materials at the construction site.
The purpose of this advance report is to examine the impacts of remedial action on the Central Valley sewage treatment plant expansion and to compare them with the effects of a delay in construction by Central Valley.
+
Further expansion of the sewage treatment plant to 82 acres is scheduleo by 1986.
The future areas of development by Central Valley on contaminatec soils will be addressed in the generic Vitro offsite environmental assessment to be released in the letter part of 1981.
Radiological surveys have been conducted over those portions of lund included in the 1981 and 1982 construction schedule.
These surveys reveal elevated levels of gamma radiation.
Depths of ' contaminated material at Central Valley range from the surface to 12 ft, with an average depth of 0.75 ft in the north and 5 ft in the south of the site.
A total volume of 34,000 yd3 would probably have to be moved in orcer to comply with the radiation standards.
Much of the contar.inated material will be excavatec with or without remedial action because many of the facilities (tanks, pipelines, etc.)
being designed are to be emplaced below ground level.
Con-ii
,4
~
7,
4 e
struction is scheduled to commence in summer 19c1 and shouJc be completec by early 1987.
A remedial action plan will have to be formulated by the starting date.
The major adverse environmental in.na ct s f r o.r the.cr o.cos e d l action are potential effects on groundwater and increased {
dispersal of contaminated dust during excavation and removal to l the tailings pile.
A small adverse impact would be the noise )
and dust of trucks transporting clean fill to the site.
Since no contaminated material would be transported on public roads, the total potential impact of transport activities would be minimal.
The amount of contaminated material added to the Vitro tal.3ings p12e would be tasignificant compared to that a.3 ready on the site.
Radiation exposure to workers would be insignificant 1
because of shcr; exposure times and low levels cf radioactivity in the contaminated material to be moved.
The prompt implementation of the Central Valley remedial action plan would result in large accrued benefits.
It woulc allow the timely expansion of tne sewage treatment facilities in line with tnose needs identified under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500), bringing Central Valley in compliance with those particular EPA regulations.
Failure to act would cause delcys in implementation, thereby tnereasing the costs ano prolonging the chances of deleterious effects on humans and blota frcs incompletely treated domestic wastes releasec to the Jordan River.
f
..s o$ eNmw 5 ', = $
q
.. j i
l l
l I
1 l
t l
l 1
i l
iii l
4 I.
TABLE OF CONTENTS bettion Title
- Pace, i
Summary and Recommendations ii
. vi List of Figures List of Tables.
. vii 1
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR REMEDIAL ACTIOL..
1 1.1 Introduction 1
1 1.2 Purpose.
1.2 Need for Remedial Action 1
2 PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION.
3 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.
4 4
POTENTIAL EINIRONMENTAL IMPACTS LURING REMEDIAL 1
ACTION.
5 4.1 Radiological Impacts 5
. c s.
4.1.1 Pathways and Mechanisms that Transport Radioactive Materials to
_ u-c
~_:4._
People.
5
- ~52.j?/Jtl5'fD 4.1.2 Radiation Dose and Health Effects
~ 7572 Durinc Remedial Action.
5 "ISNE4i' 4.1.3 Radiation Doses and Health Effects from Hypothetical Accidents 6
4.2 Non-Radiological Impacts 6
^
4.2.1 Air Quality.
6 4.2.2 Water Quality.
6 4.2.3 Noise 7
4.2.4 Soil.
7 4.2.5 Socioeconomics.
7 4.2.6 Traffic 7
4.2.7 Public Utilities.
7 4.2.E Public Funds.
7 i
4.3 Mitigation 8
i 5
POST PROJLCT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
9 5.1 Radiological Impacts 9
~
5.1.1 Air Quality.
9 l
5.1.2 Gamma and Radon Radiation 9
f l
5.2 Non-Radiological Impacts 9
l iv i
l I
-~
Q TABLE OF COI; TENTS Sectior.
Title Pace 5.2.1 Socioeconomic Impacts 9
L. --,...... s...
,. v,
. L A. e.
.vs c
6.1 1;o Action.
10 6.2 Removal of Contaminated Material at the Time of Excavation for Construction.
10 6.3 Time Removal of Contaminated Materials at the Time of Removal of Vitro Teilings Piles. 10 REFERENCES.
11 i
k I
i l
4 h
e l
Y e
b k
i i
a f
e V
o
~.~ S. vt nnv. re n-
~
- . u:..:, u :
..; le r, ace Check.1;st of Environ:.lental I;c. pacts 1{,
Sounc Levels Fron. Construction Equipmen e
b e
Vi
LIST OF FIGURES 1;ur.ine r
-4.le Page
^^-
1 Central Valley water Reclamation Facility Present and Future Configuration.
l 4
e e
e Vii
1 i'
3 2.
rURPOSE AND NEED FOL REMEDIAL ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Department of Energy (DOE) has designated the Central Valley Water Reclamation Board (Central Valley) sewage treatment plant (900 West and 3300 South, Salt -Lake City, Utah) for reinedial action in order to de contami:iate the site of radio-uctive wastas f ro:.. uranium mill tailings.
The Central Valley facilities occupy lanc that was included in the old Vitro uranium mill site, plus adjacent parcels that have becoue contaminated as a result of wind dispersal and use of contami-nated fill.
All areas of the Central Valley property slated for construe lon in the next two years must be decontaminated to meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards prior to or I
during the cc::raencement of construction activities.
This occument is based primarily on the engineering assess-ment and raciological report (1) and applies only to those portions of the Central Valley sewage treatment plant cxpansion scheduled for 1981 and 1962.
Future expansion plans will be tre'ated in the generic off site environmental assessment (EA) scheduled for completion in the latter part of 1951.
C 1.2 PURPOSE I
This environmental report examines the consecuences of implementing a remedial action plan that would remove
,g radioactively contaminatec material f r.om the planned cen-2 d
struction site of the Central Valley sewage treatment plant.
This occument provides the rationale for deciding whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be recuired prior to the commencement of the remedial action.
1.3 NEED FOR REMEDIAL ACTION i
The Central Valley Water Reclamation Board is under EPA mandate to expand its sewage treatment facilities in compliance with Section 208 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500).
This expansion will, by necessity, utilize radioactively contaminated land on, and adjacent to, the old Vitro uranium mill site.
DOE is mandated by Congress to perform remedial action on these i
contaminatec areas.
This remedial action is necessary to reduce radiation levels below interim EPA standards (45 FR 27366) for open land.
These standards establish the permissible radium (Ra22 ) concentration at 5 pCi/ gram.
The gamma radiation limit for habitable structures is 0.02 mR/hr.
Radiological measurements at the construction areas shows gamma radiation levels up to 0.15 mR/hr, and soil sample analyses indicate a mass weighted Ra226 concentration in the contaminated material l
cf about 400 cCi/ gram.
Thus, remedial action ts recuired.
l Radon ueasurements have not been completed.
1 e-,
-m
,-y w-
Because the Central Valley construction is already sched-uleu, all would benefit if a separate reraedial action program ts devised and imple:ne:;ted for this site prior to the complet1cr 0; the Vitro off-site EA.
Failu:e to do this coulc result in one cf the followinc:
the construction schedule for Central Vaa, ley woulc be delave3, er remedial action would take place after tne new facilities are in place, thereby gres,tly increasing the cost cf the remecial action.
t, e
2
P n, C, S :..
- r,.n. n.,.aar-nCv. 05.
na ea Tne proposed action is to excavate all c o n t a r:.i r.a t e c 1
material from areas planned for construction in 1961 and 19E2,
!.uch cf the..;a t e r i a l would be removed as part of the necessary construction excavation.
In s or.ie places, however, the r elacval cf cc r.t a:.;in a t e u material wou_d necessitate excavation of laroer areas tnan tne col.struction requires
- anc,
.n o s s a y>.3 v dee er c.
c........ v.. c..
e t. e.-
.z
. a -.... : e _e
,_. c c e m e...
An eg..a.,
<....c.
v y..
ancunt of clean fil2 would need to be imported to balance the tctal ar..ount of contaminatec materials removed.
The c o n t a:..i n a t e d material woulc be transported either cy conveyor er truch to the i'i t r c tail ncs piles for temporary d spcsal.
So use of public roads fcr transport woulc be re-quarec.
The r c r..o v a l cf contaminated material woulc necessitate c
- u. c. i n c.ntc the unconfined t. r o u n d w c. t e r cone which is near t ':i e surface.
Carc would oe taken to er.sure that additional contamination of this water does not occur.
The groundwater that set.ps 1:.tc the excavated holes would be pumped to evapora-
- cn ponds or used to sprink,e h a u., roacs anc cart piles, or barriers such as sheet pi.3:.ng wou.,c.ce usec to minimize grouno.
water intrusion.
Combinations of these methods may be used.
I I
1 l
l l
l l
l 3
1 I
I I
--.-~
e 1
3.
AFFECTEL ENVIRONP.ENT 2
i l
The Central Valley sewage treatment plant will occupy apprcximately 82 acres, including those areas scheduled for expansion through 1967.
Once part of the Vitro uranium mill j
site, the area now includes both contoured and undisturbed tailings, some construction rubble, and level undisturbed land.
s i
Vegetation consists of landscape horticultural species and ruderal species characteristic of disturbed sites.
The layout of the treatment plant including proposed future facilities is 4
shown in Figure 1.
4 l
Nearby surface waters are P.ill Creek to the north, Jordan i
River to the west, South Vitro Ditch, and a small diten on I
- ne southeast corner. The water tab 3e is approximate'ly 3 ft a
4 below original grade.
l Raciation surveys over the construction areasII) reveal average gamma radiation levels cf 0.15 rs/hr. Gamma logging of j
bore holes and surf ace, gamma measurements snow that tnere is i
approximately 34,000 yd4 of contaminated materials that must be removed.
The depth of contaminated material recuiring removal varies fron zero to 12 ft below the surface.
It l'
averaces 0.75 ft in the northern half and 5 ft in the southern i
half of the site.
I Since the affected area is already scheduled for construc-F tion; the remedial action will have no appreciable additional 1
j impact on biota or cultural remains.
t i
The scheduled expansion of the treatment plant includes i
excavation for a new 64-in. interceptor line excavation for l
new facilities, excavation between the existing facilities and preparation of foundations for new buildings (shown in
]
Figure 1).
Additionally, contaminated surface soil would be removed from the area of the proposed operations and maintenance i
building.
Excluding the 84 in. interceptor, these are the only j
areas being considered for remedial action in this report.
I i
)
.}
b e
A i
1 4
1 4
4 4
3 i
I
4.
PCTE1;TIAL E!NIROlW.EliTAL IMPACTS D* RIl*G REMEDIAI. ACTIO!;
The major short-term impacts associatec with remedial action would center on radiological exposure to excavation personnel, equipment noise, dust disperscl, and possible further local degradation of the unconfined near-surface groundwater.
2 Adcitional minor impact s would accompany the excavation and transport of clean fill to the site.
Those impacts considered appear in Table 1.
i 4.1 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS 4.1.1 Pathways and Mechanisms that Transport Racioactive Materials to People The pathways through which radioactivity could reach people 4
during the proposed remedial action are transport of radio-activity through contaminated dust and direct radiation from the in-place materials before and after excavation.
All these pathways are treated in the following sections.
The most probable form of health-affecting radiation would be gamma radiation.
Few people other than construction personnel likely to be exposed to elevated radiation levels.
Results are of radiological surveys and projected radiological impacts are described in the radiological and engineering assessment
. _3 (RCA){y).
o During removal and re-emplacement of the contaminated materials, dust centaining alpha radioactivity would be spread 4
over adjacent areas.
Workers would inhale radon / radon daughter-nuclides but the increment from the r unedial action area would be minimal compared to the radiation emanating from the nearty tailings piles.
Direct external gn=ma radiation would be received by construction workers during the estimated 33 days it woulo take to completa the remedial action.
4.1.2 Radiation Dese and Health Effects Durine Remedial Action Airborne cust would cause short-term adverse impacts due to increased exposure of the lungs to alpha radiation in the r
vicinity of the remedial action.
If a dust concentration approaching the occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recommended limit (5 mg/m3) is realized, the workers would be exposed to approximately 20B5 mram/yr, or nearly the permissible alpha radiation limit, assuming the dust contains 400 pCi/g.
This impact could be ameliorated by spraying the affectec areas wtth a dust superessant, preferably water.
Baseo on experience at Middlesex(4I, dust suppression would result in alpha radiation levels below the permissible maximum by a factor cf 3 for the most restrictive radionuclide (Th-230).
5 1
l i
Gamma radiation would represent another short-term adverse
- = pact.
Using the maximum concentration of gar.ma radiation measured on the remedial action site and assuming 24 construc-tion workers working.at the site 6 hr/ day, 5 days / week for 7 weeks, the risk would be 6.2 x 10-5 health effects per year.
4.1.3 hadiation Doses and Health Effects from Hycothetical
~
Accidents i
Since none of the contaminated material would be trans-ported over public reads, a hypothetical accident that would expose people not associated with the remedial action could not occur.
If an accident were to occur on the-site, radiation doses receivec by workers would be no greater than they were already receiving by working on the site.
4.2 NCl;-FADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS The proposec remedial action would have both cirect and indirect non-radiological impacts on the environment.
The cirect c:fects are those affecting the immediate physical environment (e.g.,
decreasec air and water quality and increased noise).
Loss of cultural or biotic resources has been dis-counted since construction permits have already been granted to the water cistrict, and construction will presumably proceed regardless of whether remedial action is undertaken.
~
Indirect impacts are those affecting the general human environment (e.g., depletion of petroleum or mineral reserves).
Since most of these impacts are difficult to quantify, they are long-term adverse or beneficial impacts.
described as short-or A checklist of those impacts considered is given in Table 1.
A short discussion of the impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed remedial action follows.
4.2.1 Air Quality There would be short-term adverse affects to air quality as a result of equipment exhaust during the excavation and earth moving phase, including the trucking of clean fill to tne site.
Some dust may be generated by the action, but since the material to be excavated probably resides mostly below the water table, dust may not be a serious problem.
4.2.2 hater Quality The water table at the remedial action site is very near the surface.
Presumably the water is already contaminated by radioactivity.
The remedial action could further degrade the groundwater by increasing radioactivity levels as well as increasing the dissolved and suspended sediment load, depending 2
on how the seepage water is handled.
The extent of. groundwater l
6
-~
l l
cegradation woula depend on the speed and volume of groundwater I
movement in the. area.
Groundwater data are presently lacking.
}
It is probable that the effects on groundwater would represent a
short-term adverse impact.
4.2.3 Noise The noise level on the Central Valley property would rise.
However, since occupation of the Vitro site and adjacent
]
land is mostly restricted to a few businesses, the noise would j
have little adverse effect on the populace, since the closest residence is approximately 700 m from the construction site.
I Estimated noise levels tyoical of the equipment that would 4
be used are given in Table 2. b )
The median numbers should be typical of the Central Valley noise levels.
4.2.4 Soil Clean soil would be required to replace the excavated contaminated soil. The soil would come from local borrow pits.
The impact could be either beneficial or adverse, depending on the borrow source and its future intended use.
t i
4.2.5 Socioeconomics f.
s Mincr short-term economic benefits woG16 accrue because 7
of the need for 25 additional skilled and unskilled workers during the remedial action.
All workers would probably already l
reside in the area; therefore there would be no sociological effect.
Land values are not an issue in this action.
I 1
4.2.6 Traffic None of the contaminated material would be transported over i
public roacs as shown in Figure 1.
However, some transport of clean fill would be required.
It is projected that 2,125 truck l
loads would be brought on to the Central Valley site oter a 12-day period.
The impact would be negligible.
)
4.2.7 Public Utilities Since the areas requiring contaminated soil removal are scheduled for expansion of the Central Valley sewage treatment plant during 1981, the prime contractor for the construction would'be charged with the responsibility of locating and moving any utilities that might be disrupted by excavation in the area, whether or not the remedial action proceeds.
Any disruptions would be quickly remedied by the prime contractor.
4.2.6 Public Funds Although the expenditure of public funds for the remedial j
i action may be, viewed as an adverse impact, a delay in perform-l l
7 l
l
-e
-,-.n
ing tne remedial action until after the new facilities are in place woulc result in the much more significant long-term adverse impact of snadequate sewage disposal facilities.
A further savings would be realized because much of the contami-r.ated material will be removed during the normal course of Construction.
4.1 h1TIGATIOh The ma]or potential impacts associated with the proposec Central Valley remedial action center around the possible dispersal of radioactively contaminatec soil to the surrounding environment and to the workers.
The pathways to the workers are from alpha radiation carried by the dust to the lungs, and gamma radiation and radon gas transmitted through the air.
Other than monitoring dose levels, there is no practicable way to prevent workers from contact with the gamma radiation or radon gas, but by keeping dust to a minimum, alpha radiation doses both on and off the site will be minimized.
Dust may not be a problem because most of the contaminated material is probably below the water table and therefore dust would not be generated during excavation and transport.
If dust is generatec it will be monitored, and a procedure will be devised for watering the contaminated
~$
material.
In adcition to water, calcium chloride may be usec as g
a dust suppressant while trenches are dug.
Dust masks and d
respirators will be available on site.
9 Decontamination work will be performed by
.h e Central Valley excavation contractor.
A qualified radiological health contractor acting for DOE will supervise the decontamination and ensure that proper health procedures are followed.
The gamma radiation level will be monitored. continuously during the remedial action.
Film badges will ensure that individuals do not receive doses in excess of regulations.
1 Other mitigations include requiring OSHA-approved. baf fles
[
in equipment exhaust systems, requirement of proper vehicle l
maintenance to minimize exhaust fumes, and monitoring of con-
- amination in the 4
groundwater and any water pumped from the excavation.
l i
r i
h t
I l
t e
6 I
l i
t i
5.
POST-PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS a
~
ho dramatic effects, of either a beneficial or acverse i
r.a t u r e, are expected as a result of the remedial action
)
descrioed in this report.
The contaminated material would l
remain near its current locatior. but the overall remedial actior.
for the Vitro site and adjacent offsite areas would be easier i
because the contaminated material would be removed prior to 4'
the construction of new facilities.
4 5.1 RADIOLOGICAL IMPACTS i
5.1.1 Air Quality 1
- he air cuality could experience a slight adverse effect i
until the Vitro tailings piles are removed to their final 1
disposal site.
The contaminated material removed under this j
remedial action, which is in excess of 2 percent of the present I
tailings pile, would be deposited on the tailings piles where l
it would be more exposed to wind than at present.
The public's exposure to alpha radiation would also be raised slightly, but
~
not enough to result in any increased health effects.
l 5.1.2 Gamma and Radon Radiation l
1' Gamma radiation would be reduced for construction and y;
maintenance personnel at the sewage treatment plant expansion as a result of remedial action.
The radon exposure would not be measurably affected because the majority of radon gas emanates from the Vitro tailings piles, i
i.
5.2 NON-RADIGLOGICAL IMPACTS l-5._ 2.1 Sccioeconomic Impact.e, j
Major economic gai:0
.a be derived from conducting this remedial action during 19t; and 1982.
Central Valley is j
mandated by the EPA to proceed with its sewage treatment plant expansion: therefore, delay in performing the remedial action could reruit in a much more expensive proposition - the later l
removal of contaminated material from around and under newly constructed sewage treatment facilities. Completion of the remedial action will allow the necessary plant expansion to prcceed in an orderly manner.
This will Lenefit all the c i t i r. e n s served by the water district as well as improve I
conditions in the downstream watershed from the treatment plant outfall.
9
.m
,n.
~
6.
ALTERNATIVES 1
l The following alternatives have been considered for j
the 1981 Central Valley sewage treatment plant expansion remecial action:
t, f
(a) No action 1
I (b) Removal of contaminated material at the time of exca-vation for construction (c) Removal of contaminated material at the time of removal j
of Vitro tailings piles 6.1 NO ACTION 1
i Io take no action is unacceptable because radiation levels exceed the current EPA interim standards and Congress has 4
directed the cecontamination of areas that exceed the standards.
6.2 RENOVAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL AT THE TIME OF EXCAVATION 3
FOR CONSTRUCTION l PROPOSED ACTION) i The most cost-effective alternative is the removal of j~
contaminatec material at the time of excavation for the sewage j] ~.
t plant expansion.
Earthmoving equipment would already be on site, no racilities would be present to obstruct soil removal, and double-handling of contaminated material would be avoided.
The cost of this alternative plus 30 percent contingency is i
estimated at $410,000.
]
6.3 REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL AT THE TIME OF REMOVAL OF VITRO TAILINGS PILES i
Should the remedial action be timed with the removal of I
the Vitro tailings piles, facilities will have been built on the Central Valley remedial action site.
As a result, demo-lition of the facilities and reconstruction at a later date or a very costly excavation around and under the facilities would be required.
The cost of this alternative could easily be several times that of the preferred alternative.
In addition, this alternative will result in higher radiation exposures to construction and maintenance personnel.
1 l
1 10 t
xr.rr.
.r..,. Cr S
.. n Kaulclogical and Engineering Assessment of Central Valley Water R e c l ar..a t i o n Facality.
Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah.
In preparation.
2.
Environ. ental Assessment of the Properties Adjacent to and Jearbv
.h e Former Middlesex Sam.clinc. Plant, Middlesex, New Jersey.
Fcrd, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc.,
Salt Lake City, Utah.
19EO.
3.
Report to the President and Congress on 1;cise.
Senate Doc.
96-62.
U.S.
Go. Printing Office.
Washington, D.C.
1972.
- I I
i t
i i
s 11 t
~
TABLE 1 CnECKLIST OF ENV.IRONMENTAL IMPACTS This checKli st provides a quick reference to the environmental impacts that have been considered in the evaluation of this project.
Discussions of major potential impacts are presented in the text.
Yes N_c LAND FORM - Will the project result tn:
o Unstable slopes, embankments, or excavation?
X-o Significant modifications of geological X
structures?
o Disruption, displacement, compaction, or STA burying of topsoil?
o Changes in shorelines, stream enannels, riverbanks, or tidelands?
X o
Changes in ground contours?
STA o
Destruction, covering, or modification i
of unique geological or physical features?
X 4
o Increased wtnd or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
4 STA o
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or changes in siltation, deposition, I
or erosion that may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any f
bay, inlet, or lake?-
X Exposure of people to or property affected I
o
(
by earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, or I
ground failure?
X 1
o Foreclosure on future uses of site on a long-term basis?
X AIR - Will the project result in:
o Substantial air pollutant emissions or ETA /
deterioration,of ambient air quality?
LTE o
Objectionable odors?
X LTA
,Long-Term Acverse LTE - Long-Term Beneficial STA - Short-Term Adverse 12 e-
~..
TABLE 1 (cont /
Yes
_S _c o
Alteration of air movements, temperature, or hen icity (e.c.,
fcgstng ol icing)7 l
c Local or regional climate changes?
X WATEF.
'.112
- ne project result in:
o Changes in currents or water movements in marine cr fresh waters?
A i
f o
Changes in percclation rates, drainage patterns, or the : ate ano amount of surface water runoff?
STA 1
c Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters?
X l
l c
Change in the amounts of surface water in any water body?
X i
i l
o Discharges into surface waters or alterations of j
surface water quality, inclucing but not limited l
to temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity?
STA l
l o
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
STA l
c Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either additions or withdrawals or throuch cirect through interceptions of an aquifer by drilling
[
or excavations?
STA o
Alterations in groundwater quality?
STA o
Contamination of public water supplies?
X
(
o The requirement to obtain an NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Eliminant l
System) Permit (Clean Water Act)?
t 1
o Violation of state stream quality standards?
l o
Discharge tc a public sewer system?
X l
1 i
o Location in a riverine or coastal floocplain (especially high hatard areas)?
X l
LTn - Long-Tern AcVerse LTE - Long-Term Beneficial STA - Snort-Term Adverse 13
l l
l TAELE 1 (cont)
Yes
_N_o o
Substantial reduction in the amount of water otnervise available for puclic water supplies?
h o
Exposure
".f p'eople cr property to water-relatec bc. cards such as flooding or tidal waves and subject to DOE floodplain / wetlands regulations (10 CFR 1022)?
X o
Location in a state's coastal zone and subject to consistency with the state CZM plan?
X SOLIC n!ASTE - Will the pro]ect generate significant solid waste or litter?
X NOISE - Will the project:
o Increase existing noise and vibration?
STA o
Expose people to excessive noise?
X LIGHT AND GLARE - Will tne pro]ect create problems involving light and glarei X
.y.
FLuRA - Will the project:
o Change the diversity, productivity, or number of
--r
- m.m
.i ' ri any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, z;
grass, crops, microflora, and aquatic plants)?
X o
Reduce the number or affect the habitat of any sensitive, threatened, rare, or endangered species of plants?
(Check state and federal E
lists of endangerec species.)
X o
Introduce new species of plants into an area or create a barrier to the normal dis-persal of existing species?
X o
Reduce acreage or create damage to any agri-culture crop?
X FAUNA - Will the project:
o Change the diversity of species or affect breeding or numbers of any species of animal (including birds, mammals, herpetofauna, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects, or microfauna)?
X LTA - Long-Tern Adverse LTE - Lon9-Term Beneficial STA ~ Snort-Tern Adverse 14
I I
TAELE 1 (cont) j Yes S _o 1
4 1
c Recuce the habitat or nurabers of any sensitive, l
i threatenec, rare, or encangered species of animal?
(Check state and federal lists of l
endangered species.)
X I
c Introduce new species of animals into an area i
or create a barrier to the migration or move-raent of ar.imals or fish?
X 4
j c
harm existing fish or wildlife habitat?
}.
I o
Cause attraction, entrapment, impingement, j
or entrainment of animal life?
X I
i o
Cause emigration resulting in human-wildlife 2
interaction probleras?
X i
l i
o Adversely affect game species populations?
X 4l_-
LANL USE - Will the project substantially j
alter the present or planned land use of the area?
LTE a
NATURAL RESOURCES - Will the project:
.s
)
o increase the rate of use of any natural resources?
STA i
l o
Substantially deplete any nonreusable natural i
resources?
LTA 1
i o
Be located in an area designated or being l
~
considered for wilcerness, wild and scenic river,
)
national park, or ecological preserve?
X
!~
l-ENERGY - Will the project:
o Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
X i
i~
o Substantially increase the denand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy?
A i
t i
t l
LTA - Long-Term Adverse LTE - Long-Tern Beneficial STA - Short-Term Adverse i
4 l
15
-r e
v+-r-
+ - - + -
r
~rv
--w
--r
o I
e TABLE 1 (cont)
Yes Eo i
l ACCIDLhT kISK - Does the project involve risk j
of explosion or release of potentially hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticaces, enemicals, radiation, or other toxic substances) in the event of an accident j
or upset condition?
X i
I POPULATIOh - Will the project alter the location, distribution, density, or growtn rate of j
the human population in an area?
X Will the project affect housing patterns HCUSING or create a demand for additional housing?
A i
TRANSPuRTATIOh AND TRAFFIC CIhCULATION - hill l-the project result in:
o Generation of substantial additional vehicular i
movement?
X o
Effects on existing parking facilities or demands
~
- or new parking?
X I
=*
o substantial impact upon existing transportation
+
F,. - < -i r system?
X
-a i
o Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
X i,
o Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicvelists, or pedestrians?
X T
l PUBLIC SERVICE - Will the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered i
governmental services in any of the following areas:
o Fire protection?
A l
o Police protection?
X o Schools?
X o Parks or cther recreational facilities?
X j
o Other covernmental services?
X LTA - Long-Tern Adverse I
LTE - Long-Term beneficial STA - Short-Term Adverse I
i i
i 16 I
i
_.- ~
~ ~ _ _ _ _. _, _
_ ~. _
=
e TABLE 1 (cont)
Yes N__o 4
i UTILITIES - Will the project result in a need for to the systems or substantial alternatives new following utilities:
I l
A i
o Power or natural gas?
X o
Communications systems?
X
';ater?
o LTE o
Sewer'or septic tanks?
J
..A o
Stcr:. water drainage?
X o
Solid waste disposal?
HUNAS HEALTH - Will the project:
1 o
Create any health hazard or potential LTB health hazard?
STA/
LTE X
Expose people to potential health hazard?
o ECONOMIC - Will the project:
Have any adverse effect on local, regional,
~c o
X or national economic conditions?
X I
cause boom-town type of development?
o X
Have any adverse effect on tourism?
o o Have any adverse effect on land values?
X X
llave any adverse effect on employment?
o 2
COMMUNITY REACTION - Is the project:
X o
Potentially controversial?
c In conflict with locally adopted environmental l
X plans and goals i
LTA - Long-Tern Adverse LTE - Long-Ter::. Beneficial
)
STA - Short-Term Adverse 17 I
o TAELE 1 (cont)
Yes No AEbThETICS - 1l111 the pro]ect:
c Change any scenic vista or view open to the public?
X o
Create an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view (out of place in an aesthetic sense with character of design of surrounding
\\ e a r e a /.'
ge^
o Significantly change the visual character.of the vicinity?
X RECREATIONAL, ED U C ATIO:, AL, RELIGIOUS, ASD SCIENTIFIC - 1,111 tne prcJect affect the quality or cuantity of existing recreational, educational, religious, er scientific opportunities?
A ARChALOLOGICAL, CULTURAL, AND HISTORICAL - Will t: e pro]ect ' alter significant archaeological, anthropological, paleontological, cultural, or historical sites, structures, objects, or buildings (e.g., be sub ect to the Historic Dreservation j
Act of 1974)?
A 9
LTA - Long-Tern Acverse LTL - Long-Term Beneficial STA - Short-Tern Adverse lE
e TABLE 2 SOUND LEVLLS FROM CONSTRUCTION LOUIPMENT*
Sound level, dB(A) at indicated distance in meters from source SOURCE 15 m 30 r 61 m 152 m 305 m Trucks, cranes, bulldozers, etc.,
with diesel-type internal comoustion engines 70-95 64-89 58-83**
50-75 40-69 Air compressor and other stationary sources, typically diesel-powered 76-86 70-80 65-74 56-66 50-60 Front-end loaders 73-86 67-80 61-74 53-66 47-60
- Fro.T Reference 3.
- Sound levels above 80 dB(A) are usually produced by a combination of several pieces of equipment operating at the same time.
4 W
e 19
t C
t (9) f fol j
E l
}
m I
s g l1 p
gt G
e I
)
e 2 4
g 5a bj U 1 C
- - ; z 6 I
a :
. )
?
- E O
l G
E bY- ::-0
.l t
, i
- =
E
+
6 w
!eg C
'i. '
L I
t I
[
v 5
E 3_ 2 y[?
3 I o
c m
I e
i=;
r
!r
- E w - k.
[l Je e
- a e
c t
E - 15.,
-? t ot g : :>
- r C<
O C:
1.=
a s
c c
e v.
cK 1
w 2
.c 4
1
- y i ez e<
v2C e
g, -
'. ; l.
- ) -
<c
<;g F. *i.
f i,.s E! E5 E!?
- ) i
~ c s -
_i
<cm 2 4
$E
- R e
i
.
- s
!sse
.i. n x..
.x e
i,-d
- ;; it
- *
- I I
i.
I! !I I i l
.;j.
l
^
v 1:
i ii g
a f
i I l
I i
7 '"
k' f
!l i i i
l I L,
i e
I j
/
.gZ.
- 6. -
>iil t
py..-
i I.
p s'
/.
[
A 7 m _-
~
.s
)
' k~f,,.nbh l
.:: 7,.., ;
v i
a s;s e
y, 4
4s
%,{ "=
g' J'
.,/
',,,.. = ;*'?.S :
..' l,l,,
5M
\\,
t I.
g
-m--
x?p/:. d,...DTl o' Oy, [M=;~.:
- .. 4 m f
t
- ,r %sj u. / g; R..
- ev 3.pej),.,
. 4
- p l';
i
- ;N / s. ;'4:
r
- (N y
'\\ y. n- -,=nm6.. O.,.-@,.:.
r--k}
W....n*gn. _.." :
D. L'
(:
I
.e E
,.,t e,
6., h-J i w _ #cs 4 l t
wJ..v; u.u;a...-..w % 6.,
r -
m
- %rl...e.....O _ J. :
a..., pr m :,- - 1 ~~-
l
~
hb, e' sh Lp
_a 7
..... =.e ;
4
+-
e 4. g!_!l
-- /,,,Q,. y
,.r. Z / ' ;
-- Mr, !'l.; ;;.
, c -
- ;'. ;
- i;
,,,1,..sn
- ,_f,.
yl s-'
- e
, i..f,
I Ill" t,.,4'.
.. _ _.l[
J
.4
._4.f.s
-- __ _. _ _ _ _ w
3,,
- *'L 7 m ch.M l
s;
- 1 i
/
i I
/
I
[i'
> ll '
\\se>
.l',
.t w
T I
t' i
C i
U l
C