ML20043F253
| ML20043F253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/25/1985 |
| From: | Konwinski G, Pettengill H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043F230 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-TUYL90-36, REF-WM-176 NUDOCS 9006140294 | |
| Download: ML20043F253 (13) | |
Text
- -
m s.
DISTRIBUTION URP:WM.176/GRK/85/09/13/0 I
- I~
URF0's/f URP WM-176 SEP 2 51985 URF0 r/f DBangart, RIV GKonwinski RDoda, RIV DNussbaumer, SP-URFO:GRK URP WM-176 040WM176110E MEMORANDUM FOR:
File No. URP WM-176 1
FROM:
Gary R. Konwinski, Project Manager Licensing Branch 2 Uranium Recovery Field-Office, RIV
SUBJECT:
CONQUISTA FINAL RECLAMATION PLAN REVIEW
' Background
.By letter dated July 18, 1985, the Texas Department of Health submitted the document entitled: '"Conquista Project:
Application for Termination of Radioactive Material' License No. 91634," dated June 3,1985. The letter requested that the Uranium Recovery Field-Office (URF0) review the L
document for final closure of the site.
A preliminary review of " Reclamation Plan Concepts" for the Conquista site was completed by~the URF0 and is documented by letter dated
' January 11,1985 to Mr. E. D. Baily.
In this letter the staff identified several potential problems with the proposed reclamation plan..The.
L L
problems centered on lack of evaluation of long-term stability, possible i
l ground water degradation and predicted radon exhalation rates from the reclaimed tailings. The current review will concentrate on the plan as presented in the subject submittal'with special emphasis on mill site decommissioning, reclamation of the tailings impoundment, long-term care requirements and radon attenuation.
Mill Site Decommissioning
' Mill' site' decommissioning of structures housing the process circuit as well as the process circuit began in May 1984. This work consisted of dismantling the mill building as well as excavation of the mill site, ore o<
I g............:............:............:.................................................
L g............:............:............:..................................................
$85/09/23
-9006140294 900423)
~PDR FOIA
= VAN TUYL90-36 PDR-
+
'q I
- URp'WM.176/GRK/85/09/13/O'
.t.
pad and ad.ioining areas.
Final decommissioning was completed in November.
1984 All unsalvageable mill buildings, equipment and ancillary facilities were dismantled and disposed of in the tailings impoundment.
- 1Those facilities and equipment which were salvageable were decontaminated and either sold at auction or stored on site.
Decontamination of the mill site area consisted of a gamma survey in conjunction with 49 soil samples, which were analyzed for Ra.226.
~Several-areas of contamination were identified by this procedure and
- subsequently. excavated by use of'a backhoe and scrapers to less than 5'pCi/gm averaged over 100.m2 Upon resurveying, to verify that the contaminated areas had been cleaned up, to the level noted above, the entire mill area was covered with.six feet of clean overburden.
'A verification survey of the site indicates that Ra-226 levels for the
~
decontaminated site have been reduced to an average of 4.1 pCi/gm per
$100 m.
Data for the area indicates that background averages r
approximately-.2.0 pCi/gm per 100 m. The data would therefore indicate r
'that Ra-226 levels are 2.1.pCi/gm above background; therefore, successful decontamination of the mill site area has been achieved.
There is also
-documentation from.an independent survey, which-was. conducted by the 1 Texas Department-of Health on November 30, 1984, that successful decontamination has taken place.
However, during this survey a small
' contaminated area was located."along the fence line bordering Farm Road 791." To date-there is no evidence that this area has been decontaminated. With successful decontamination of this area, by_
following the procedure discussed above, the staff will concur that the
' mill site area has been-decontaminated in accordance to 40 CFR 192, Section 192.32.
-Reclamationucf the Tailings Impoundment
- The proposed reclamation plan concept involves a reclamation, surface which will contain, and over a period of time, evaporate precipitation
'which falls on its. -The rational behind this plan is that.long-term stability will be assured due to the creation of a depositional environmenc rather than an erosional condition on the majority of the impoundment surface.
In order-to prove acceptable, such a reclamation plan' concept requires there is little_ or no potential for recharge of the tailings and subsequent movement of leachate into the ground water as' specified in 40 CFR 192, 9264.111.
185/09/23
w 6
-URP WM.176/GRK/85/09/13/0 3
g Existing data: for the site indicate that some seepage from the tailings impoundment has already reached the ground water.
Water in Wells SE.1A and SE.1B, which are located' adjacent to the tailings impoundment, show elevated levels of sodium, sulfate and chloride.
Due to this, specific conductance is elevated.. There are also relatively high nitrate levels-in both of these wells. ~ A similar situation exists,for water in Wells SW.1A and SW-1B; however. nitrate levels are not elevated in these wells.
Weil SW.1A shows the greatest depression in pH (4.78) as well as an ekvated level of aluminum 37 mg/1. The existing degree of water quality degradation is-difficult to assess because sufficient laboratory data for
- these wells is not included in the licensee's submittal.
Similarly, background water quality for the site has been developed from "57 wells from the Jackson Group in Karnes County." This background water quality
. may not necessarily be representative of water quality in the immediate vicinity of the-tailings impoundment. The overall water quality for the site does suggest' that tailings pond seepage is present in the areas of the SE'and SW wells discussed above.
Irrespective of the existing water quality, the staff is concerned about potential long term seepage, into the aquifer, based upon the reclamation plan concept.
In Section 5 of the reclamation plan an estimate of the amount of seepage, from' the reclaimed impoundment into the aquifer, is given to be less than 5 gpm. The staff concurs that this estimate is
. based upon conservative factors (average pool depth of 0.23 feet and maintaining saturation in the tailings) and therefore probably represents the upper' limit of potential seepage. This seepage rate would equate to roughly 2.5 million gallons of water per year.
It-is-a connon. reclamation practice to prevent recharge of the tailings by gnding in such a manner to prevent ponding and providing a cover with
' sufficient integrity that perculation into the cover would not reach the tailings.
Allowing the reclaimed. tailings surface to pond water -
potentially represents a long-tenn ground water monitoring and remedial action program commitment. Additionally..the future identification of a
. contaminated ground water plume as well as the verification of significant increases in ground water constituents, above background, would prompt additional action under 40 CFR 192.
.The. staff review of the depressed pH in the area of Well SW-1A indicates
'that a sign 1ficant departure has taken place from the background pH, as described in this report. To'this extent it would be incompatible as
'well as1 nconsistent, with previously regulatory actions, to allow the i
ground water to receive 5 gpm of "long-term seepage", without
- 85/09/23 1
]
'URP WM-176/GRK/85/09/13/0 4
i consideration of corrective action.
Such a situation would require a D
proposed mitigative action program which would have as its focal point dewatering and limiting, to the maximum extent practicable, recharge to the tailings. The licensee's submittal indicates that, over a 200 year period, seepage from the reclaimed tailings i:.;;wndment would move approximately 1600 feet from the edge of the impoundment. This estimate is bcsed upon ground water movement in one of the least W meable formations known to exist under the tailings impoundment. The staff is concerned that a more permeable formation could be encountered, such as the Dubose Sand or the Stoneswitch Sandstone, and seepage.could extent much further.
Similarly, the performance standard for a reclamation plan should.be compared to the 1000 year time period, in which case, seepage would move further than 1600 feet.
The long-term impact on the aquifer would be a ground water contamination plume which ~would be much more difficult to successfully mitigate in the future.
Based upon water quality, in known areas of seepage, it appears that the local use of this aquifer would be significantly diminished by i
L the presence of dissolved solids, nitrates and potentially some heavy metals.
-Given this' philosophy the staff has determined that the proposed method of L tailings impoundment reclamation without further evaluation of ground water impact poses an! unacceptable long-term environmental risk. The staff would also note that the previous submittal entitled." Selected
-Reclamation Plan' Concept for the Conquista Site, dated July 23, 1984,"
presented two " controlled' discharge" reclamation techniques.
Although
- both of these reclamation options would require more earth work as well as routing a storm event over 'he reclaimed surface,'they pose much less potential threat to the ground water and therefore represent a more acceptable reclamation concept.
L It has been a: staff observation that additional earth work represents a one-time expense of known magnitude (approximately-$0.85 per ton).
L However,La' ground-water remedial. action program not only has a large cost j
L associated with installation, but also has additional costs associated L
with observation and maintenance. At an NRC licensed uranium recovery facility a seepage recovary system was recently installed.
It recovert i
I from 12:to 15 gpm and consists of five shallow wells plumbed to a common E
point. This is probably very similar to a seepage recovery system that
- would successfully mitigate leakage into the aquifer at the Conquista E
site.
Costs associated with this system were:
l :'
p:............:............:............:............:............:............:...........
l:
e:............:............:............:............:............:............:...........
p85/09/23 i
1
..z
[
I LURP_WW176/GRK/85/09/13/0 5
_ Consultants hydrologic study
$32,000.00 Well drilling and completion
$17,000.00
, Casing, pumps, pipe, excavation and other materials
$19,000.00 Maintenance and operation
$ 2,000.00/ month
'Over a ten year period the cost of this system is expected to exceed
$300,000.00 at which time;the pumps will probably need replacing.
Considering an earthmoving cost of $0.85/ cubic yard, 360,000 cubic yards
-of material could be worked.
In light of the excavation and fill volumes discussed in Table 4 of the licensee's submittal' dated July 23, 1984, the controlled discharge.
perimeter swale appears to be an economical option from a construction cost.u This comparison neglects-the long-term "need for seepage control" and considers only ten years'of operation, therefore the maintenance and operation; costs would represent reoccurring costs.
Furthermore, the installation of an active pumping system would increase both the size and duration of.the pool in the impoundment and theoretically increase _ the-rate and amount of seepage.
Based upon thic cost benefit analysis, the staff would therefore ' conclude that' a reclamation plan concept which isolates the reclaimed. tailings from the ground water should be considered the preferred option for this site.
Long. Term' Care Requirements It appears thatlthe licensee has made arrcngements to acquire the appropriate land for_ site termination.
On the basis of this land and the
- approved reclamation plan, a site boundary should be established. The
- boundary, should at the very minimum, include the reclaimed tailings impoundment and a buffer zone around the outslopes of the impoundment.
A comitment should then be made to deed the land over to the Department of
" Energy or the State of Texas at the= States' option as specified in Criterion 11.of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40.
The long. term c.are program as proposed for the site discusses the type of maintenance that will'potentially be required.
Included within this discussion is grazing use of the reclaimed tailings site and hay
-production to offset the cost of maintenance.
Such activities on the
- sloping portions of the tailings impoundment would jeopardize the vegetative cover and potentially cause erosion of the radon barrier.
Furthennore, it should be fenced, posted, and maintained in such a way to
- ............:6...........:............:......,.....:............:............:...........
l I
- 85/09/23-i
,7 7h-URP WM-176/GRK/85/09/13/0 6-ensure that there is no active use of the site.
The justification for a Perpetual Care Fund of $250,000.00, in 1978 dollars, comes from an estimate of the~ potential long-term maintenance costs. These dollar amounts are not designed _to be supplemented by ranching of the site.
-i Radon Attenuation It appears from the discussion in the subject document that actual field measurements of radon. activities have not been performed by the licensee.-
-The current radon attenuation calculations are based upon an activity of 90 pCi/ gram. This is low compared to activities of sites licensed by the NRC.
Similarly, the-32 percent moisture content is rather high (our.
-letter dated January 11, 1985 discusses this in further detail).
Both of
.these parameters significantly effect the amount of cover required to attenuate radon exhalation rates to 20 pCi/m2 Although it appears that the-proposed five foot cover should be adequate to attentuate radon, using what appears to be a more realistic activity and moisture content, the licensee should be= required to make the appropriate field measurements calculate the radon emanation rates, and verify the ultimate
-result.
Conclusion From the information contained in the June 3, 1985 submittal, it appears that-the millisite area was decontaminated and reclaimed in a manner consistent with.NRC regulatory requirements.. A similar situation exists 1
for acquiring _ land and transferring title to the appropriate government.
3 However, many of our previous _ concerns, documented by letter dated January 11, 1985, remain unresolved.
Basically these concerns involve the_ continual recharge of the reclaimed tailings and associated leakage-
~into-.the ground water. - If for economical reasons the containment surface
> reclamation option has-been chosen, the staff feels-that installation and i
. operational costs associated with a mitigative actions system, which
. ould be_ required, would be prohibitively expensive. Additionally, the w
m l
l; e
?
L
~:
L:
l ::85/09/23 -
l~
i:
p l
.a2 4
URP-WM-176/GRK/85/09/13/0
.i.
radon. attenuation calculation performed by the licensee's consultant remains unverified by actual field measurements.
These issues must be
. resolved prior to NRC concurrence in the final reclamation plan.
JE Gary R. Konwinski, Project Manager Licensing Branch 2 Uranium Recovery Field Office, RIV Approved by:
Harry J. Pettengill, Chief Licensing Branch 2 Uranium Recovery Field Office, RIV Case Closed:
040WM176110E l
(
i IFO UlF Konwinski : HPefbr: gill :
22....:...
a a
.:............:......./...:............:............:............:............:...........
C[;d7
- 85/09/23
,g y
.9 a%
of N
yjll'idIlpdipl!II!
890l$e%ar q!
.e le
.h }I,an i.!
c E
a
~
w
}j 11111lin
!j!{"'lj"lp.n{p o
es 1
I.3 dl!j!iqVgillijlbiddid!II' l
g e
!i iiiayuip'i,;$l7jj I"4 hIf $;1h!! !lki
!!!!I!<!!!Ilill!I!!!!lIn! d o g, n, l i s
f; 11
- m.
I! il
! 9 nM; i
9,lo;;._.ig.ieas..e 5s e
t 4
i Sen A(knlo er ville Y
ei Falls City URulum L#
RYM1000 CTS Mi DUMP
+
sarasenses seamic 1,see mernic foNS DUMPED
... new wea oesh year level nuclear waste.
Conquiste then came umler fire from several local leseerit including Kames County J.ulge Pick Pearce and state Rep. Robert Earley,
- 1f this area gets to be kness as a dumpsite, no Inunness **9 over want to relocate here,"
Pipoly has agreed to Earley's re.
quest for on ste inspecuan of trucks making hauls to the dumpete, Earley mise attacked Pipoly's idea of a two member entisens watch committee, esegned to esmmuni.
este uw arm s proyees le un local,
f98tder,tk
)
'i 4-
i 3
L gg~t 9
~
Texas Department of Hea t, Robert Bernstein, M.D., IAC.P.
1100 West 49th Street M*'eni or the so.ed Commiss.oner Austin, Texas 78756 3199 gg y o3.
Robert A. Maclean, M D.
($12) 456 7111 Anso,%ne,. Mo., wce.cs.nm n La Deputy Commessaone, sob o chee, o.c., s=reury Hermas L Mdler chnrue M i.A C.N H A.
Deputy Commesuoner f rank Dgaat. fr M D f.A. A i P.
so.wn c. co.,eo. s, no.
Marugement and Adm.ntstraoon
- go y,m 005 g
l' December 22, 1986 0a " Mc'a'ah DN M i
por N tyse,9.t.
Stuart N. Henry, Esq.
MYu"o uc STUART N. EENRY & ASSOCIATES tiedore Roosth 2103 tio Grande 8treet
- '6*'* I 5' " "
- T.
Auetin. Tease 78705 Maa M 5ecetner. D O.
sm u.a.n urohm,ye,t.s y,t.w; u rn.
Isword H. Zunker. 0.0.
Deer Mr. Neury:
J Your complaint filed by letter dated October 27, 1986, has been l
investigated as required by Section 12C(c), Article 4590f, V.T.C.S.
(Supp.
1986).
The results of the Agency investigation are aussarised below, with the answere keyed to the nebered paragraphs of your letter.
~1.
Radioac tive Material License No. 9-1634, issued to Conoco. Inc.
for' the Conquista Project, was due to espire Se'ptember 30, 1980.
Under rules in effect at that time, application for renewal vae required at least 30 days prior to the expirat!on date. Conoco applied for license renewal August 27, 1980, with a statement.'
included that an environnental report would be furnished shortly.
The environmental report was received September 16, 1980, along with an amended application form.
The Agency advised conoco of the timely renewal statue of the. license by letter dated September 19, 1980. Your complaint that Conoco operated withcut a license issued or properly renewed is deemed erroneous.
2.
' Amendment of licenses which are under timely renewal is neither illegal nor -improper procedurally. Such amendments a;;e not only proper, but necessary to insure that authorised procedures are recorded in the license under renewal consideration.
I 3.
The amendments to License Number 9-1634, issued between timely I
renewal application and the most recent amendment were a ' duly
- and legally announced in notices required by the Act and rules in effect at the time of amendment.
A list of these amendmente, their dates, and notices follows:
a.
Amendment 18 was granted october 3, 1980.
No requirement to notice seendment actions in the Texas i
Register was in the Act until Article 4590f was amended in 1981.
3 e
me
~
s Stuart N. Henry, Esq.
Page 2 b.
Amendment 19 was granted January 29, 1982, and was noticed in 7 TEI REC $34, dated February 5, 1982.
Amendment 20 was granted May 26, 1982, and was noticed c.
in 7 TEK RIG 2127-28, dated June 1, 1982.
d.
4 Amendment 21 was granted July 2, 1982, and was noticed in 7 TER REC 2611-1?, dated July 9, 1982.
a fg fm e.
Amendment 22 was granted October 5, 1982, and vae'e
@};,
W 1 y
noticed in 7 TEX RZG 3675-76, dated October 12, 1982.
'M f.
g *4 $
Amendment 23 was granted October 5,1982, and was also noticed in 7 ttX REC 3675-76, dated October 12, 1982.
V g.
Amendment 24 was granted on October 5,1982, and was also noticed in 7 Ygx Etc 3675-76, dated October 12, 1982.
- h..
Amendment 25 was granted February 4, 1983 'and was noticed in 8 TEX REC 1094, dated April 1,1983.
1.
Amendment 26 was granted July 22, 1983, and was noticed in 8 TEX REC 3166-67, dated Av4ust 12,1983.
j.
Amendment 27 was granted April 24, 1985, and ~was noticed in 10111 REG 1508-09, dated May 19,.1985.
k.
Amendment 28 was granted August 9, 1985, and was noticed in 10 TEX REC 3563-64, dated September 17, 1985.
No other amendments have been granted to date.
Yodr complaint alleging operations at the Conquista site without 4.
" maintaining proper records of wastes received" as required by the Act, the rules, and the terne of License No. 9-1634 is deemed erroneous.
There is no requirement that such records be submitted to the Agency's central office. What is required is that each licensee keep the required records available for inspection by Agency personnel.
These record-keeping-requiremente have been set. The Agency has obtained copies of' the recorde deemed appropriate, and these are available for your inspection and choice of copying during normal businese hours.
This collection has resulted from the investigation of your complaint, but is not moraally required.
1 l
r.
Stuart M. Benry, teq.
Page 3 5.
The financial security which has been offered and accepted as adequate is subject to periodic review moder Agency rules. Your complaint of inadequacy may be a matter of opinion.
The Act authorises the Agoscy to require that each licensee to provide financial security " acceptable to the Agency to assure performance of its obligations under this Act."
If the perledic review shows that more, or less, security is seeded, adjustments are made by the Agency. What is currently posted is currently p acceptable to the Agency.
- t' 6.
No evidence gathered during the investigation of year complaia$
, j; supporte your allegation that the Conquista site has received radioactive and noe-radioactive materials which are impermissible under the Act or the terus of the license. gamples taken at the points of origin ed at the receiving site indicate that the by-prodest material oest ame received has been properly recorded, properly transported, and disposed of properly. The sampling has been done on both announced and maanaemaced occasions, and at randomly selosted hours. The samples taken have been handled with proper chain-of-castody care, and have been scientifically tested by the Department's Boream of Laboratories for their chemical and radiological composition. They have all been found to be by-prodset asterial, as defined in the Act, gection 3(aX2), aos as licensed for receipt at the Conquista site.
Yo's can be assured that the Rhome-Poulenc material was sampled at the point of origin in Freeport Teaas; was sempted fram the trucks carrying the material to the Conquista sitet and that the tailings pond t.t the site was sampled af ter the those-Poulene material was deposited therein. The material scientifically tested was in fact representative of all that the Conquista site had received from those-Pouleac.
7.
The Agency's investigation does not support your allegation that Rhone-Poulene has violated Article 4590f. The material it sends to the Conquista pond is by product material as defined in the Act, and its receipt thereat is authorised by Radioactive Materiale License so 9-1634, as amended.
I en happy to report that the investigation you requested has besa' done promptly. I an also happy to report that no violation of the Act, the rules, or the license has been committed. The inspection records are i
- voluminous and weighty.
They are available for public inspection during I
i m.
~
. '.cb t
j Stuart H. Henry, Esq.
Page 4 I
\\
normal working hours, and may be copied at 1
Control upon selection and payment for the service.the Agency's Bureau of Radiation I
1 trust this letter answere your complaint.
I also wish to assure you that the Department's concerne parallel your interest in sa feguarding the public health and the protection of the environment.
i Sincerely.
..e W,
he ainset
/toamissioner of Health
[
8
.~. :
~
~~
s h
y e
4
-