ML20203D239
| ML20203D239 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/02/1999 |
| From: | Stablein N NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Rael G ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-62 NUDOCS 9902160097 | |
| Download: ML20203D239 (12) | |
Text
,. _ -
f k
I UNITED STATES j
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 g
s * *v /
February 2,1999 Mr. Gecrge Rael, Director U.S. Department of Energy
{
Albuquerque Operations Office ERD /UMTRA i
P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400
SUBJECT:
ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETION REPORT FOR RIFLE, COLORADO, VICINITY PROPERTY RF-493
Dear Mr. Rael:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff previou:.!y reviewed the Vicinity Property Completion Report (VP CR) for property RF-493 in Rifle, Colorado, which was submitted by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) letter dated October 28,1996. This property is a large open area north of Highway 6 and 24, east of Ash Avenue, and across the highway from the Old Rifle Processing site. Concurrence by NRC on this VP CR is recuired because spocal circumstances resulted in supplemental standards being invoked during remeoial action.
The previous NRC staff review resulted in seven substantive comments (plus two editorial comments), which were forwarded to DOE by NRC letter dated May 27,1997. Four of the j
seven comments concerned the use of supplemental standards to leave windblown tailings in place on some of the steep bluffs on the property (estimated area of remaining contamination is about 3000 square yards). DOE provided responses to the comments and a revised VP CR, submitted by letter dated June 2,1998. This revised VP CR was reviewed by the NRC staff, and one issue requiring clarification was discussed with DOE by telephone and e-mail. In i
response to these additional discussions on the one issue, the DOE provided page changes for the revised VP CR, under cover letter dated December 2,1998. The staff has also reviewed these page changes.
NRC staff review and resolution of the seven issues previously raised, including those four related to the use of supplemental standards, is documented in detail in the enclosed staff review report (Enclosure 1). In summary, NRC staff riow concurs with the DOE position that the use of supplemental standards for the material left in place is acceptable, because there would be a significant risk of injury to workers should complete remediation be attempted, and because the cost of such complete remediation is unreasonably high, relative to the potential benefits of removing the material. In the NRC staff's initial review, staff concluded that for the areas that were remediated, appropriate verification methods were used and the verified areas meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for land cleanup.
1 l
9902160097 990202 ?
}
160010
_ (p }
wm NBC FitE CENTER CM
-. =. - - -. -. -.
I G. Rael ' ~
Thus, the staff concludes that information provided by the DOE in the VP CR provides reasonable assurance that supplemental standards for soil cleanup have been properly applied at Vicinity Property RF-493. The staff concurs that the use of supplemental standards and the remediation of this vicinity property were completed in acccrdance with the EPA standards.
The signed NRC Review Form for Supplemental Cenification of Vicinity Properties, showing NRC concurrence,is Enclosure 2.
t if you have any questions concerning this letter or the enclosures, please contact Duane Schmidt of my staff, at (301) 415-6919.
Sincerely, 21 he~
N. K Stablein, Acting Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management l
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated l
cc: L. Woodworth, DOE Alb l
F. Bosiljevac, DOE Alb l
E. Artiglia, TAC Alb t
l l
l 1
1 4
6 1
y G. Rael February 2,1999 Thus, the staff concludes that information provided by the DOE in the VP CR provides reasonable assurance that supplemental standards for soil cleanup have been properly applied at Vicinity Property RF-493. The staff concurs that the use of supplemental standards and the remediation of this vicinity property were completed in accordance with the EPA standards.
The signed NRC Review Form for Supplemental Certification of Vicinity Properties, showing NRC concurrence,is Enclosure 2.
If you have any questions concerning this letter or the enclosures, please contact Duane Schmidt of my staff, at (301) 415-6919.
Sincerely,
[Signedby]
N. King Stablein, Acting Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i
Enclosures:
As stated cc: L. Woodworth, DOE Alb F. Bosiljevac, DOE Alb E. Artiglia, TAC Alb DISTRIBUTION:
~ FILE CENTER PUBLIC.
NMSS r/f URB r/f ACNW w/o Encl.:
MLayton JHolonich DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\DWS\\RF493cov.wpd
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE._
OFC URB
- URB URB
,[
NAME DSchmidt CAbram NKStablein lDATE 01/20/99 02/02499 02/c2 /99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
erKm O
4 b
o e
4 1
ENCLOSURE 1 1
i t
0 1
\\
l' U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF REVIEW OF REVISED COMPLETION REPORT FOR RlFLE VICINITY PROPERTY RF-493 l
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff previously reviewed the 1996 version of l
the Vicinity Property Completion Report (VP CR) for the Rifle, Colorado, vicinity property (VP)
RF-493 (MK-F,1996), and provided comments on seven issues to the Department of Energy l
(DOE) (NRC,1997). These issues were addressed by the DOE and its contractor, by providing l
responses to the NRC staff comments (DOE,1998a) and by revising the VP CR (MK-F,1998).
l As an additional response to one open issue, the DOE provided page changes to the revised l
VP CR (DOE,1998b). For this review, the NRC staff uses the term " revised VP CR" to mean l
the revised VP CR with the later page changes (DOE,1998b) incorporated. The NRC staff has now also reviewed the revised VP CR.
l The VP CR describes the remedial actions (radiologica! cleanup) and verification activities performed at the Rifle VP RF-493S. This VP is across Highway 6 and 24 from the Old Rifle processing site, and thus was contaminated primarily by windblown materials from the l
processing site. In addition to the windblown contaminated areas, this VP also included: (1) a l
trash dump area (Allen,1985), which may be in the area called A-1 in the drawings of the VP CR (MK-F,1996); (2) two dry ponds, with surrounding berms, on the eastern part of the site; and (3) steep bluffs along the southern and western boundaries of the site. Supplements:
i standards have been proposed for some areas of contamination on the bluffs, although this i
application of supp!emental standards was apparently not discussed in the Radiological and Engineering Assessment (REA).
Because of its proximity to the processing site, staff also reviewed the report of the characterization of the prccessing t,;tes, performed by Bendix (Allen,1985), and the radiological characterization information of Appendix D of the processing sites Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
(DOE,1992).
l This present review is concerned only with the resolution of the seven issues identified in the NRC staff's previous review. The following discussion presents, for each issue, a summary of the NRC staff's previous comments, discussion of the DOE revisions and responses to commente, and the NRC staff conclusion.
COMMENT 1: APPLICABILITY OF THE THREE CRITERIA FOR SUPPLEMENTAL STAi!OAMDS Summary of Prsvious NRC Comments Appendix B of the VP CR had indicated that three criteria for application of supplemental standards, criteria (a), (b), and (c) of 40 CFR 192.21, were applicable to the bluff areas on the VP. However, justification for the applicability of criterion (b) was not provided in the VP CR.
Also, the applicability of criteria (a) and (c) was not sufficiently justified.
l Discussion In its responses to comments, DOE indicated that criterion (b) was removed for consideration for the application of supplemental standards.
j In the revised VP CR, DOE provided additional discussion and clarification to support the j
justification for the applicability of criteria (a) and (c). Criteria (a) and (c) of 40 CFR 192.21 state:
i l
1
NRC Review of Revised VP CR for RF-493 2
January 1999 (a) Remedial actions required to satisfy Subparts A or B would pose a clear and present l
risk of injury to workers or to members of the public, notwithstanding reasonable measures to avoid or reduce risk.
(c) The estimated cost of remedial action tc satisfy @ 192.12(a) at a " vicinity" site (described under Sec.101(6)(B) of the Act) 6 unreasonably high relative to long-terr :
benefits, and the residual radioactive materials do not pose a clem present or future hazard. The likelihood that buildings will be erected or that people wii spend long periods of time at such a vicinity site should be con.cWed in evaluatirig this hazard....
Regarding the applicability of criterion (a), section B.4.2.3 of Appendix B to the revind VP CR describes the safety concerns with potent;al cleanup work on the bluff and steep sir w. Trus section indicates that, from an engineering standpoint, the slope of the bluff had been characterized as unstable. Exhibit B to Appendix B is a trip report that provides additional details on this characterization. Section B.4 2.3 also indicates that there would be a significant safety risk associated with extensive remdiation of the slopes, as would be required to remove all the contaminated materials. The risk cf injury to workers and the general public using the highway below the bluff (due to falling rock and soil) would be of major concem.
Regarding the apf. cability of criterion (c), hypothetical doses to individuals were previously calculated, with the result of potential dose from gamma radiation of 100 mrem / year for an individua* spending about 3300 hours0.0382 days <br />0.917 hours <br />0.00546 weeks <br />0.00126 months <br /> per year in the contaminated area (the bluff). The DOE concluaeu, in section B.5 of Appendix B to the revised VP CR, that it is highly unlikely for an i
individual to be exposed for the amount of time necessary to exceed an annual dose of 100 mrem, due to both the length of time required and the physicallocation of the contaminated 4
area.
j The remediation cost estimates were revised in sections B.4 and B.5 of A ppendix B of the revised VP CR. From the difference in costs of Alternatives 1 and 2, give 1 in section B.5, the cost of cleaning up the supplemental standards areas appears to be abeat $590,000.
NRC Staff Conclusion The NRC staff agrees that there is a risk of injury to workers and others that cannot b eliminated with the use of reasonable mitigative meacc:.. ine NFC s'.aff also agrees that the inaccessibility of the remaintng contam' nation a tne bluff makes it very unlikely that any person
]
would receive a significant radiation dose if the material is left in place. The estimated cost for l
cleaning up the reinaining contamination is very high, and the NRC daH gees that the cost J
and the existence of significcot risks to workers outweigh the poten'.tal benefits of removing the material. Thus, the NRC staff concurs that sufficient justificatW, ht s been provided to support the applicability of criteria (a) and (c), so the use of supplementai standards is acceptable.
COMMENT 2: MEETING THE SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD Summary of Pravious NRC Comments If cupplemental standards are applied based on criterion (a', (b), or (c) of 40 CFR 192.21, the j
cleanup is required, by 40 CFR 192.22(a) to "... come as cicse to meeting the otherwise applicable standard as is reasonable under the circumstances." It was not clearly demonstrated in the VP CR that this has been done for the supplememal standards areas along the bluffs. In i
particular, it appeared from drawings that Area F was well above the top ci the bluffs, so it was i
not clear why a supplemental standard was required. Also, in Area I, the most contaminated
m_-.m_.
L-NRC Rsview of Rsvised VP CR for RF-493
' 3 January 1999 l
materials were removed by hand excavation; it was not clear why this approach could not be used for the other supplemental standards areas.
Discussion l
The DOE provided additional discussion and clarification on this issue in its responses to comments and in the revised VP CR. Regarding Area F, Section B.4.2.3 of Appendix B of the revised VP CR Indicates that after remedial action on the VP began, a gravel pit was opened in the area to the west / southwest of Area F. Subsequently, Area F became sloped ground butting up to a steep cut from the gravel mining operation. As a result, safety considerations similar to those for the other supplemental standards areas would apply.
Regarding the hand excavation of Area I, Section B.4.2.3 of the revised VP CR indicates that 18 " hot spots" were removed from Area i by hand. Section B.2 indicates that during this excavation, personnel were tied off with lanyards for safety purposes. However, this type of excavation was determined not to be practical and not to be cost effective for the entire hillside.
NRC Staff Conclusion Regarding Area F, the NRC staff concludes that the revised discussion indicates that the safety considerations for excavation within Area F would be similar to those for the other supplemental standards areas. Regarding hand excavation, the NRC staff concludes that, based on the revised VP CR, it appears that hand excavation was not a reasonable method to come closer to meeting the otherwise applicable standards. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the cleanup around the supplemental standards areas came as close to meeting the otherwise applicable standards as was reasonable under the existing conditions, and thus have met the requirement for a supplemental standard.
COMMENT 3: POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION IN TWO DRY PONDS AND TWO AREAS ALONG BLUFFS Summary of Previous NRC Comments Based on the VP CR, there were a few areas on the site for which the possible extent of contamination had been thoroughly described. These aroas included two dry ponds, on the eastern side of the site, and two areas along the bluffs en the west and southwest sides of the site.
Discussion in its responses to comments, the DOE provided addit'onal information to clanfy this issue. The responses to comments indicates that the bottom of tt e dry ponds were sampled during the initial site characterization and were found to have no contamination. All characterization data was included in the REA. One of the other two areas was actually on an adjacent vicinity property, RF-472. For the second of these other areas, portions were remediated and areas not remediated were either verified to be uncontaminated (during excavation or final site verification) or were part of the bluff / slope areas (for which supplemental standards were used).
NRC Staff COWusion The NRC staff con: des that adequate information has been provided for the areas in question, and that appgriate remediation was completed for these areas.
i r
w g
NRC R:vinw of Rsvis:d VP CR for RF-493 4
January 1999 COMMENT 4: ELEVATED THORIUM-230 AND URANIUM IN TRASH DUMP AREA Summary of Previous NRC Comments Based on the characterization of the Old Rifle site performed by Bendix (Allen,1985), a soil sample in the trash dump area of this VP contained elevated concentrations of Th-230 (211 pCi/g) and total U (662 pCi/g), relative to the Ra-226 concentration (32 pCi/g) in the same sample. There was no indication in the VP CR that Th-230 and U contamination were investigated in this area during remedial action. If significant contamination of Th-230 and U existed, the supplemental standards provisions of 40 CFR 192 should have been applied.
Discussion in its additional response to comments and page changes (DOE,1998b) DOE provided information about additional characterization that was recently performed. Section 1.0 of the revised VP CR indicates that Th-230 characterization was performed after remedial action in the vicinity of the previously elevated Th-230 and U concentrations in the trash dump area.
Results are given in Table 3.2 of the revised VP CR. Samples were collected from eight verification grids, and appear to have been taken at the depths of the surface of the excavated soil (i.e., below the backfill that had already been added). The measured Th-230 concentrations in these grids were 0.6-2.6 pCi/g.
NRC Staff Conclusion The NRC staff concludes that auquate additional characterization of the area of previously elevated Th-230 and U concentrntions has been performed. Results of the Th-230 measurements were similar to the Ra-226 concentrations that were measured for the verification samples, and were close to background concentrations. The staff thus concludes that this additionalinformation provides reasonable assurance that the area of previously elevated concentrations was adequately remediated.
COMMENT 5: POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION REMAINING UNDER TREE ROOT SYSTEMS Summary of Previous NRC Comments Based on information in the VP CR, the staff was concerned that the extent of contamination remaining under root systems of trees had not been adequately described. In particular, Note 12 of the "as-built" drawing o' excavation and restoration, drawing RF-493-020 in the VP CR, indicated that excavation around large trees was to be done in a manner that would preserve the root systems. This seemed to indicate that some contamination may have been left under and within the root systems of trees.
l Discussion in its responses to comments, DOE indicated that Note 12 was generic for properties with trees, to provide remediation direction if contamination exceeds suspected boundaries (DOE, 1998a). The DOE also stated that any contamination located around trees was properly removed.
NRC Staff Conclusion j
The NRC staff concludes that adequate additional information has been provided, and that
)
contamination around trees was appropriately remediated.
4 l
L l
NRC Revi:w of R::vis:d VP CR for RF-493 5
January 1999 I
COMMENT 6: EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION REMAINING IN AREA I Su'mmary of Previous NRC Comments The extent of contamination remaining in supplemental standards Area i had not been clearly l
described in the VP CR.
l Discussion The DOE provided additional information in the revised VP CR. Area 1 is now shown in the drawing showing the extent of the supplemental standards areas, drawing RF-493-034 in the revised VP CR. The text of the Revised VP CR was also modified to include more discussion about Area 1.
NRC Staff Conclusion l
The NRC staff concludes that adequate additionalinformation has been provided in the revised VP CR, so that the extent of contamination remaining in Area I (and the other supplemental I
standards areas) is clearly described.
COMMENT 7: QA ANALYSES FOR RADIUM-226 Summary of Previous NRC Comments l
Procedures used for verification sampling required that at least 4% of verification samples analyzed onsite were also to be sent to an offsite laboratory for analysis of Ra-226. Results of
)
these offsite analyses were not documented in the VP CR.
Discussion In the revised VP CR, Table 3.1 was modified to include results from the offsite Ra-226 quality assurance analyses.
NRC Staff Conclusion The NRC staff concludes that adequate additional information on the offsite quality assurance measurements of Ra-226 has been provided in the revised VP CR.
l REFERENCES l
Alien J.W.1985. Radiologic Characterization of the Rifle, Colorado, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedia/ Action Sites. Rep. GJ-29, Bendix Field Engineering Corporation, Grand Junction, Colorado. Incorporated as Addendum D1 to: U.S. Department of Energy.1991. Remedial Action Plan and Site Design for Stabilization of the Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Sites at Rifle, Colorado, Final, Volume IV-Addenda D1 through D5 to Appendix D. August 1991.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy).1992. Remedial Action Plan and Site Design for Stabilization of the Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Sites at Rifle, Colorado, Final, Volume II-Appendices D and E. February 1992.
l DOE (U.S. Department of Energy).1998a. Letter, with enclosed responses to comments, from L.A. Woodworth to J.J. Holonich, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated June 2,1998. DOE, Environmental Restoration Division, Uranium Mill l
Tailings Remedial Action Team, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
l DOE (U.S. Department of Energy).1998b. Vicinity Property No. RF-493S, Highway 6 & 24
- (East of Ash Avenue), Rifle, CO. Letter, with enclosed page changes for vicinity property 4
l
NRC Revisw of Rsvissd VP CR for RF-493 6
January 1999 completion report, from L.A. Woodworth to J.J. Holonich, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
' Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated December 2,1998. DOE, Environmental Restoration Division, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Team, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
MK-F (MK-Ferguson Company and Rust Federal Services, Inc.).1996. Vicinity Property Completion Report at RF-493S, North of Highway 6 & 24, East of Ash Avenue, Rifle, Colorado. September 12,1996.
i MK-F (MK-Ferguson Company and Waste Management Federal Services, Inc.).1998. Vicinity Property Completion Report at RF-493S, North of Highway 6 & 24, East of Ash Avenue, Rifle, Colorado. Revised report, March 25,1998.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission).1997. Vicinity Property Completion Report for the i
Rifle, Colorado, Vicinity Property Number RF-493. Letter from J.J. Holonich to G. Rael, ERD /UMTRA, Albuquerque Operation Office, U.S. Department of Energy, dated May 27, t
1997. NRC, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Division of Waste Management, Uranium Recovery Branch, Washington, DC.
l 1
l I
i 4
i
e f
m 0
4 b
i.
1 5
1 I
E 1
i ENCLOSURE 2 s
4 l
9 i
t i
3 I
4 a
l 1
i n
7 2
4 J
t l
l t
1 4
1 k;
.a 1
1
VP No.: RF-493 NRC Review Form for Supplemental Certification of Vicinity Properties The Department of Energy (DOE) has determined that the remedial action at the following vicinity property (VP) has been completed and thereby complies with supplemental standards invoked by DOE under 40 CFR, Subpart C, specifically Subsections 192.21 and 192.22.
[]
NRC concurrence for the Radiological Engineering Assessment (REA) given on:
[X ]
Supplemental standards were not in the REA, special circu*nstances required that sup
.n I standar s be involved during remedial action.
wy0
/d
[g M
Steven C. Hamp, DOE Certification Officer Date
==============================
Based on the information and certification provided by the DOE, the NRC:
[]
concurs that the remedial action at the subject VP has been completed under its authority provided by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA),
Section 104(f)(1) and as described in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),
Appendix A, Section 3.4.
[]
concurs, as above, except for the following conditions:
1.
2.
3.
[] See attached sheets for any additional provisions.
[]
needs additionalinformation to make a concurrence decision. This information consists of:
[ ] See attached sheets for any additional informational needs.
b&,hYbb z/Ehf NRQ' Concurring Official andTitle [f YR0' Da'te
,