ML20217E933
| ML20217E933 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/24/1998 |
| From: | Joseph Holonich NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Tucker M ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-54 NUDOCS 9803310219 | |
| Download: ML20217E933 (3) | |
Text
1 i
p arg g\\
UNITED STATES p"
[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565-0001 o
Y 4 *,,,,,o March 24, 1998 Mr. Michael K. Tucker U.S. Department of Energy Grand Junction Office 2597 B 3/4 Road Grand Junction, CO 81503
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS APPLICATION FOR VICINITY PROPERTY GJ-44607-CC, WEST AVE.
Dear Mr. Tucker:
By letter dated November 14,1997, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requested U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval of the Radiologic and Engineering Assessment (REA) for Vicinity Property GJ-44607-CS at 391 West Avenue in Grand Junction, Colorado. The REA proposes utilization of supplemental standards for residual radioactive material (RRM) which extends beneath an earthen flood control dike and river bank on a vacant lot adjacent to the Colorado River. The City of Grand Junction anticipates that this area will be included as part of the Grand Junction Riverfront Trail System in the future.
The deposit consists of an estimated 1,212 cubic yards (cys) of RRM,30 to 66 inches in depth, with a maximum measured Ra-226 value of 40 pCi/g. Other RRM deposits on the property were cleaned up in 1989. DOE has recommended that the deposit located undemeath the dike not be remediated, as allowed under supplemental standards, based on criterion 40 CFR 192.21 (c), the estimated cost of remedial action... is unreasonably high relative to the long-term benefits, and the residual radioactive materials do not pose a clear present or future hazard." The NRC staff considers this basis to be appropriate because the contaminate.J material is likely to remain inaccessible, even if the property is used for recreational use.
DOE evaluated three remedial action attematives (no remediation, complete remediation, and partial remediation) and the associated health risks, and determined that no significant health risks would occur from the application of a supplement standard of "no remediation." Partial remediation (removal along the river bank) was considered and rejected by DOE because no significant health benefit would result, and the time required to obtain a permit to excavate in wetlands and re-establish the vegetation would be protracted. Therefore, the NRC staff 43El 9803310219 980324 I
PDR WASTE
\\;'
vgg Q& W
- .Y
-d
=
J
.g.,..
o 4
M. Tucker-
. 2~
concurs with DOE's recommended alternative, application of supplemental standards for no remediation, because the cost of remediation is excessive in comparison to any likely health benefit that might result from remediation.-
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Ms.' Charlotte Abrams, of my.
staff, at (301) 415-5808.
Sincerely, qkcJ Y
Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
' cc: E. Artiglia, TAC Alb R. Edge, DOE GRJ (for Title I licensing letters) i 4
i n
':l n
l 4
M. Tucker 2
March 24, 1998 concurs with DOE's' recommended alternative, application of supplemental standards for no f~
remediation, because the cost of remediation is excessive in comparison to any likely health benefit that might result from remediation.
If you have any questions conceming this letter, please contact Ms. Charlotte Abrams, of my staff, at (301) 415-5808.
Sincerely,
[0riginal signed by]
Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards cc: E. Artiglia, TAC Alb R. Edge, DOE GRJ (for Title I licensing letters)
DISTRIBUTION m.: file Center NMSS r/f URB r/f RUBLIC CNWRA ACNW MFederline MLayton DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\CEA\\GRJWEST OFC URB URB h
URS\\,
NAME CAbb DGihen Jlhnich
/9k 03M98 DATE 03423/98 03/
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY u
ii6i
, i r
- i. i
___,j
'