ML20217F027
| ML20217F027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/26/1988 |
| From: | Rich Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Arthur W ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39, TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9707090396 | |
| Download: ML20217F027 (13) | |
Text
. - _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
a --
DISTRIBUTION
!DocketTFile No. 40-WM039 PDR/DCS DBangart, RIV 40-WM039/RSH/88/05/25/2 RHeyer LLO Branch, LLWM URF0 r/f MAY 2 61989 URFO:RSH-40-WM039 c m mos m oE W.-John Arthur, III, Project Manager Uranium Hill Tailings Project Office Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box.5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115
Dear Mr. Arthur:
. O,.
This is in response to your letter received on April 1, 1988, requesting NRC certification concurrence on the Vicinity Property Completion Report (VPCR) for the following property Location No.:
CA-07?S Address:
Conrail Right-of-Way North Strabane Township Canonsburg, Pennsylvania NRC provided concurrence on April 9, 1985, for the application of-4 supplemental standards at this property.
Based on the review of your VPCR and pursuant to EPA Regulations 40 CIR-192.12 and 192.20-23 as well as the Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and NRC (GM04-85 AL26037) we concur with the subject report and have completed the attached letter of concurrence.
Sincerely,
/s/
.h bb b
ran m o r e d Office Raijion IV
Enclosure:
as stated
) d' tw tMtA '. nwewmeMoso E OFC :
UR @ h URF0 URF0 e,[
gil,1 !,
,,,[,,,,,,,,,
DATE$88/05/25
$ pg4,[gp $
gg p $
m 9707090396 890526 PDR WASTE WPt-39 PDR
y3 a.
t i
Based on the NRC's evaluation, this property:
[d should be certified.
[ ] needs additional data to make the certification decision.
Additional Data Requ' ired:
l'
-K, 12.o.dm&
57fz/gg NRC Designated Official Date '
O DOE Response to Data Request:
DOE Project Of ficer/ Certification Official Date O
Based on NRC's evaluation of the additional data, the NRC:
[ ] Concurs in the certification of this property.
NRC Designated Official
.Date j
Q,-
DISTRIBUTION Docket File'No. 40-WM039 PDR/DCS DBangart, RIV
'40-WM039/RSH/88/05/25/2 J RHeyer LLO Branch, LLWM URF0 r/f MAY 2 61988
'URF0:RSH 4g-Og94 g c) e foi W. John Arthur, III, Project Manager Uranium Mill Tailings Project Office Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400
-Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115
Dear' Mr. Arthur:
This:is-in response to your letter received on April 1,1988, requesting NRC certification concurrence on the Vicinity Property Completion Report (VPCR) for the following property
~ Location No.:
CA-072S Address:
Conrail Right-of-Way North Strabane Township
'Canonsburg, Pennsylvania NRC provided concurrence on April 9,1985, for the application of supplemental' standards at this property.
Based on the review of your VPCR and pursuant to EPA Regulations 40 CFR 192.12 and 192.20-23 as well as the Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and NRC (GM04-85 AL26037) we concur with the subject' report and hava completed the attached letter of concurrence.
Sincerely, NBC RLE CEMTEfl COPY
/s/
bp R. Dale Smith, Director Uranium Recovery Field Office Fiegion IV
Enclosure:
as stated UR h h,, g 0
,,,,,,,,,,[,,,,,,,,,,,,[,,,,,,,,,,,,[,,,,,,,,,,,
0FC :
URF0 "A"".[R@!eg[m,,,,[h
[1,
mi,Q,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
DATE.~$88/05/25 gp $
]
s
@'i
" ' Albuquerque Operations Office 6'tyn-31 Department of Energy P.O. Box 5400 i
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115 29303;s 4
4 Location No:
CA-072S
$p e
Address: Conrail Right-of-Way NAh M 3
Along Common Boundaries for m
)
1 1*'\\[1'O~
p
~
Canonsburg Borough and North
{
3 *'j Strabane Township Running g
%ta gtstv8@8 9
through the Southeast Portion of Houston Borough
['Fs I
Mr. Harold Pettengil M
4 s
f' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission reo Uranium Recovery Field Office l1, Ik.]jgg p
i P.O. Box 25325 j.%i O,'%a" Denver, Colorado 80225 p
^
Dear Mr. Pettengil:
}
%r /ll*
c In accordance with Public Law 95-604, EPkefi?Itif{
A 0 CFR Part 192, and l
the Memorandum of Understanding between DOE imFMRC'(GM04-85AL26037), two copies of the Vicinity Property Completion Report for the above property are submitted for NRC certification concurrence. Please note that the NRC i
has previously concurred in the application of supplemental standards as presented within the Radiological Engineering Assessment.
(See enclosed letter of concurrence.) Also enclosed for review is a copy of the TAC /D0E Vicinity Property Certification Sumary cnd Decision.
Sincerely,
/
T' h)
?
W. John Arthur, III, Project Manager Uranium Mill Tailings Project Office cc:
James G. Yusko, DER, PA N'
-[]f]
RRR RLE E3?EB EPY
&g-cvso a
,e Q
VICINITY PROPERTY CERTIFICATION StMMARY AND DECISION Location No.:
C kD ~ 01 A Date: 3 IN The data presented in the certification folder indicate:
TAC DOE Evaluation Evaluation Yes No N/A Yes No N/A 1.
The Ra-226 concentration in M [] []
[] [] []
the top 15 cm of soil averages
<5 pC{/g above background over 100 m in-situ []
ab M.
2.
The Ra-226 concentration in any Q [] []
[] [] []
15 cm layer of soil below the top 15 cm surf ace layer averages
<15 pgi/g above background over 100 m in-situ []
lab M 3.
The indoor gamma readings are
[3 []td
[] [] []
(20 uR/hr above background in every habitcble room.
4.
The radon daughter concentration
[3 [3 [] [] [] l in any habitable room is (0.02 working level, or at most 0.03 WL. 5. Supplemental standards were M [] [] [] [] [3 applied 1,1 accordance with EPA standards 192.21. (detectors previously% Certification, [] Long-term RDC results TAC Recommendation: installed) [] Additional Measurements. [3 Close-Out. hak dY %dh % J W /s.ne s/z ofs;7 Radiological Services Manager /Date Vicinity Property Manager /Date DOE Decision: Certify, [] Additional Measurements, [3 Close-Out. mememmem f s -es r \\~GDx A
- r. Certification Qfficial/Date 9
/
CERTIFICATION REVIEW SUMARY Property ido.: C_4 O - Cr~1 4-Reviewed byOMGse Date: 9kNkd . he Address: C %df, Q dg Approved by: d/M //< Date: n hwdem, 6. M6ut.t Netsdr%.sh. Mark Miller W Manager, Radiological Services v' Jacobs-Weston Team Property Category: pa.e& ug y u The reconnendation for certification is based on a review of the Completion Report and other available data describing remedial actions and resulting radiological conditions at this property. Measurement methods and data are compared to the requirements provided in the Vicinity Properties Management and Isplementation Manual, and in 40 CFR 192. The following reconrnencations are made according to the intent of those requirements: 1.0 CERTIFICATION h This property complies with the EPA standards and is recommended for Certification. This property is recommended for Certification only after the conditions listed in 3.0, below, are met. Remedial actions were refused by the p*operty owner, and the property cannot be Certified. ~ 2.0 SLIPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS l l Supplemental Standards were not applied at this property. 'Y Supplemental Standards were applied as described in the Completion Report. [ The following agencies concurred in the application of Supplemental Standards at this property. , M G_so. tdRC GmAW 4 op 3.0 CONDITIONS Annual average RDC results are required. The following additional measurements are required: The following additional actions must be completed: 4 e a
1 VICINITY PROPERTY CERTIFICATION REVIEW FOR COWLIANCE WITH RADIOLOGICAL STANDARDS Property No. _ C W D I A Qty. of soil removed: 4 % O (yd ) RA Contractor d\\- K T' C.o. 3 Acoress:CmA MM 4% Reviewer: xD 1. h Subcontractors C b-Auc0mL. N v v Wi NMA A-Dat'e: Q 19 MO M M.c.bc. i COWLEANCE ERTIFICATION REQUIREENT Yes No N/A CO M NTS (Reference page in completion report) ' S Q , q - g3-1. SOIL EXCAVATION ' 3 M-M 1. Were soil samples collected / analyzed? M / (List quantity of surf ace and sub-surface samples.) 2. Did grid intervals equal 10 feet or lesst (List grid size and quantity K w ie. 3 3. Were adequate spatial averaging techniques clearly demonstrated? [ b- @ W h M 4. Was an outdoor gamma survey conducted 415M w M OpR.@ St> (List results.) o ed. e dda_ ( h "g w 5. Were alternate measurements per-formed? (List types of measure-q A ments range, and average of results.) W 6. Were all contaminated areas sampled afLer excavationi ( SW O
VICINITY PROPERTY CERTIFICATION REVIEW FOR C0ffLIANCE WITH RADIOLOGICAL STANDARDS (Continueo) l C0ffLIANCE COMENTS (Reference page in coupletion report) Yes.No h/A CERIlflCATION REQUIREMENT Jn cw9c5 { 1. SOIL EXCAVATION (Continued) V 7. Were soil concentrgtions of Ra-226, M averaged over 100m less than: [ k = \\.3 - \\(o. \\ p <sl g p ,q-13 g o 5 pC1/g plus background f (surf ace)7 (List range of 6gg = g, g p D-j results). o 15 pCi/g plus background (subsurface)7 ~ 8. If excavation was done around struc-tures or utility conduits to struc-K tures, was contamination removed to background levels? !!. INDOOR GAf914 SURVEY 1. Were assessment measurements taken in OM the lowest habitable level of every habitable building? 2. Were small rooms scanned and large rooms (2000 sq.ft.) gridded at intervals of lu ft. or smaller? 3. Were verification measurements taken at V ~ /' locations of prior maximum readings? e e
VICINITY PROPERTY CERTIFICATION REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH RADIOLOGICAL STANDARDS (Continued) C0ffLIANCE C0fmENTS (Reference page in completion report) Yes no N/A CERTIFICATION REQUIREE NT kl,Ip900RGAMfmSURVEY(Continued) 4. Wei'c instrument readings converted to g ladicate microR/hr? (List range and average of readings.) 5. After re: medial action, was the average -value for each room or 2000 sq.ft.-area K less than 20 microR/hr above backgroundt 6. If any reading exceeded 20 microR/hr above background, was it satisfactorily V^ -investigated to ensure no tallings involvement? III. INDOOR ROC E ASUREMENTS 1. If ROC measurements were performed before vA remedial action, and results were above standards, were they repeated after remedial action was completed? 2. If no ROC measurements were performed before remedial actier., were they taken in every habitable structure after-remedial actioni
i ~ VICINITY PROPERTY CERTIFICATION REVIEW l -FOR COWLIANCE W11H RADIOLOGICAL STANDARDS -(Continued) l COW LIANCE CERTIFICATicii kEQUIREMENT Ves No N/A C0f0fMTS (Reference page in completion report)i ) I I Ill. INDOOR RDC #EASUREMENTS (Continued) 3. If tailings.were excavated near the structure, or arouna utility conduits [ l into the structure, were RDC measure-l ments performed atter remedial action? 4. If grab samples were used for verification, K j were acceptable procedures usedi i1 5. Were grab sample results less than 0.01 [ l WL1 (List range and average of results.) t [ 6. If annual average measurements were used for verification, were acceptable proce. y dures followed? 7. Were annuai average RDC results'less than EPA WL standards? (List range and M l average of results.) 8. If annual average RDC results were between N ~ 0.02 WL and 0.03 WL. was appropriate justi-fication givent l t I ]
VICINITY PROPERTY CERTiflCATION REVIEW l FOR COW LIANCE WITH RADIOLOGICAL STANDARDS l (Continued) COWLIAhCE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT Yes No N/A COMENTS (Reference page in completion report) IV. OTHER VERIFICATION MEASUREMENTS 1. If adequate verification data is f not presented, were additional measuresnents taken? 2. Were acceptable procedures used? K 3. Were indoor Rn-222 results less than 3l 2.0 PC1/11 4. Were surface alpha contamination levels less than: N o 20 dps/100 sq.ca. for removable alpha activity 7 o 100 dpm/100 sq.ca. for total alpha activityi K 5. Was Ra-226 the only radionuclide of concero at this property? If not, explain. 6. Were additional measurements performed? sf (Type,results.) b 4 e t E-
VICINITY PROPERTY CERTIFICATION REVIEW FOR COW LIANCE WITH RADIOLOGICAL STANDARDS (Continued) COWLIANCE CERTIFICATION REQUIREE NT Yes No N/A COMMENTS (Reference page in completion report) V. SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS g 1. If numerical standards were not met, is g R E_A. % h this due to presence of natural radio-activityi Ohat data shows this.) 2. If all residual radioactive material at the property was not cleaned up, were supplemental standards (40 CFR 192 Subpart C) applied? 3. Was the application of supplemental sf . standards in accordance with'the Plaa A for laplementing EPA Standards? 4. Did appropriate state and Federal agencies concur in this application of supplemental standards? VI. SITE Aup!T RESULTS 1. If a site audit was performed at f this property, were the results satis-factoryi 2. If the contractor's effort's were f evaluated at other properties, were the results satisfactory? ( l
VICINITY PROPERTY CERTIFICATION REVIEW FOR COW LIANCE WITH RADIOLOGICAL STANDARDS (Continuea) COMPLIAhCE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT Yes No N/A COMENTS (Reference page in completion report) VII.ADolTIONAL' CONSIDERATIONS TD NMM . MMa y g*0si:e' add n"aa ="$5 d 2-W VIII. CERTIFICATION 1. Is this property recommended for certi-fication as meeting the EPA standards for residual racioactive material? If not, why? e O e L--- _ _ _... _ _.. _ _ _}}