fy 1996 annual report to stakeholders
TRANSCRIPT
FY 1996 Annual Report to Stakeholders
OF THIS DOCU UNLSM!
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the UnitedStates Government Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, norany of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liabili-ty or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, appa-ratus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privatelyowned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service bytrade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute orimply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government orany agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessar-ily state or reflect those of the United Slates Government or any agency thereof.
DISCLAIMER
Portions of this document may be illegiblein electronic image products. Images areproduced from the best available originaldocument.
Table of Contents
Section Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF ACRONYMS Hi
PREFACE v
INTRODUCTION 1Major FY 1996 Accomplishments 3
PROGRAM ISSUES AND ACTIVITIES 5Program Planning 5
Contractors 10Environment, Safety and Health 11
Quality Assurance 12Public Affairs 13
Cost Reduction/Productivity Improvement Program 14
SURFACE PROJECT STATUS 15Vicinity Property Program 15
Real Estate Acquisition 18
STATUS OF DESIGNATED SITES 21Ambrosia Lake, N.M. 21
Beffield and Bowman, N.D. 21Canonsburg, Pa. 21Durango, Colo. 21Edgemont, S.D. 22
Falls City, Texas 22Grand Junction, Colo. 22
Green River, Utah 23Gunnison, Colo. 23
Lakeview, Ore. 24Lowman, Idaho 24
Maybell, Colorado 24Mexican Hat, Utah /Monument Valley, Ariz. 24
Naturita, Colo. 25Rifle, Colo. 25
Section
Riverton, Wyo.Salt Lake City, Utah
Shiprock, N.M.Slick Rock, Colo.
Spook, Wyo.Tuba City, Ariz.
Page
262627272828
FIGURES
1. UMTRA Project Site Locations 12. Contaminated Material Handled 53. Remedial Action Completion Schedule 64. Certification and Licensing Schedule 75. Surface Project Funding by Planning Element 86. Surface Project Funding by Site 97. Vicinity Property Activity Summary 16
ii
List of Acronyms
Acronym Definition
BLMCAA
CDPHECR/PIP
DOEEPA
ES&HFY
GJOLTSP
MACTEC-ERSMK-FMOU
NCNEPANRCORE
OSHARACRAPRDCRRMTAC
UCUMTRA
UMTRCAUSACE
VPVPDMS
U.S. Bureau of Land ManagementCustodial Access AgreementColorado Department of Public Health and EnvironmentCost Reduction/Productivity Improvement ProgramU.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEnvironment, Safety and HealthFiscal YearDOE Grand Junction OfficeLong-Term Surveillance PlanMACTEC Environmental Restoration ServicesMK-Ferguson CompanyMemorandum of UnderstandingSlick Rock, Colo., North Continent SiteNational Environmental Policy ActU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOperational Readiness EvaluationOccupational Safety and Health AdministrationRemedial Action ContractorRemedial Action PlanRadon Daughter ConcentrationResidual Radioactive MaterialTechnical Assistance ContractorSlick Rock, Colo., Union Carbide SiteUranium Mill Tailings Remedial ActionUranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978U.S. Army Corps of EngineersVicinity PropertyVicinity Property Data Management System
• ••HI
IV
Preface
.his is the Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 annual report on the status of the U.S. Department of Energy's(DOE) Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project. In 1978, Congress directed theDOE to assess and clean up contamination at 24 designated former uranium processing sites. TheDOE is also responsible for cleaning up properties in the vicinity of the sites where wind and watererosion deposited tailings or people removed them from the site for use in construction or landscap-ing. Cleanup is being undertaken in cooperation with state governments and Indian tribes withinwhose boundaries the sites are located. It is being conducted in two phases: the surface project andthe ground water project. This report addresses specifics about the surface phase of the UMTRAProject.
DOE's UMTRA Project is the world's largest materials management project ever undertaken toreduce or eliminate risk to the general public from exposure to potentially hazardous and radioactivematerials. With an estimated cost at completion of nearly $2 billion for both phases of the UMTRAProject, and with the responsibility for encapsulating and isolating almost one-fourth of all theuranium mill tailings generated in the United States (more than 42 million cubic yards), the UMTRAProject and its people have achieved a long record of safely and effectively completing its mission.The project has maintained a national reputation through diligent process and cost efficiency as wellas international recognition for technological innovation.
The "FY 1996 Annual Report to Stakeholders" presents the progress which UMTRA Project teammembers made during the past year and the status of the UMTRA Project as of Sept. 30, 1996;however, it is worthy to point out that the UMTRA Project reached some other significant milestonesin the first quarter of FY 1997. For example, construction activities at the Rifle disposal cell werecompleted in October 1996 and all remedial action activities at the two Slick Rock sites and disposalcell were completed in December 1996. That brings the total number of completed sites to 20 out ofthe 24 original sites, leaving work to be done at only two more sites — Maybell and Naturita —since, as explained later in this report, DOE will not remediate the two North Dakota sites. Inaddition, the UMTRA Project site at Tuba City was licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission (NRC) in November 1996, raising the total number to eight out of the 19 sites that will belicensed. These milestones will be covered in more detail in next year's annual report.
We hope you'll find this report informative.
Introduction
U/ranium ore has been mined in significantquantities in the United States for more than 40years. Initially, private companies mined the orefor federal government use in national defenseprograms. After the 1950s, the development ofcommercial nuclear power created a need foruranium to fuel nuclear power plants.
When the mills shut down, the operators leftbehind large piles of uranium mill tailings, thesand-like material that remains after extractingthe uranium from the ore. The tailings contain85 percent of the radioactivity present in the
unprocessed uranium ore and small concentra-tions of naturally occurring radioactive materialsthat decay to radium and produce radon, aradioactive gas.
Long-term exposure to radon may pose a poten-tial health hazard. To reduce the potential healthhazard associated with the mill tailings, Congresspassed Public Law 95-604, the Uranium MillTailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of1978,42 USC 7901 et seq. Legislators enactedthe bill to clean up inactive uranium mill sitesabandoned by the late 1960s. Sites still in opera-
" BELFIELDBOWMAN
SPOOK'
• RIVERTON
YBELL
GREEN RIVER/ • "IFLE (2j• GRANDJCT
NATURITA* •GUNNISONMEXICAN. ( « SLICK ROCK (2)
# _^^_DURANGO*
VALLEY
NOTE: EDGEMONT, SOUTH DAKOTA
(VICINITY PROPERTIES ONLY)
DISPOSAL OPTION
A STABILIZE IN PLACE OR
STABILIZE ON-SITE
O RELOCATE
STATUSA • COMPLETED
A » STARTED
* LICENSED
0 REMEDIAL ACTION SUSPENDED
Figure 1UMTRA Project Site Locations
Current as of Sept. 30,1996
1
tion after 1978 remained the responsibility oftheir private owners. Congress gave DOEresponsibility for carrying out the UMTRAProject at 24 abandoned sites. In 1979, DOEformed the UMTRA Project Office and assignedit to its Albuquerque Field Office.
The processing sites (Figure 1) are located in 10states: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico,North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas,Utah and Wyoming. In addition, a 1983 amend-ment to the UMTRCA gave the UMTRA Projectresponsibility for cleaning up vicinity properties(VPs) near Edgemont, S.D. The former uraniummill site in Edgemont was remediated in the late-1980s by the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The UMTRCA also called for the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) to establishremedial action standards. Congress directed theNRC to provide consultation and concurrence inthe type of remedial action performed. Before
A bulldozer spreads bedding material on the south sideslope of theGunnison disposal cell.
surface remedial action, the DOE must complywith the requirements of the National Environ-mental Policy Act (NEPA) and perform detailedstudies of the environmental impacts that reme-dial action would have at each site.The purpose of remedial action is to minimize oreliminate potential hazards to human health andthe environment resulting from exposure of thepublic to tailings and residual radioactive materi-als (RRM) at the former processing sites and atcontaminated VPs. A VP is a property in thevicinity of the designated mill site that has beencontaminated with mill tailing materials. Thesematerials were transported to the VP by wind orerosion, or by people removing the tailings foruse as construction materials.
The surface phase of the UMTRA Project in-volves encapsulating the tailings and other RRMin engineered disposal cells where the materialswill be isolated from the environment for 200 to1,000 years. Once the contaminants have been
removed from theformer processingsites and VPs, thesites are restored totheir former condi-tion. During theground water phase,DOE, through itsGrand JunctionOffice (GJO), willensure that groundwater beneath theformer processingsites is in compliancewith EPA standards.
The UMTRAProject achievednew milestones inFY 1996, complet-ing surface remedialaction at the 16th,17th and 18th of theoriginal 24 UMTRAProject sites —
Gunnison, Colo., andthe two former pro-cessing sites in Rifle,Colo. By the end ofFY 1996, the projectteam also nearedcompletion of surfacework at the two SlickRock, Colo., process-ing sites and continuedwork at the Maybelland Naturita, Colo.,sites.
As reported in lastyear's annual report,responsibility for theground water phase ofthe UMTRA Projectwas transferred totheGJOonOct. 1,1995. The UMTRAProject team inAlbuquerque com-pleted the transi-tionof ground waterwork to GJO in June 1996.
Details of these and other FY 1996 accomplish-ments are in other parts of this report; however,to get you started, here is a summary of thoseaccomplishments.
Major FY 1996 Accomplishments
The first truckload of contaminated materials from the former uraniumprocessing site in Naturita is decontaminated prior to leaving the site forthe trip to the Uravan disposal site, 13 miles northwest of the town. Trucksstarted hauling the materials in July 1996.
two North Dakota sites — Belfield and Bowman— are on hold pending a request by the state thatthese two sites not be remediated.
Here is a partial list of other UMTRA Projectaccomplishments of the past year:
• Held closing ceremonies signifyingcompletion of remedial action at theGunnison and Rifle sites.
• Obtained NRC licensing for theCanonsburg, Durango and Shiprock sites.
• Obtained NRC certification for theDurango and Tuba City sites.
• Transferred the long-term surveil-lance responsibility for the Canonsburgand Durango sites to the GJO.
of Sept. 30,1996, surface cleanup of theformer uranium processing sites at MonumentValley and Tuba City, Ariz.; Durango, Gunnison,Grand Junction and Rifle, Colo.; Lowman, Idaho;Ambrosia Lake and Shiprock, N.M.; Lakeview,Ore.; Canonsburg, Pa.; Falls City, Texas; GreenRiver, Mexican Hat and Salt Lake City, Utah; andRiverton and Spook, Wyo., is now complete.Remedial action is in progress at four Coloradosites — Maybell, Naturita and Slick Rock (twosites). All remedial action activities related to the
# Completed the tailings haul from thetwo former uranium processing sites atSlick Rock to the Burro Canyon disposalcell.
• Started transporting RRM from theNaturita site to a disposal site in Uravan,Colo.
• Installed a new irrigation and waterextraction system at the Tuba City site.
• Transmitted the Ambrosia Lake,Canonsburg, Durango, Salt Lake City,Shiprock and Tuba City Long-TermSurveillance Plans (LTSP) to the NRC,states and tribal agencies for review.
• Completed 5,168 of 5,314 vicinityproperties eligible for remedial actionunder the UMTRA Project.
• Completed custodial access agree-ments (CAA) with the Navajo Nation forthe Shiprock, Mexican Hat and Tuba Citysites.
9 Completed the transfer of the title forthe Durango site from the state ofColorado to the federal government.
• Completed the transfer of respon-sibility for the ground water phase of theUMTRA Project to GJO.
• Saved $5.5 million through the CostReduction/Productivity ImprovementProgram (CR/PIP). The UMTRA Projecthas saved $75 million since the beginningof the program.
• Accepted the National PerformanceReview "Hammer Award," an awardpresented to organizations which makeextraordinary progress in reinventinggovernment.
Program Issues and Activities
Program Planning
Liele bill extending the end date for the UMTRCAwas passed by both houses of Congress andsigned into law (Public Law No. 104-259) by thepresident. The law extends the authority of thesecretary of energy to perform remedial action bytwo fiscal years through Sept. 30,1998.
It also authorizes the secretary to continue tooperate the Cheney disposal cell in Mesa County,Colo., for the receipt and disposal of RRM fromformer processing sites and byproduct materialsfrom properties in the vicinity of the formeruranium milling site in Monticello, Utah. DOEwas given the authority to operate the Cheneysite until it has been filled to the cell capacity forwhich it was designed (4.5 million cubic yards),or September 2023, whichever comes first.
Additionally the bill authorizes the DOE toeliminate the deed annotation requirement forVPs subjected to cleanup, if the state in whichthe VPs are located has programs that adequatelynotify prospective purchasers of the formercondition of the property.
Following completion of surface remedial action,all sites except Grand Junction will be licensedand transferred to the GJO Long-Term Surveil-lance Program by the end of FY 1998. Althoughsurface remedial action at the Grand Junctionformer processing site was completed in FY 1994and tailings from more than 4,000 VPs in theGrand Junction area were cleaned up, someongoing VP cleanup continues in Mesa County.Contaminated materials from those properties arebeing transported to a specially reserved area ofthe Cheney disposal cell.
UMTRA Project site
Belfield
Bowman
Gunnison
Maybell
Naturita
Rifle (2 sites)
Slick Rock (2 sites)
Completed sites
Total
Total materialto be
remediated(cubic yards)
On Hold
On Hold
795,592
4,100,000
406,140
3,756,888
763,915
32,586,508
42,409,403
Total volumeto be handled(cubic yards)
On Hold
On Hold
795,592
*1,022,211
406,140
3,756,888
763,915
24,791,852
31,536,598
Materialhandled
as of 9/30/96(cubic yards)
0
0
795,592
1,022,211
121,481
3,756,888
743,653
24,791,852
29,260,794
FY 1996materialhandled
(cubic yards)
0
0
7,233
1,022,211
121,481
256,888
743,653
0
1,525,814
*Maybell tailings are being consolidated in their present location.
Figure 2Contaminated Material Handled
The state of North Dakota has requested that theBelfield and Bowman sites not be remediated.The DOE proposes to officially remove thesesites from the list of sites contained in theUMTRCA. DOE Headquarters plans to preparea "Federal Register" notice and letter to Congressto close out this issue.
The amount of contaminated material to beremediated and handled at active or recentlycompleted UMTRA Project sites is shown inFigure 2.
Figure 3 is the remedial action completion sched-ule for the remaining sites under the surfacephase of the UMTRA Project.
During FY 1996, three more sites — Durango,Canonsburg and Shiprock — were licensed bythe NRC. This brings the statistics for the sur-face phase of the UMTRA Project as of Septem-
ber 1996 to: remedial action complete at 18 ofthe original 24 designated processing sites; 10processing sites certified as clean; seven of theoriginal sites licensed by the NRC; and sevensites transferred to GJO for the Long TermSurveillance Program.
Figure 4 shows the actual or planned workingdates for obtaining NRC certification and licens-ing for disposal sites and transfer of those sites toGJO for the Long-Term Surveillance Program.
The total project cost of the surface phase of theUMTRA Project is $1,450.4 million, based uponthe FY 1998 Field Budget submittal. Thisincludes federal funding of $ 1,353.2 million and$97.3 million provided by the affected states.Figure 5 displays the surface project funding byplanning element. Surface project funding by siteis provided in Figure 6.
UMTRA Project site(construction in progress)
Grand Junction disposal site
Grand Junction VPs
Naturita
Slick Rock
Maybell
FY1996
1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q
FY 1997
1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q
FY1998
1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q
FY1999
1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q
NOTES: 1. VP remedial action is included with the processing sites, except for the Grand Junction site.
2. The Grand Junction disposal site is complete except for reception of VP material and final cell closure.
3. The Belfield and Bowman sites are not shown because they are expected to be removed from theUMTRCA site list and not remediated.
Figure 3Remedial Action Completion Schedule
UMTRA Projectdisposal site*
Ambrosia Lake
Burrell
Canonsburg
Durango
Falls City
Grand Junction**
Green River
Gunnison
Lakeview
Lowman
Maybell
Mexican Hat
Naturita
Rifle
Riverton
Salt Lake City
Shiprock
Slick Rock
Spook
Tuba City
NRC concurrencew/DOE certification
November 1996
May 1994
August 1995
June 1996
February 1997
November 1996
July 1992
April 1997
September 1993
September 1994
July 1998
June 1997
September 1998
October 1997
January 1995
April 1997
May 1991
February 1998
March 1992
April 1996
General licensein effect
December 1996
May 1994
January 1996
September 1996
May 1997
September 1999
March 1997
April 1997
September 1995
October 1994
September 1998
August 1997
September 1998
October 1997
N/A
September 1997
September 1996
February 1998
September 1993
November 1996
Site transfer toDOE GJO
March 1997
September 1994
April 1996
September 1996
June 1997
October 1999
April 1997
May 1997
September 1995
March 1995
October 1998
October 1997
September 1998
November 1997
N/A
October 1997
September 1996
August 1998
April 1994
November 1996
*NOTE: Not all processing sites have a separate disposal site since some disposal cells have beencombined. Dates are based on UMTRA Surface Project Status Report as of September 30,1996.
**This certification only covers the former processing site due to the extension of disposal cell operations.
Figure 4Certification and Licensing Schedule
Planning element
Planning and designdevelopment
Engineering
Environment, safety& healthTechnologydevelopment
Site acquisition
Remedial action
Surveillance &monitoringTechnical &management support
Total funding
Federal share
States' share
Actual obligations
ThroughFY 1995
89,843
116,114
23,457
16,424
12,611
815,711
6,830
226,176
1,307,166
1,219,276
87,890
FY1996
1,447
2,475
782
0
2,500
45,076
2,162
12,953
67,395
62,446
4,949
Estimated obligations
FY1997
983
1,190
750
0
0
27,697
1,381
13,452
45,453
42,567
2,886
FY1998
253
525
591
0
0
14,929
1,109
13,024
30,431
28,886
1,545
Total
92,526
120,304
25,580
16,424
15,111
903,413
11,482
265,605
1,450,445
1,353,175
97,270
Figure 5Surface Project Funding by Planning Element
8
UMTRA Project site
Ambrosia Lake
Belfield
Bowman
Canonsburg
Durango
Edgemont
Falls City
Grand Junction
Green River
Gunnison
Lakeview
Lowman
Maybell
Mexican Hat
Monument Valley
Naturita
Rifle (2 sites)
Riverton
Salt Lake City
Shiprock
Slick Rock (2 sites)
Spook
Tuba City
Total funding
Federal share
States' share
Actual obligations
ThroughFY 1995
38,375
9,387
556
47,742
68,940
5,552
55,632
481,423
22,565
60,407
33,086
19,156
25,467
53,884
24,118
31,927
90,716
49,020
92,248
23,521
33,484
10,483
29,477
1,307,166
1,219,276
87,890
FY1996
553
0
0
178
421
0
1,024
14,810
264
2,564
0
11
8,722
581
203
13,459
9,054
0
939
224
10,569
0
3,819
67,395
62,446
4,949
Estimated obligations
FY1997
140
0
0
0
0
0
90
13,320
0
874
0
0
4,579
336
9
13,483
1,099
0
412
16
9,451
0
1,644
45,453
42,567
2,886
FY 1998
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,591
0
165
0
0
1,112
0
0
5,049
311
0
0
0
1,203
0
0
30,431
28,886
1,545
Total
39,068
9,387
556
47,920
69,361
5,552
56,746
532,144
22,829
64,010
33,086
19,167
39,880
54,801
24,330
63,918
101,180
49,020
93,599
23,761
54,707
10,483
34,940
1,450,445
1,353,175
97,270
NOTE: This funding profile does not include future obligations to keep the Grand Junction Cheneydisposal cell open beyond FY 1998.
Figure 6Surface Project Funding by Site
Contractors
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. is the technicalassistance contractor (TAC) for the surfaceproject. The TAC supports DOE by providingtechnical and management support to theUMTRA Project and develops the conceptualdesign for remedial action at UMTRA Projectsites. The TAC is also DOE's contractor forplanning and design development; NEPA compli-ance documentation; environment, safety andhealth (ES&H) procedures; quality assurance;public affairs support; and long-term surveillanceplanning for disposal sites.
MK-Ferguson Company
The principal remedial actioncontractor (RAC) for thesurface phase of the UMTRAProject is MK-Ferguson (MK-F) Company. MK-F is respon-sible for engineering and finaldesign of remedial action,managing construction activi-ties and conducting remedialaction. The RAC has awardedcompetitive fixed-price subcon-tracts for remedial action at allformer mill sites (except SaltLake City, which was managedby the state of Utah) and allVPs except Grand Junction andEdgemont.
MACTEC Environmental RestorationServices
MACTEC Environmental Restoration Services(MACTEC-ERS) is the RAC for engineeringdesign and remedial action for VPs at GrandJunction. In addition, MACTEC-ERS is respon-sible for radiological data acquisition for VP sitecharacterization. MACTEC-ERS replaced RUSTGeotech Inc. in August 1996 as the result of aprocurement competition for the GJO contract.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Another UMTRA Project contractor, Oak RidgeNational Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., performsVP inclusion surveys and independent VPcleanup verification.
A DOE contractor employee compacts backfill material at theRifle disposal cell.
10
Construction workers pour concrete at the west abutment at the Naturita disposal cellbeing built in Uravan.
Environment, Safety and Health
.he UMTRA Project continued its progress inFY 1996 toward the goal of completing allremaining mill tailing sites by 1998. Thisprogress was aided by a continued emphasis onmature ES&H programs, internal and externalES&H audits, Operational Readiness Reviews,in-house and external training classes, use ofstandard operating procedures, good recordkeeping and lessons learned. The results of thecontinued ES&H awareness include:
• An Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) recordableremedial action injury rate of 0.7 throughSeptember 1996, a 70 percent decreasecompared to the same period in 1995, and90 percent below the 1995 DOE con-struction rate of 6.6.
# An OSHA lost work day rate of 0.7through September 1996, which is 59percent lower than the same period lastyear and 77percent below the 1995 DOEconstruction rate of 3.0.
Operational Readiness Evaluations (ORE) wereconducted at the Maybell, Naturita and SlickRock sites and for the Grand Junction VPs. TheORE team reviews both pre-start and post-startitems required in the process, makes recommen-dations of corrective action and decides if theitems need to be corrected before or after theprocess begins. The DOE ES&H manager mustgive approval before work begins at the site. Apre-start ORE of site operations and a pre-startORE of the radon barrier pug mill were con-ducted at the Maybell site. A pre-start ORE ofsite operations and a pre-haul ORE were con-ducted at the Slick Rock site. An ORE was alsoconducted prior to remediation and haul of
11
commingled waste from VPs in Grand Junction observation does not usually require a writtento the Cheney disposal cell. response from the RAC to DOE.
DOE performed ES&H audits at the followingsites: Rifle, Naturita, Slick Rock, Maybell, theGrand Junction Cheney disposal cell, Tuba Cityand the commingled waste VPs in Grand Junc-tion. The audit team observes operations, pro-grams and procedures at the sites for adherenceto company policy and federal, state and localregulations. If the audit team makes an observa-tion, team members determine whether to cat-egorize the observation as a finding (violation offederal, state or local code) or allow it to remainas an observation. The findings and observationsare transmitted by DOE to the RAC in a finalaudit report. A finding requires a correctiveaction response from the RAC to DOE. The
During FY 1996, UMTRA Project independentreview teams conducted 32 programmatic auditsof the RAC's ES&H and radiological programs:18 health and safety audits, seven environmentalaudits and seven radiological audits. Any condi-tions discovered to be contrary to quality andUMTRA Project requirements were addressedand corrected. Corrective actions implementedas a result of concerns identified during theES&H and radiological audits improved theoverall ES&H and radiological programs con-ducted in support of the UMTRA Project.
UMTRA Project team members prepared aposter session paper on the UMTRA Project
ES&H auditing program forthe Waste Management '96Conference in Tucson, Ariz.Hopefully this mature andsuccessful program will beadopted by other contrac-tors and implemented attheir sites. Adoption wouldeliminate the need forprogram development atother sites and reduce therisk of accidents and injuriesduring the learning processof a new project.
Quality Assurance
I
A piece of heavy equipment is used to spread type "A " riprap on atest pad adjacent to the Rifle disposal cell.
ndependent reviewersfrom the DOE and TACconducted 12 quality assur-ance in-process surveillancevisits of RAC constructionactivities at active UMTRAProject sites and two auditsof the RAC's engineeringand design group in SanFrancisco, Calif. They alsoconducted 10 annual sys-
12
terns audits of subcontractor analytical laborato-ries and five OREs at active UMTRA Projectsites prior to the RAC's start up of a particularphase of construction. Conditions adverse toquality and UMTRA Project requirements identi-fied during the audits, surveillance visits andOREs were addressed and corrected. Correctiveactions implemented resulted in increased effec-tiveness and quality of operations conducted insupport of the UMTRA Project. DOE alsoperformed a final closeout inspection of the now-completed Gunnison site.
Public Affairs
.he UMTRA Project Public Affairs Departmentcontinued to conduct an aggressive public affairsprogram designed to keep affected citizens —stakeholders — informed about the project'sactivities and involved in its decision-makingprocess. The public affairs department alsoprovided project management with professionalsupport that included public affairs planning andcounsel, news mediarelations, employeeinformation, communityrelations, public partici-pation and communica-tion training.
During FY 1996, publicaffairs activities werehighlighted by two majorclosing ceremonies — atGunnison and Rifle —and eight public meet-ings. In addition,UMTRA Project peopleresponded to 118 publicinquiries received via theproject's toll-free tele-phone. The public affairsdepartment also re-sponded to 12 inquiriesfrom the news media,distributed 30 newsreleases covering a wide
variety of subjects such as site closings, siteupdates, public meetings and hearings, UMTRAProject milestones and the release of documentsrequired by the NEPA process. Other activitiesincluded support of news media interview re-quests; regular publication of the UMTRAUpdate, the UMTRA Project's employee news-letter; production of public affairs plans, factsheets and videos; and preparation of displays forpublic exhibition. The department also supportedthree community outreach activities in support ofthe Navajo Nation.
Some specific achievements were:
• Produced and distributed one majorvideo: "The Long Haul," the FY 1995UMTRA Project annual video report.
• Planned, organized and executedclosing ceremonies for the Gunnison siteon June 19,1996, and the two Rifle siteson June 20,1996.
John Arthur, DOE Albuquerque Operations Office assistant managerfor environment/project management, addresses the audience at theGunnison closing ceremony. The event was conducted on June 19,1996, with the completed Gunnison disposal cell as a backdrop.
13
# Received four awards from the NewMexico Chapter of the Public RelationsSociety of America: a 1st place foroutstanding handling of the "UMTRAProject Ground Water ProgrammaticEnvironmental Impact Statement; " a firstplace for a special video production onworking with Native Americanstakeholders, "Nation to Nation;" a 2ndplace for the UMTRA Project history videoproduction, "Closing the Circle onSplitting the Atom;" and an honorablemention for the "UMTRA Update"newsletter.
Cost Reduction / ProductivityImprovement Program (CR/PIP)
Lhe CR/PIP is a formal, but voluntary, sugges-tion program through which all employees maysuggest better or more efficient ways to do thejob. The program saves taxpayers' money,improves the quality of the environment, empow-ers employees and recognizes their creativity andteamwork.
In 1988, the UMTRA Project began using theCR/PIP to encourage everyone involved with theProject to develop ideas to save money, avoidcosts and improve productivity, and to submitthose ideas to management for evaluation andpotential implementation. Since that time, the
CR/PIP has realized a net benefit to the Projectof more than $74.28 million, including more than$5.5 million during FY 1996.
During FY 1996, UMTRA Project employeesfrom DOE, the TAC, RAC and VP RAC submit-ted 85 suggestions, exceeding their dollar goal bymore than $2 million.
The National Performance Review HammerAward
On Oct. 24, 1995, Secretary of Energy HazelO'Leary presented the UMTRA Project with oneof three National Performance Review "HammerAwards" presented to Department of Energyorganizations for outstanding performance duringFY 1994. The award recognized the more than1,500 DOE and contractor employees whoparticipated in the CR/PIP since 1988.
The Hammer Award was instituted by VicePresident Al Gore to recognize agencies whichcreate a government that works better and costsless, and is given to teams of employees whohave made extraordinary progress in reinventinggovernment.
The UMTRA Project cost saving program wassingled out for the honor by meeting four keyaward criteria: satisfying customers, empoweringemployees, cutting red tape and getting back tobasics.
14
Surface Project Status
Vicinity Property Program
Vicinity Properties
VP is a residence, commercial building oropen land area where tailings were used asconstruction materials, or where tailings weretransported and deposited away from the pro-cessing site by wind or water erosion.
The VP program continued simultaneously withmill site cleanup activities at Maybell, Naturita,Rifle and Slick Rock. Construction activities atGrand Junction were all VP related. The numberof inclusions (VPs eligible for remedial actionunder the UMTRA Project) increased to 5,314 asnew properties were identified. Remedial actionwas completed at 45 VPs, with 81 certified as
complete in FY 1996. A site-by-site summary ofVP activities is presented in Figure 7.
In FY 1996, the UMTRA Project team and thestate of Colorado reviewed and approved strate-gies to investigate, and if necessary remediate,150 properties found with radon levels between.02 and .03 working level. Of those properties,the DOE was able to lower the radon levels at 51by activating existing vent systems, removinginterior deposits or taking new indoor radondaughter concentration (RDC) readings. Of theremaining 99 properties, 16 had a simple fixconducted (18 scheduled for FY 1997), 13 hadtrack etch cups installed to remeasure the RDC(results will be available in FY 1997), 40 requireconfirmation of the remedial action alternativeand the remaining 12 are in the process of beingreassessed due to modified guidance.
A truck operated by the VP subcontractor at Maybell unloads contaminated materials inthe VP stockpile area adjacent to the Maybell disposal cell.
15
UMTRA Project site
Ambrosia Lake
Belfield
Bowman
Canonsburg
Durango
Edgemont
Falls City
Grand JunctionGrand Junction
VP dovetails*Green River
Gunnison
Lakeview
Lowman
Maybell
Mexican Hat
Monument Valley
Naturita
Rifle
Riverton
Salt Lake City
Shiprock
Slick Rock
Spook
Tuba City
Total
% Complete
Properties includedin VP program
FY 1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
41
To date
5
7
1
163
129
137
13
4,287
115
17
12
8
38
13
11
4
45
113
42
119
15
17
2
1
5,314
100.0
Remedial actioncompleted
FY1996
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
8
0
0
0
9
0
0
45
To date
5
0
0
163
129
135
13
4,197
110
17
12
8
38
4
11
4
18
113
42
119
15
13
1
1
5,168
97.3
Propertiescertified clean
FY1996
4
0
0
0
3
0
2
20
0
0
2
0
1
1
4
2
12
27
0
0
0
3
0
0
81
To date
4
0
0
160
126
129
9
3,783
105
17
4
8
35
1
9
4
12
98
41
118
15
3
1
1
4,683
88.1
Dovetails are VPs remediated under the Grand Junction Remedial Action Program.
NOTES: 1. "FY 1996" figures for "Remedial Action Completed" are based on milestones reported by the contractor.2. "FY 1996" and "To date" figures are based on the Vicinity Properties Data Management System (VPDMS).3. Changes in data from FY 1995 report are due to ongoing VPDMS validation activities, reversals, or closeouts.
Figure 7Vicinity Property Activity Summary
16
In addition, the DOE performed a study ofproperties that may have been falsely excludedfrom the UMTRA Project VP program, of whichnine exceeded the EPA's indoor radon standards.The DOE proceeded to see if RRM caused theproperties to exceed the standards and found thatfive properties contained RRM. As a result, theDOE initiated the remedial action process on thefive properties and initiated a program to gatherRDC data on the remaining 95 VPs in this study.
Commingled Waste Vicinity Properties
At some VPs in Grand Junction, RRM has been— or is suspected to have been — commingled
with hazardous wastes that are regulated underthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act orToxic Substances Control Act. Because differentregulations apply to the two types of waste,disposing of these commingled waste presents aspecial problem.
In FY 1996, the DOE and state of Coloradoentered into a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) to allow treated commingled waste to betransported to the Cheney disposal site. As aresult, treatment efforts were initiated at sevencommingled waste properties. The remainingcommingled waste properties are scheduled forinitiation and completion in FY 1997.
The Grand Junction Cheney disposal cell where DOE recently recieved Congressional approvalto leave it open until the year 2023 to accept additional contaminated materials, or until the cellcapacity is reached.
17
VP remediation efforts were also initiated at theAmerican Auto Salvage, a suspected commingledwaste property. In FY 1996, approximately100,000 cubic yards of RRM and other debriswere removed from this property and transportedto Cheney. In order to minimize the amount ofmaterial sent to Cheney, the RAC sorted outmaterial that was not radiologically contaminatedand sent it to the local municipal landfill.
With the completion of remedial action at thenorth half of another VP — Hansen Container —the effort in FY 1996 focused on site restoration.The EPA approved the completion of the prop-erty and the RAC is now focusing on the south-ern half of the property in which there are noknown commingled waste deposits.
Long-Term Radon Management
DOE anticipates that RRM will be discovered,encountered or newly identified during the courseof new construction and changing land use inGrand Junction and other communities associatedwith the UMTRA Project after the DOE's autho-rization to perform remedial action underUMTRCA expires. The DOE recently receivedCongressional approval to leave Cheney openuntil 2023, or until the cell capacity is reached.The DOE is in the process of developing adetailed operating plan which will take effect inFY 1999, for the continuing operation of thedisposal site. The legislation allows Cheney toaccept RRM from Mesa County, other countiesin Colorado, other UMTRA Project communitiesoutside of Colorado and byproduct material fromthe Monticello site.
Real Estate Acquisition
Re..eal estate activities in FY 1996 included theacquisition of private lands required for remedialaction, right-of-ways, use agreements and accessagreements. Other activities included the transferof title for the Durango site from the state to thefederal government. Completion of this actionled to the licensing of the site by the NRC.
The DOE executed a CAA with the NavajoNation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. TheCAA covers access for long-term surveillanceactivities at the Tuba City, Shiprock and MexicanHat sites. The execution of this agreement led tothe licensing of the Shiprock site.
In addition, under a cooperative agreementbetween DOE and the state of Colorado, thestate acquired private land required for remedialaction at Maybell. This acquisition allowed theDOE to proceed with remedial action on sched-ule. The DOE had previously acquired additionalacreage from the U.S. Department of Interiorthrough a permanent withdrawal and jurisdic-tional transfer.
A drill rig is used to assist in the installationof a boundary marker at the completedGunnison disposal cell.
18
In other actions, the UMTRA Project:
• Continued work on renewingnumerous existing monitor wellagreements. The DOE also executed newaccess agreements with property owners.The DOE required additional monitorwells to further characterize the groundwater regime at several sites.
• Initiated the title transfer process withthe state of Utah for the Salt Lake City(Clive) disposal site. The state providedthe title documentation required to conveyownership of the site to the federalgovernment.
• Renewed the MOU with the Bureauof Land Management's (BLM) GrandJunction District Office. The MOUprovides for access to DOE monitor wellslocated on public lands required formonitoring and sampling activities.
• Continued the title transfer process atthe Ambrosia Lake, Falls City and SaltLake City disposal cell sites. Therespective states, DOE and the USACEareactively working the actions required toclear title.
• Obtained U.S. Department of Justicewaivers on outstanding title exceptions forthe Green River site. The waivers allowedthe state and DOE to proceed with the titletransfer process.
• Compiled data on all accessagreements, use agreements, MOU's,right-of-ways and other interests in placeat each UMTRA Project site. The dataincluded property ownership, DOEmonitor well numbers and location anddates of execution and expiration. TheDOE entered the data into its newFacilities Information and ManagementSystem.
19
20
Status of Designated Sites
Ambrosia Lake, N.M.
.he UMTRA Project team completed remedialaction at Ambrosia Lake in FY 1995. In FY1996, DOE submitted the final LTSP to the NRCfor its concurrence. In addition, the NRC re-viewed the draft completion report for the siteand returned it to DOE for revision.
Belfield and Bowman, N.D.
X o r Belfield and Bowman, DOE has suspendedall surface and ground water activities. The stateof North Dakota has proposed removing the sitesfrom the list of sites which the UMTRCA identi-fied for remedial action. DOE is in the processof updating the NEPA documentation to discussthe "no remedial action" option. Once the NEPAdocumentation iscomplete, DOE plansto notify Congressand publish a FederalRegister notice toremove these twosites from the list ofdesignated sites.
Canonsburg,Pa.
site, a large Canonsburg VP, was stabilized in aseparate disposal cell in 1987. The NRC licensedthe Burrell site in 1994. The Canonsburg finalLTSP was submitted to NRC in December 1995and the site was licensed by the NRC in January1996. Responsibility for the site was transferredto GJO in April 1996.
Durango, Colo.
leanup of the former uranium processing sitein Durango consisted of transporting all RRM toan isolated disposal site in Bodo Canyon, Colo.,and was completed in May 1991. The site waslicensed by NRC in September 1996 and respon-sibility for the site was expected to be transferredto GJO in November 1996.
Reremedial action atthe Canonsburg sitewas completed in1985. The RRM atthe Burrell Township
Workers transfer a load ofbentonitefor use at an UMTRA Project disposalsite. A mixture of soil and bentonite placed on top of the tailings andother contaminated materials in a disposal cell acts as a radon barrier.
21
Edgemont, S.D.
D<'OE was not required to conduct remedialaction of the former processing site in Edgemont.All the RRM from the former processing site wasstabilized on the site by the owners prior toenactment of the UMTRCA; however, theUMTRCA was amended in 1978 to includecleanup of all VPs contaminated with tailingsfrom the Edgemont site. DOE remediated allVPs in Edgemont prior to FY 1992. To date, theNRC has certified 129 of the 135 VPs requiringcertification. Two properties will not be cleanedbecause their owners refuse to participate in theprogram.
Falls City, Texas
'leanup at Falls City began in 1992 and wascompleted in July 1994. DOE efforts in FY 1996focused on finalizing the documentation of the
completion of site activities. Comments werereceived from the NRC and state of Texas on thesite completion report and LTSP. The DOE iscurrently responding to the comments and planson licensing the site in mid-FY 1997.
Grand Junction, Colo.
Reremedial action at the former Climax mill sitein Grand Junction was started in late 1988. Withthe completion of remedial action and restorationof the former processing site in FY 1994, allGrand Junction activities focused on remediationof the VPs. See the VP section on page 15 fordetailed information.
Certification activities were initiated for theformer processing site, with the DOE currentlyresponding to NRC questions on the completionreport. The DOE expects certification of theClimax site in early FY 1997.
The Climax Mill site near the center of Grand Junction as it appeared in a 1956 photo.DOE began remediating the site in 1988, and completed it in 1994.
22
At the Cheney disposal cell, efforts in FY 1996focused on the paleochannel investigation wellsand the continued investigation of the source ofwater in them. This effort will continue in FY1997. The DOE also initiated licensing activitiesfor Cheney through a phased approach. The firstphase of the completion report will be deliveredto the NRC in early FY 1997, which documentsDOE activities through August 1994. The nextphase of the completion report will documentactivities through September 1998. The finalphase will documentthe remaining long-term radon manage-ment activitiesthrough cell closure,but will be a post-UMTRA Projectactivity performedby the GJO.
Green River,Utah
.he Green Rivercleanup began inNovember 1988 andwas completed inDecember 1989. InFY 1996, the DOEsubmitted a revisionto the proposedground water pro-tection strategy inresponse to com-ments from the stateof Utah and theNRC. This was the primary focus of prelicensingefforts in FY 1996 and included meetings andextensive discussions with the stakeholders.DOE anticipates that the LTSP and the remedialaction plan (RAP) will be revised by mid-FY1997 upon the resolution of issues related to theground water protection strategy. The state ofUtah is prepared to sign the deed for transfer oftitle of the Green River site to the DOE.
Gunnison, Colo.
D<'OE completed remedial action constructionin December 1995 and conducted a closingceremony at the Gunnison disposal cell on June19,1996. Gunnison FY 1996 site activitiesincluded finishing placement of erosion protec-tion rock, site grading, site restoration andrevegetation and restoration of the TenderfootMountain haul road and various bottom areas.
An excavated hole at the Gunnison disposal site awaits placement of thesite marker.
DOE also installed point-of-compliance wells atthe disposal site for the monitoring of groundwater under long-term surveillance, and compiledthe results of 1994 and 1995 monitoring of thewetland/wildlife sites into a summary report forsubmittal to the US ACE and BLM.
In addition, DOE submitted the LTSP and reme-dial action construction completion report to the
23
NRC and CDPHE for review. Once these docu-ments are approved, the NRC can license thedisposal site and certify completion of remedialaction.
Maybell, Colo.
Re
Lakeview, Ore.
Reremedial action of the Lakeview site began inJune 1986 and was completed in October 1989.In September 1995, the NRC licensed the siteand the UMTRA Project team transferred re-sponsibility for the site to GJO.
Lowman, Idaho
wurface remedial action at Lowman was com-pleted in 1994. The NRC licensed the site inSeptember 1994. Responsibility for the site wastransferred to GJO in March 1995.
remedial action activities at the Maybell sitecontinued in FY 1996 with the completion of theexcavation of contaminated materials, includingwindblown materials; demolition of mill-relatedstructures and placement in the disposal cell;reshaping of the tailings pile; and site grading.
DOE's contractor started construction of thedisposal cell cover with placement of the radonbarrier and frost protection materials, and pro-duction of erosion protection rock. DOE alsoresponded to NRC and CDPHE comments on thefinal RAP and provided page changes for review.
In addition to site construction activities, fiveVPs were remediated or were in the process ofbeing remediated. All of the RRM and debriswill be placed into the disposal cell in FY 1997.
Mexican Hat,Utah,and
MonumentValley, Ariz.
A water wagon moves down Johnson Wash near the Maybell disposal cellto spray water for dust control.
.he RRM from theMexican Hat andMonument Valleysites were consoli-dated and encapsu-lated in a singledisposal cell at theMexican Hat site inHalchita, Utah. TheMonument Valleysurface remediationwork was completedin March 1994 andthe Mexican Hatcleanup was com-pleted in February1995.
24
Construction vehicles place fill material on the buffer zone at the Uravan disposal cell beingconstructed to hold the contaminated materials from the former uranium processing site atNaturita.
In FY 1996, DOE submitted the LTSP, final auditreport and completion report for the combinedMexican Hat/Monument Valley disposal site tothe NRC and Navajo Nation for review. Onceapproved, the site can be licensed and remedialaction certified by the NRC. In addition, theUMTRA Project team received concurrence onthe Mexican Hat/Monument Valley RAP by allconcurring agencies.
The CAA with the Navajo Nation for access tothe Mexican Hat site was signed. This documen-tation of perpetual access to tribal sites is neces-sary for NRC licensing of the sites for long-termsurveillance activities.
Naturita, Colo.
Xhase II of the remedial action in Naturita,which consists of the removal and relocation ofcontaminated materials from the former process-
ing site to the disposal site at the Upper BurbankRepository at Uravan, Colo., was started in June1996. The RAP and cell design, developed byUmetco Minerals Corp., have been reviewed bythe NRC. Final comment resolution continueswith the NRC.
In addition to site construction activities, fiveVPs were remediated or are in the process ofbeing remediated. All of the RRM and debriswill be placed into the disposal cell.
Rifle, Colo.
Gcompletion of remedial action constructionactivities at the two former processing sites inRifle, which began in April 1992, was marked bya closing ceremony on June 20, 1996. FY 1996remedial action consisted of construction of thedisposal cell cover and restoration of the OldRifle and New Rifle former processing sites and
25
disposal area. Construction activities at thedisposal cell will continue in FY 1997 to com-plete a few minor actions. These activitiesinclude placement of LTSP features and restora-tion of the access road.
In addition to site construction activities, eightVPs were remediated in FY 1996. All of theRRM and debris from the VPs were placed intothe disposal cell, with the exception of oneproperty from which the material was transportedto the Cheney disposal cell in Grand Junction.
Mulch being applied to the restored New Rifle former uraniumprocessing site.
Riverton, Wyo.
Reremedial action at the Riverton site began inMay 1988 and was completed in September1990. The RRM was removed and transported
to a Title II site in Wyoming's Gas Hills district.Since DOE did not construct a disposal cell forthe materials, the site does not need NRC licens-ing; however, in January 1995, the NRC agreedwith DOE's certification that the site is free ofmill-related contaminants.
Salt Lake City, Utah
•leanup at the former Vitro processing site inSalt Lake City involved transporting the RRM by
rail and truck to the Clivedisposal site, located 85miles west of Salt Lake City.Remedial action was per-formed by the state of Utah.It was initiated in January1985 and completed in May1989.
InFY1996,theUMTRAProject team initiated theprocess for title transfer ofthe Clive site from the stateof Utah to DOE. Otherprelicensing activities in-cluded preparation of theFinal Audit Report and theDraft LTSP. Page changesin response to the NRCcomments on the preliminaryfinal completion reports forthe Clive and Vitro Sites andone VP were also submittedin FY 1996.
The RAC has scheduled afield remedial effort on theerosion protection barrier atthe Clive site for early FY1997. This effort is re-
quired to close out an issue on the Clive comple-tion report. Once this action is completed, DOEbelieves the NRC will license the site.
26
Shiprock, N.M.
leanup of the Shiprock site was completed inNovember 1986 and the RRM stabilized in placein a disposal cell. The DOE-Navajo Nation CAAfor the site was signed in FY 1996. This docu-mentation of perpetual access to tribal sites isnecessary for NRC licensing of the sites for long-term surveillance activities.
Shiprock was licensed by NRC in September1996. Transfer of responsibility for the site wasscheduled to occur in November 1996.
Slick Rock, Colo.
Rremedial action continued at Slick Rock in FY1996. The new subcontractor continued haulingtailings from the NC and UC processing sites tothe Burro Canyon disposal cell. Primary con-struction activities consisted of:
• Cleanup of pile and subpile material.
• Cleanup ofwindblown contamination.
• Demolition of mill-related structuresand placement of debris in the disposalcell.
• Asbestos remediation and removal ofasbestos contaminated soil.
• Site grading.
• Site and wetlands restoration.
In addition to site construction activities, nineVPs were remediated in Slick Rock, Dove Creekand Egnar, Colo. All the RRM and debris wereplaced into the disposal cell. All constructionactivities are expected to be complete in the firstquarter of FY 1997.
A 325 Hammershoe demolishes a dormitory building at the Slick Rock Union Carbide site.
27
The NRC and DOE resolvedall of the outstanding issuesin the Slick Rock RAP.Final approval is expected inthe first quarter of FY 1997.As one condition of ap-proval, the state of Coloradorequested four standpipes beinstalled in the disposal cellto monitor water levels atthe bottom of the cell. TheRAC and TAC are currentlyanalyzing the results ofwater level measurements toinsure the cell is performingas designed.
Spook, Wyo.
Reremedial action of theSpook site in ConverseCounty was completed inSeptember 1989. The NRC licensed the site inSeptember 1993, concurring with DOE thatfollowing remedial action, the site met applicableEPA standards. The Spook site was the firstUMTRA Project site to be brought under theNRC's general license.
A front loader moves an underground tank found safe for removalat the Slick Rock North Continent site to prepare it for disposal.
Tuba City, Ariz.
Reremedial action construction at the formeruranium processing site in Tuba City began inJanuary 1988 and was completed in May 1990.NRC is scheduled to license the site in FY 1997.
In FY 1996, DOE contractors also successfullycompleted the installation of an irrigation andextraction system at the Tuba City site. Thesystem includes:
• Four extraction wells.
• Three lined ponds to treat waterpumped from the extraction wells.
• A clean water well, greenhouse andwater distribution system for propagationand irrigation of native vegetation beingplanted to keep windblown sand fromaccumulating on the disposal cell.
• Seventeen monitor wells that can beused to monitor aquifer response to theextraction and treatment of contaminatedwater at the site.
28