U.S. Army Installation Command, 23742-23748 [2018-10840]
Download as PDF
23742
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2018 / Notices
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised plant Technical
Specifications Table 3.7–2 and
associated Table Notations, Table 3.7–4
and Table 4.1–1, reflecting the
installation of the Class 1E 4160V
negative sequence voltage (open phase)
protective circuitry at Surry Power
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, to address
the potential for a consequential open
phase condition that could exist on one
or two phases of a primary offsite power
source and that would not currently be
detected and mitigated by the existing
station electrical protection scheme.
Date of issuance: May 3, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 292 (Unit No. 1)
and 292 (Unit No. 2). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18106A007;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR
47040). The supplemental letters dated
January 16, 2018, and March 14, 2018,
provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the NRC
staff’s original proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 3, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day
of May, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tara Inverso,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018–10565 Filed 5–21–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
[Docket No. 40–9083; NRC–2018–0084]
U.S. Army Installation Command
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Director’s decision under 10
CFR 2.206; issuance.
AGENCY:
16:47 May 21, 2018
The director’s decision was
issued on May 15, 2018.
DATES:
Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2018–0084 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2018–0084. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer
Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127;
email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in this document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
VerDate Sep<11>2014
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has issued a
director’s decision in response to a
petition dated March 16, 2017, filed by
Dr. Michael Reimer (the petitioner),
requesting that the NRC take
enforcement-related action with regard
to the U.S. Army Installation
Management Command (the licensee).
The petitioner’s requests and the
director’s decision are included in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
SUMMARY:
Jkt 241001
Amy Snyder, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301–415–
6822, email: Amy.Snyder@nrc.gov.
The text of
the director’s decision is attached.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day
of May, 2018.
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen Koenick,
Chief, Materials Decommissioning Branch,
Division of Decommissioning, Uranium
Recovery, and Waste Programs, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
Attachment—Director’s Decision DD–18–02
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY
AND SAFEGUARDS
Marc L. Dapas, Director
In the Matter of United States Army
Installation Management Command
Pohakuloa Training Area
License No. SUC–1593
Docket No. 40–9083
DIRECTOR’S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR
2.206
I. Introduction
By letter dated March 16, 2017,1 as
supplemented on April 10,2 May 21,3 June
25,4 July 24,5 August 16,6 August 18,7
October 11,8 October 12,9 October 15,10 and
November 10, 2017,11 and January 15,
2018,12 Dr. Michael Reimer (the petitioner)
filed a petition pursuant to Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
Section 2.206, ‘‘Requests for action under
this subpart,’’ with the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC or the
Commission).13
The petitioner requested that the NRC
reconsider the issuance of Amendment No. 2
to Source Materials License No. SUC–1593
(license),14 for the U.S. Army Installation
Management Command’s (licensee’s)
Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). As the basis
for the request, the petitioner asserted that
the Environmental Radiation Monitoring
Plan (ERMP)15 for the licensed depleted
uranium (DU) that is located in the radiation
control areas (RCAs) at the PTA is inadequate
1 Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML17110A308.
2 ADAMS Accession No. ML17250A248.
3 ADAMS Accession No. ML17143A165.
4 ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
5 ADAMS Accession No. ML17249A091.
6 ADAMS Accession No. ML17248A524.
7 ADAMS Accession No. ML17249A075.
8 ADAMS Accession No. ML17297A372.
9 ADAMS Accession No. ML17292A690 (Pkg.).
10 ADAMS Accession No. ML18011A202 (Pkg.).
11 ADAMS Accession No. ML17346B028.
12 ADAMS Accession No. ML18022A567.
13 Copies of the petition and other publicly
available records are available for inspection at the
Commission’s Public Document Room, located at
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS
Electronic Reading Room on the NRC’s Web site at
https://ww.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons
who do not have access to ADAMS should contact
the reference staff in the NRC Public Document
Room by telephone at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–413–
4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.
14 ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A164.
15 ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A231.
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2018 / Notices
to detect DU leaving the RCAs. In the petition
and its supplements, the petitioner stated
specific concerns about the lack of air
monitoring and soil sampling at the PTA; the
appropriateness of the sediment sampling
location at the PTA; the number of sediment
samples to be collected; the frequency of
sediment sampling; the appropriateness of
analytical techniques, including sample
analysis methods; the geologic sampling
procedures for sediment collection, including
the appropriateness of data evaluation
methods; the applicability of a guidance
document used by the NRC to evaluate the
location and frequency of sediment sampling;
the sufficiency of the Davy Crockett DU
inventory conducted for the PTA; the lack of
evaluation of DU oxides; the lack of
transparency in the implementation and
reporting of the licensee’s environmental
radiation monitoring results for the licensed
DU; the lack of transparency in the NRC’s
licensing of Davy Crockett DU at the PTA;
and the licensee’s use of ranges at the PTA
for high explosive fire.
In a letter to the petitioner dated April 25,
2017,16 the NRC staff (staff) acknowledged
receipt of the petition. The petition was
assigned to the Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) for review and
appropriate action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
A petition review board (PRB) was formed to
evaluate the petitioner’s concerns following
the 10 CFR 2.206 process per Management
Directive 8.11, ‘‘Review Process for 10 CFR
2.206 Petitions’’ (MD 8.11).17 The petitioner
was offered an opportunity to meet with the
PRB before the PRB’s first meeting, but
declined this opportunity.18
The PRB recommended that the petition be
partially accepted for review under the 10
CFR 2.206 process. The NRC shared its
preliminary recommendation 19 with the
petitioner and offered the petitioner a second
opportunity to address the PRB.20 The
petitioner accepted the opportunity and
requested a teleconference with the PRB.21
The petitioner met with the PRB via
teleconference on October 11, 2017, to clarify
the basis for the petition. The transcript 22 of
this teleconference was treated as a
supplement to the petition.
The petitioner provided additional
information on October 12,23 October 15,24
and November 10, 2017,25 and January 15,
2018,26 to supplement the petition. At the
petitioner’s request, a third party provided
information on his behalf 27 to supplement
the petition. The licensee provided
comments and information on the petition by
e-mails dated July 31 28 and October 13,
16 ADAMS
Accession No. ML17116A083.
Accession No. ML041770328.
18 ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17159A83,
ML17177A703 and ML17177A688.
19 ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A757.
20 ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A759.
21 ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A761.
22 ADAMS Accession No. ML17297A372.
23 ADAMS Accession No. ML17292A690 (Pkg.).
24 ADAMS Accession No. ML18011A202.
25 ADAMS Accession No. ML17346B028.
26 ADAMS Accession No. ML18022A567.
27 ADAMS Accession No. ML18011A202 (Pkg.).
28 ADAMS Accession No. ML17240A219.
2017,29 and in the October 11, 2017,
teleconference.
By letter dated November 9, 2017,30 the
NRC informed the petitioner that the
following concerns raised in the petition
were accepted for review under 10 CFR
2.206: (1) inappropriate number of sediment
samples; (2) inappropriate frequency of
sediment sampling; (3) inappropriate and
poorly described analytical techniques
(sample analysis methods); (4) inappropriate
geological sampling procedures for sediment
collection; and (5) inappropriate data
evaluation methods (leading to dilution of
samples) to determine the presence of
depleted uranium outside the ranges (or
RCAs) associated with the PTA. In this letter,
the NRC also informed the petitioner that the
other concerns raised in the petition were not
accepted for review under 10 CFR 2.206 and
stated the basis for this determination. The
PRB used the criteria for petition evaluation
found in Part III of MD 8.11 to disposition
the petitioner’s concerns for acceptance or
rejection for review under the 10 CFR 2.206
process. On November 29, 2017,31 the NRC
provided notice that the PRB would address
the petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
By letter dated November 29, 2017,32 the
NRC requested that the licensee provide a
voluntary response to the petition. By letters
dated December 15, 2017,33 and January 19,
2018,34 the licensee provided its voluntary
response, and the information provided was
considered by the PRB in its evaluation of the
petition, as explained in the proposed
director’s decision.35
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed
director’s decision to the petitioner and to
the licensee for comment on February 20,
2018.36 The petitioner responded with
comments on the proposed director’s
decision on March 13, 2018.37 The licensee
did not provide comments on the proposed
director’s decision. The petitioner’s
comments and the staff’s responses to the
comments are included as an attachment to
this director’s decision.
Based on the staff’s evaluation of the
petitioner’s March 13, 2018, comments, and
the information presented in Section II,
Discussion, and Section III, Conclusions, of
this director’s decision, the final director’s
decision has not changed from the proposed
director’s decision.
The petition and other references related to
this petition are available for inspection in
the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR),
located at O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly
available documents created or received at
the NRC are accessible electronically through
ADAMS in the NRC Library at https://
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
17 ADAMS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 May 21, 2018
Jkt 241001
29 ADAMS
Accession No. ML17290A307 (Pkg.).
Accession No. ML17279A300 (Pkg.).
31 82 Fed. Reg. 228 (Nov. 29, 2017), https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR–2017–11–29/pdf/2017–
25830.pdf.
32 ADAMS Accession No. ML17297B403.
33 ADAMS Accession No. ML18009A456.
34 ADAMS Accession No. ML18023A991.
35 ADAMS Accession No. ML17341A126 (Pkg.).
36 ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17340A697 and
ML17342A395, respectively.
37 ADAMS Accession No. ML18087A134.
30 ADAMS
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23743
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS
or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should
contact the NRC’s PDR reference staff by
telephone at 1–800–397–4209, or 301-415–
4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
II. Discussion
Under 10 CFR 2.206(b), the Director of the
NRC office with responsibility for the subject
matter shall either institute the requested
proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a
license, or take any other action as may be
proper, or advise the petitioner who made
the request in writing that no proceeding will
be instituted, in whole or in part, with
respect to the request and the reasons for the
decision.
The petitioner raised concerns regarding
the adequacy of the ERMP for the licensed
DU that is located in the RCAs at the PTA
(PTA ERMP).38 The PRB analyzed the
information provided by the petitioner in
support of his concerns and the results of
those analyses are discussed below. After
consideration of the petition, including the
supplemental information supplied by the
petitioner, the NRC denies the petitioner’s
request to modify, suspend, or take other
action with respect to Source Materials
License No. SUC–1593 under 10 CFR 2.206.
The decision of the NMSS Director is
provided with respect to each of these
concerns.
Concern 1: The PTA ERMP allows for an
inappropriate number of sediment samples
in that a single sediment sampling location
is inadequate.
The petitioner states that the single
sampling point as detailed in the PTA
ERMP 39 is not sufficient. The petitioner
specifies that ‘‘multiple sampling sites
should be selected adjacent to each of the
four RCA boundaries and each should be in
a water way that has had observed
intermittent water flow sufficient to carry a
sediment load that is deposited at the sample
collection site.’’ 40
In the staff’s safety evaluation report (SER)
for Amendment No. 2,41 the staff concluded
that the site-specific ERMPs were ‘‘consistent
with the previously approved [Programmatic
ERMP] approach for preparation of sitespecific environmental monitoring plans,’’ as
well as with license conditions in Source
Materials License No. SUC–1593,
Amendment No. 1.42 The approach to
selecting sediment sampling locations
specified in the Programmatic ERMP 43 is to
sample sediment in water ways that flow
from the RCAs. In sites with multiple water
ways, multiple sediment sampling locations
are used. The PTA has a single sampling site
because the staff considers it a ‘‘dry site’’
with no perennial water ways flowing from
the RCAs. The PTA ERMP states that ‘‘[D]ue
to low rainfall, porous soils, and lava
38 ADAMS
Accession No. ML16265A231.
Accession No. ML16265A231.
40 ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
41 ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
42 ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A234.
43 ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A218.
39 ADAMS
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
23744
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2018 / Notices
substrates, no perennial surface water bodies
are located on, or immediately adjacent to,
[PTA]. The closest known surface water body
is located 4.5 miles upgradient of [PTA].
There are no perennial streams within 15
miles of [PTA], but there are intermittent
streams located northeast of [PTA] and only
one intermittent stream, Popoo Gulch, drains
the northern portion of [PTA]. Despite
occasional flow, water in the intermittent
stream channels infiltrates rapidly once
precipitation stops and the streams become
dry.’’ 44 In the staff’s SER for Amendment No.
1,45 the NRC approved the Programmatic
ERMP. The staff found that due to the small
doses anticipated from environmental
transport pathways, a limited environmental
monitoring program is justified.
In short, the water in the channel, where
the sediment sampling point is identified in
the PTA ERMP, flows only occasionally after
heavy rainfall events with the water in the
intermittent stream’s channel infiltrating
rapidly once precipitation stops, resulting in
the stream channel becoming dry. The
sediment sampling location was selected by
the licensee based on the ‘‘surface water
hydrology and potential for DU contribution
[migration].’’ 46 The license requires the
licensee to collect a sediment sample in a
designated area in the only intermittent
stream downstream from the RCAs. This
location and the number of sediment samples
were found to be acceptable by the staff in
the SER for Amendment No. 2 47 because the
approach was consistent with the
Programmatic ERMP and limited sampling
for the PTA is appropriate based upon the
small risk posed by the material.
Further, the staff concluded in its SER for
Amendment No. 1 48 that the dose from
airborne contamination is considered to be
highly unlikely to exceed a potential 1 mrem/
yr dose.49 The dose from all other
environmental pathways, as bounded by a
resident farmer pathways analysis using
RESRAD,50 is projected to be less than 4
mrem/yr. Furthermore, actual doses would
be further limited because actual exposure
durations are expected to be far less than
subsistence farming residence times. In
addition, in the SER for Amendment No. 1,51
the staff independently verified the RESRAD
calculations provided by the licensee and
found the use of those scenarios, parameters,
and assumptions to be reasonable and
appropriate. The results from the RESRAD
analysis supported the staff’s decision 52 to
require a limited amount of environmental
44 ADAMS
Accession No. ML16265A231.
Accession No. ML16039A230.
46 ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A231.
47 ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
48 ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
49 See the SER for Amendment 2 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16343A163, pages 5 and 6
regarding the significance of 1 mrem/year as related
to License Condition 19.
50 RESRAD, or RESidual RADioactivity, is a
computer code for evaluation of risk posed by
radioactively contaminated sites. The NRC has
approved RESRAD for dose evaluation by licensees
involved in decommissioning, and for staff to assess
waste disposal requests and dose evaluations.
51 ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
52 ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
45 ADAMS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 May 21, 2018
Jkt 241001
monitoring outside of the RCA under certain
conditions, as required per Section 4.3 of the
Programmatic ERMP, and as required by the
PTA ERMP. Sampling locations at the site are
limited; however, this approach was found to
be acceptable by the staff because it is
consistent with the Programmatic ERMP and
limited sampling is acceptable based upon
the small risk posed by the material. The staff
found the proposed frequencies, analyses,
and actions sufficient to ensure DU migration
outside of the RCA is adequately monitored
while not exposing personnel to undue risk
due to accessing unexploded ordnance areas.
Accordingly, the staff concluded in its SER
for License Amendment No. 2 that the PTA
ERMP is adequate for monitoring for
transport of DU from the RCAs.
For the reasons set forth above, the staff
finds that the PTA ERMP does allow for an
appropriate number of sediment samples in
that a single sediment sampling location is
adequate.
Concern 2: The PTA ERMP allows for an
inappropriate frequency of sediment
samples.
The petitioner states that the licensee
should be required to sample more frequently
than quarterly, and that ‘‘sampling several
times a year is not sufficient.’’ 53 The PTA
ERMP commits the licensee to performing
sediment sampling on a quarterly basis. This
quarterly sampling frequency exceeds the
semi-annual sampling frequency for
sediment sampling recommended in
NUREG–1301, ‘‘Offsite Dose Calculation
Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological
Effluent Controls for Pressurized Water
Reactors,’’ 54 April 1991. Because no
guidance exists that is specific to DU in the
form of spent rounds present in the
environment, the staff used NUREG–1301 to
inform its review of the licensee’s proposed
sampling methods and frequency. Although
the PTA RCAs do not produce effluents, as
do pressurized-water reactors, the guidance
in NUREG–1301 is conservative for
reviewing the licensee’s proposed sampling
methods and frequency because the expected
risks from the presence of DU at the PTA are
significantly less than those associated with
radiological releases from an operating
nuclear power plant. The sediment sampling
frequency for the PTA is considered by the
staff to be conservative, and therefore
adequate because it exceeds the sampling
frequency recommended for effluents from
pressurized-water reactors, for a site with a
much lower potential all pathway dose.
For the reasons set forth above, the staff
finds that the site-specific ERMP for the PTA
is adequate with respect to the frequency of
samples taken at the PTA.
Concern 3: The PTA ERMP provides
inappropriate and poorly described
analytical techniques for the sediment
sample analysis methods.
The petitioner states that for the PTA
ERMP, the licensee’s ‘‘sediment monitoring
program is improperly configured.’’ 55 The
53 ADAMS
Accession No. ML17110A308.
Accession No. ML091050061.
55 ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
54 ADAMS
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
petitioner states that there is an
‘‘[i]ncomplete description of laboratory
preparation methods for alpha spectrometry’’
and explains that ‘‘[c]hemicals used in
preparation, exchange resins, internal
standards, concentration methods for
uranium, preparation of sample on planchet
(electrodeposition or precipitation), counting
times, reference standards, etc. must be
identified.’’ 56 Further, the petitioner states
with regard to the PTA sediment monitoring
program, that there is an ‘‘[i]nadequate
description of technique of alpha
spectrometry’’ and inquires, ‘‘[w]hat is the
sensitivity and what energies will be used for
isotope determination? Can other U isotopes
be detected (U–236) and transuranics (Pu,
Np, Am)?’’ 57
In the context of the analytical techniques
for the ‘‘sediment sampling program for the
PTA,’’ the petitioner states that there are
‘‘[i]nadequate analyses for isotopes to
identify DU (U–236 and Mo, the alloy
material, and transuranics would be of
paramount interest)’’ 58 and explains that
‘‘[t]he samples should be analyzed also by an
ICP [inductively coupled-plasma] technique
that can identify other isotopes including U–
236, and isotopes of Pu, Np and Am. Such
would give a specific indication of
reprocessed fuel rods. These are important
for conclusive DU presence.’’ 59 Further, the
petitioner disagrees with the NRC statement
that ‘‘[t]he methods for sample analysis are
commonly utilized methods . . . ’’ 60
As an initial matter, the staff notes that the
licensee is not required to submit
information on laboratory preparation
methods beyond the information presented
in the Quality Assurance Plan (Annex 19 to
the Programmatic ERMP). 61 However, the
staff may ask to review documentation
regarding the analysis of sediment samples,
such as laboratory procedures and methods,
during NRC inspections.
The staff disagrees with the petitioner that
the proposed analytical methods are not
commonly used methods. Alpha
spectrometry (US DOE HASL method 300) 62
and inductively coupled-plasma mass
spectrometry (ICP–MS) are commonly used
methods for sample analysis to determine
uranium isotopic activity or mass and have
sufficient detection capability to accomplish
the stated objectives of the monitoring
activity.63 64 As described in the license at
56 ADAMS
Accession No. ML17177A703.
Accession No. ML17177A703.
58 ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
59 ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
60 ADAMS Accession No. ML17110A308.
61 ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A233.
62 HASL–300 EML Procedures Manual at https://
www.orau.org/ptp/PTP%20Library/library/DOE/
eml/hasl300/HASL300TOC.htm
63 J. Sabine Becker, International Journal of
Spectrometry, ‘‘Inductively coupled plasms mass
spectrometry (ICP–MS) and laser ablation ICP–MS
for isotopic analysis of long-live radionuclides,’’
Volume 242, Issues 2–3, 1 April 2005, Pages 183–
195, Elsevier.
64 Carvalho, F.P. & Oliveira, J.M. ‘‘Performance of
alpha spectrometry in the analysis of uranium
isotopes in environmental and nuclear materials,’’
J Radioanal Nucl Chem (2009) 281: 591. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10967-009-0046-2.
57 ADAMS
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2018 / Notices
Annex 19, the ‘‘Programmatic Uniform
Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project
Plan (UFP–QAPP)’’ for the Environmental
Radiation Monitoring Program,65 ICP–MS
will be used to supplement alpha
spectrometry in samples in which the alpha
spectrometry results indicate a U–238/U–234
ratio above 3.0.
The petitioner states that the current
method of evaluation is not sensitive enough
to distinguish DU from natural uranium, and
that using a technique that could detect
radionuclides that are present in trace
quantities in DU, but are not naturally
occurring, would provide better evidence of
DU transport. Specifically, the petitioner
states that using ICP–MS on each sample, or
using it to detect radionuclides other than U–
234, U–235, or U–238, is necessary. However,
as indicated in Annex 19, the minimum
detectable concentration (MDC) for the
licensee’s proposed alpha spectrometry
technique is 0.1 picocuries per gram (pCi/g).
That value is far below the NRC soil
screening values of 13 pCi/g, 8.0 pCi/g, and
14 pCi/g, for U–234, U–235, and U–238,
respectively.66 Those screening values, given
in Table H.2 in NUREG–1757, Volume 2,
Rev. 1, ‘‘Consolidated Decommissioning
Guidance,’’ 67 are concentrations of
individual radionuclides in surficial soil that
staff has determined to be protective of
public health and safety.68 The staff
determined in its SER for Amendment No.
2 69 that the two-step analysis method (i.e.,
using ICP–MS only as a confirmatory
technique for samples with a U–238/U–234
ratio above 3.0) is appropriate. Based on the
comparison of the MDC of the licensee’s
proposed method to the NRC soil screening
values, the staff continues to find the
licensee’s proposed use of alpha
spectrometry to be appropriate.
The petitioner raises a related point about
the effects of the natural variation of the U–
238 to U–234 ratio in the environment, on
the licensee’s ability to detect DU. The
petitioner states that ‘‘[t]he heterogeneity of
the sample ROC [radionuclide of concern]
will likely provide dilution effects for
analysis and minimize threshold
concentrations. This issue has not been
addressed by the Army or the analytical
laboratory.’’ 70 Also, the petitioner states that
‘‘[g]iven the probable dilution factors of
sediment sourcing and mixing multiple
collected samples, any ratio of U238/234
greater than one should be considered
indicative of DU. This was seen in a
contractor report (Cabrerra), where soil
65 ADAMS
Accession No.ML16265A233.
NUREG–1757 Volume 2, Rev. 1, Table H.2
values for the individual radionuclides were used
instead of the values that account for progeny (i.e.,
the ‘‘+C’’ values) because the enrichment process
that creates DU typically removes most of the
progeny with an atomic weight less than U–234
from the DU.
67 ADAMS Accession No. ML063000243.
68 Soil screening values represent surficial surface
soil concentrations of individual radionuclides that
would be deemed in compliance with the 25 mrem/
y (0.25 mSv/y) unrestricted release dose limit in 10
CFR 20.1402.
69 ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
70 ADAMS Accession No. ML18017A784.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
66 The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 May 21, 2018
Jkt 241001
samples often showed uranium 238/234
increased activity ratios.’’ 71 As discussed in
further detail in the staff’s disposition of
Concern 5, the staff found that the natural
variation in the U–238 to U–234 ratio in the
environment did not affect the staff’s
conclusion about the adequacy of the
licensee’s proposed method of evaluation.
The commitments that the licensee makes
in its Programmatic ERMP, which is tied to
the license, require the licensee to
periodically review its Programmatic ERMP
and each site-specific ERMP for revisions
that it believes should be made related to
changes in the understanding of risk
associated with exposure to DU in the
environment; changes in local/regional land
use; changes in environmental transport
characteristics or environmental conditions
that violate the conservative assumptions of
the bounding RESRAD analysis of the
Programmatic ERMP in such a way that the
RESRAD analysis is no longer bounding;
trends in sampling results indicating
increased mobilization of DU, but at levels
below the bounding RESRAD analysis of the
Programmatic ERMP or other regulatory
thresholds; and any other new information
that indicates a need to adjust the sitespecific ERMP. Further, the Programmatic
ERMP requires that if the licensee determines
that changing site conditions result in
environmental transport or exposure hazards
that exceed those used in the bounding
RESRAD calculations, the licensee must
notify the NRC license program manager
within 30 days. The staff found the licensee’s
commitments reasonable given the expected
level of risk.
The licensee’s strategy for routine, as well
as periodic, environmental radiation
monitoring at the PTA was addressed in its
applications for Amendment Nos. 1 and 2. In
its SERs for Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, the
staff determined that the Programmatic
ERMP and PTA ERMP, respectively, would
ensure adequate protection of public health
and safety. The staff previously determined
in the SER for License Amendment No. 2 72
that the methods described in the PTA ERMP
and UFP–QAPP were sensitive enough.
Through inspection, the staff may inspect the
data collected from implementation of the
PTA ERMP to verify that the sensitivity
remains appropriate.
For the reasons set forth above, the NRC
finds that the licensee’s description of its
analytical methods in the PTA ERMP is
adequate and the licensee’s analytical
methods for sediment analysis are
appropriate.
Concern 4: The PTA ERMP allows for
inappropriate geological procedures for
sediment collection.
The petitioner expresses concern about the
geological procedures for sediment collection
methods, stating, ‘‘[w]hat is presented, if
given to any reasonable person familiar with
geologic sampling procedures, is so
egregiously defective and disparate from
accepted sampling procedures, it must be
deemed fatally flawed.’’ 73 The petitioner
71 ADAMS
Accession No. ML17177A703.
Accession No. ML16343A163.
73 ADAMS Accession No. ML17110A308.
72 ADAMS
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23745
asserts that the licensee’s specific sampling
techniques, method of sample collection, and
training are inadequate.74 The petitioner
states ‘‘[f]urther, there is no indication that
the samplers will have had specific training
in the simple and common aspects of
sampling. Can they distinguish the difference
between a sediment sample and a soil sample
or a slump deposit?’’ 75 The petitioner
specifically notes issues with the composite
sample method employed by the licensee.
The petitioner also states that ‘‘organics and
water’’ should be sent for separate analysis
and suggests that core sampling would be
beneficial.76
The types of procedures for sediment
collection are identified in each site-specific
ERMP and in the Programmatic Quality
Assurance Plan for ERMPs, which are tied to
the license.77 In the SER for Amendment No.
1,78 the staff found that ‘‘. . . each ERMP
contains prescribed general methods for
sample collection and sample analysis . . .’’
Annex 19, ‘‘Programmatic Uniform Federal
Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP–
QAPP),’’ for the ERMP includes worksheets
stating the licensee’s action levels for sample
evaluation and what actions the licensee is
required to take should the sample data
exceed these action levels. The license
requires the licensee to use the type of
sampling procedures specified in the UFP–
QAPP.79 During inspections, the staff will
review site-specific procedures, such as
sediment sampling procedures, as
determined by inspection plans.
The petitioner expresses concerns about
the adequacy of the licensee’s geological
training for individuals tasked with
implementing the environmental monitoring
program, but does not specify why geological
training is necessary to take samples
sufficient for the purposes of the PTA ERMP
or the Programmatic ERMP. The NRC does
not require geological training to implement
the PTA ERMP. In its SER for License
Amendment No. 1,80 the staff found the
licensee’s commitments regarding training
acceptable. In its application for Amendment
No. 2, the licensee made training
commitments with regard to implementation
of the ERMP in its UFP–QAPP 81 and
Programmatic Radiation Safety Plan,82 and
the staff found them acceptable as detailed in
its associated SER.83 The licensee did not
commit to requiring geological training to
implement the PTA ERMP or the
Programmatic ERMP.
In its SER for Amendment No. 2,84 the staff
concluded that the findings described in the
SER support the issuance of a license
amendment requiring the use of the sitespecific ERMPs and the associated UFP–
QAPP applicable to each military
74 ADAMS
Accession No. ML17110A308.
Accession No. ML17177A703.
76 ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
77 ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A221 (Pkg.).
78 ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
79 ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A233.
80 ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
81 ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A233.
82 ADAMS Accession No. ML16004A369.
83 ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
84 ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
75 ADAMS
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
23746
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2018 / Notices
installation. The UFP–QAPP addresses the
quality assurance, quality control, and
additional technical activities that must be
implemented to ensure that data collected
during ERMP activities at the Davy Crockett
installations are of sufficient quality to
support the NRC requirements. The
petitioner did not support the claim that
specific geological training is necessary to
take samples sufficient to meet NRC
requirements.
The petitioner has not provided
information to support his assertion that
‘‘organics and water’’ should be sent for
separate analysis. The concentrations of the
radionuclides of concern are obtained from
the analysis of the total sample. The analysis
procedure does not require such a separation,
nor does the license require the licensee to
separate organics from water for separate
analysis before sediment samples are
analyzed. With respect to his statement that
core sampling would be beneficial, the
petitioner states that core sampling would
provide historical information. However,
obtaining historical information is not one of
the purposes of the PTA ERMP. Scoping 85
and characterization surveys were performed
by the licensee in the past,86 and the staff,
as documented in the SER for Amendment
No. 1, found that they were sufficient to
determine the extent and depth of Davy
Crockett DU at the PTA. In its application for
Amendment No. 1, the licensee reported that
the average soil concentrations of uranium
inside the RCA are less than the default NRC
screening level for license termination. The
NRC does not require additional
characterization for the PTA.
For the reasons set forth above, the NRC
finds that the site-specific ERMP for the PTA
is adequate with respect to its description of
procedures for sediment collection methods.
Concern 5: The PTA ERMP allows for
inappropriate data evaluation methods to
determine the presence of DU outside the
ranges associated with PTA.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
The petitioner states that there is an
‘‘[i]nadequate definition of the activity ratios
used to define DU presence,’’ explaining that
‘‘[g]iven the probable dilution factors of
sediment sourcing and mixing multiple
collected samples, any ratio of U238/234
greater than one should be considered
indicative of DU. This was seen in a
contractor report (Cabrerra), where soil
samples often showed uranium 238/234
increased activity ratios.’’ 87
As part of its evaluation of this concern,
the staff requested information88 from the
licensee, regarding how it intends to meet the
3-to-1 ratio of U–238 to U–234 in License
Condition 17 when compositing sediment
85 ADAMS
Accession No. ML092950352.
2007. Archives Search Report on the
Use of Cartridge, 20MM Spotting Round M101,
Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28, Schofield
Barracks and Associated Training Areas, Islands of
Oahu and Hawaii. Prepared by USACE, St Louis
District.
87 ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
88 ADAMS Accession No. ML17297B403.
86 USACE,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 May 21, 2018
Jkt 241001
samples. In its response to the request,89 the
licensee clarified that the ‘‘composite’’
samples were all taken in essentially one
location and a provision for taking 10 subsamples was included to ensure sufficient
sample volume was collected. Based on the
licensee’s clarification, the staff determined
that dilution is not a concern as the subsamples are more representative of a single
sample than a ‘‘composite’’ sample.
The staff verified that the 3-to-1 ratio of U–
238 to U–234 is appropriate. DU used for
military purposes typically has a U–238 to
U–234 activity ratio of approximately 5.5.90
If that DU is mixed with natural uranium in
the environment, that ratio will be lower
because natural uranium has a U–238 to U–
234 activity ratio of approximately 1.0.91
Pursuant to License Condition 17, the
licensee is required to notify the NRC of any
uranium detected with a U–238 to U–234
ratio of 3 or more. Based on the assumption
that the DU has a U–238 to U–234 ratio of
5.5 and natural uranium has a U–238 to U–
234 activity ratio of 1.0, an activity ratio of
3.0 reflects a mixture of approximately 28
percent natural uranium and 72 percent DU
(percent by activity).92 Background levels of
natural uranium in soil from PTA are
approximately 0.4 pCi/g.93
A sample with 72 percent depleted
uranium (by activity) and 0.4 pCi/g natural
uranium would contain approximately 1
pCi/g DU, or approximately 0.15 pCi/g U–
234, 0.01 pCi/g U–235, and 0.84 pCi/g U–
238, which are well below the NRC soil
screening values for decommissioning.94
Therefore, the licensee’s use of the 3.0
activity ratio is acceptable because it would
allow the licensee to identify DU at
concentrations below values that NRC finds
protective of public health and safety.
The petitioner refers to a journal article 95
that explains that the ratio of U–238 to U–
234 in natural uranium can vary because of
differences in how U–238 and U–234 are
transported in the environment. 96 However,
the background concentrations of natural
uranium at PTA are sufficiently low that
variation in the U–238 to U–234 ratio of
natural uranium at PTA is not expected to be
89 ADAMS
Accession No. ML18009A456.
Depleted Uranium, retrieved at https://
www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel-management/
depleted-uranium on January 29, 2018.
91 U–238 and U–234 in secular equilibrium have
an activity ratio of 1.0; however, that ratio is only
approximate in the natural environment because of
differences in how U–238 and U–234 are retained
in rock and soil.
92 Because DU has a lower specific activity than
natural uranium, that mixture would be 19 percent
natural uranium and 81 percent DU by mass.
93 ADAMS Accession No. ML12265A173 (Table
3).
94 The NRC soil screening values for
decommissioning are: U–234: 1.3E+01pCi/g; U–235:
8.0E+00pCi/g, and U–238 1.4E+01pCi/g. ADAMS
Accession No. ML063000243 (Appendix B, Table
B.2).
95 Fleischer, R.L., 2008, Difficulties in using
234U/238U values to detect enriched or depleted
uranium, Health Physics, v. 94, p.292–293.
96 ADAMS Accession No. ML17249A091.
90 IAEA,
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
large enough to compromise the licensee’s
ability to detect significant migration of DU
in soils or sediments. For example, if the U–
238 to U–234 ratio of natural uranium in PTA
site soil or sediment were only 0.5 instead of
1.0 (a relatively large natural variation), a
sample would have a U–238 to U–234 ratio
of 3.0 if it had 19 percent natural uranium
and 81 percent DU (by activity). Given the
natural uranium background concentration of
0.4 pCi/g in PTA soil, that mixture would
have a total activity of 2.1 pCi/g, or 1.7
pCi/g DU. As previously indicated, that
concentration is well below the NRC soil
screening values for uranium isotopes.
The environmental processes that cause
variation in the U–238 to U–234 ratio in
natural uranium can also affect the U–238 to
U–234 ratio in DU exposed to the natural
environment. However, the effect of the
alpha recoil process described in the
reference 97 supplied by the petitioner is to
allow more U–234 than U–238 to be
transported in water. That process would
tend to increase the U–238 to U–234 ratio in
solid samples of DU (i.e., soil and sediment),
making the U–238 to U–234 ratio in those
samples greater (i.e., more likely to exceed
the threshold value of 3.0). Therefore, the
staff finds that the previous conclusion that
the licensee’s proposed method to detect DU
is adequate, is not challenged by either the
expected natural variation in the U–238 to
U–234 ratio in site soil and sediment or
consideration of the potential effects of alpha
recoil on DU at the site.
For the reasons set forth above, the NRC
finds that the licensee has adequate data
evaluation methods to determine the
presence of DU at PTA.
III. Conclusion
The NRC fully evaluated the petitioner’s
concerns and based on the results of that
evaluation, determined that there was no
basis for granting the petitioner’s request to
modify, suspend, or take other action with
respect to, Source Materials License No.
SUC–1593 under 10 CFR 2.206. Accordingly,
the NRC denies the petitioner’s request to
modify, suspend, or take other action with
respect to Source Materials License No. SUC–
1593. As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), the
staff will file a copy of this final director’s
decision with the Secretary of the
Commission for the Commission to review.
As provided for by that regulation, the
director’s decision will constitute the final
action of the Commission 25 days after the
date of the decision unless the Commission,
on its own motion, institutes a review of the
decision within that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day
of May, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
97 Fleischer, R.L., 2008, Difficulties in using
234U/238U values to detect enriched or depleted
uranium, Health Physics, v. 94, p.292–293.
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2018 / Notices
Marc L. Dapas, Director,
Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards
Attachment:
Petitioner’s Comments on the
Proposed Director’s Decision and
NRC’s Responses
ATTACHMENT: PETITIONER’S
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED
DIRECTOR’S DECISION AND NRC’S
RESPONSES
The petitioner provided comments to the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
on the proposed director’s decision
(Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Accession
No. ML17341A126 (Pkg.)) by electronic mail
(e-mail) dated March 13, 2018 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML18087A134). In the
petitioner’s March 13, 2018 e-mail, the
petitioner notes that he has ‘‘rephrased some
statements to make it clearer to the review
panel members who do not have full
familiarity with the issues.’’ For
completeness, and where appropriate, the
NRC staff (staff) provides clarifying remarks
on its previous evaluation of the petitioner’s
concerns on the Davy Crockett depleted
uranium (DU) inventory and the sediment
sampling outside the Pohakuloa Training
Area (PTA) Radiation Control Areas (RCAs).
The petitioner’s comments do not alter the
staff’s overall analyses or conclusions in the
director’s decision and, therefore, do not
require modification to the final director’s
decision.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Comment 1:
The petitioner asserts that the review
process is flawed, as evidenced by (1) the
selection and expertise of the reviewing staff
members; (2) an emphasis on administrative
review over technical review; and (3) the
rejection of new and materially relevant facts
presented in the petition and its
supplements. With respect to this latter
point, the petitioner provided information on
an historic lava flow and referred to a
statement made by the licensee previously
indicating that sediment samples will not be
collected because no sediment is present at
the PTA.
Response 1:
The petition was reviewed in accordance
with NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.11.
MD 8.11 describes the composition and role
of the petition review board and the process
for reviewing Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 2.206 petitions. A copy
of MD 8.11 was provided to the petitioner on
April 25, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML17110A299 (Pkg.)).
The staff considered all of the information
provided by the petitioner in its review of the
petition and its supplements. The staff notes
that at the time the licensee submitted its
initial license application for Source
Materials License No. SUC–1593, the
licensee had not identified an intermittent
stream at the PTA. Since that time, as
documented in its application for License
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 May 21, 2018
Jkt 241001
Amendment No. 2, the licensee has
identified an intermittent stream for
sediment sampling outside of the PTA RCA
boundaries. On page 2–1 of the
Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan
(ERMP) in effect for the PTA (ADAMS
Accession No. ML1625A231), the licensee
states: ‘‘The sediment sampling location at
Pohakuloa TA was selected based on the
surface water hydrology and potential for DU
contribution and is located as follows:
• ERM–01—The selected sampling point is
located at an intermittent stream at the
installation’s northern boundary,
downstream from the RCAs. ERM–01 is
accessible using the Lightning Trail or via
Saddle Road.’’
As explained in Enclosure 1 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML17279A082) to the NRC’s
letter to the petitioner dated November 9,
2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A300
(Pkg.)), the licensee submitted a license
amendment application (ADAMS Accession
No. ML17158B356) to correct figure sizing/
scaling errors in the ERMP annex for the PTA
and two other sites. Because the petitioner’s
concern regarding the sediment sampling
location at the PTA is now under staff’s
consideration as part of its review of this
license amendment request, the 10 CFR 2.206
process is not appropriate for addressing that
concern. The staff will inform the petitioner
of the outcome of this licensing review.
Comment 2:
The petitioner asserts that the amount of
DU specified in the license for the PTA is
grossly underestimated and must be revised.
In support of this assertion, the petitioner
states that the component parts of the main
warhead show a yellow coating consistent
with DU oxide and the existence of firing
pistons shows the dummy Davy Crockett
warhead (M–390) was fired. The petitioner
states that this concern is now supported
with ‘‘anecdotal evidence’’ that the dummy
warhead contained DU. The petitioner
provides a link to a blog and web forum as
this anecdotal evidence.
Response 2:
The petitioner’s comments are directed at
a concern that was not accepted for review
under the 10 CFR 2.206 process and is not
the subject of this director’s decision. The
basis for the rejection of this concern under
the 10 CFR 2.206 process is described on
pages 5 and 6 of Enclosure 1 to the proposed
director’s decision, under the concern
identified as ‘‘Insufficient Davy Crockett DU
Inventory.’’
The staff is unable to substantiate the new
‘‘anecdotal evidence’’ referred to in the
petitioner’s comment, and is therefore unable
to conclude that this anecdotal evidence is
evidence that the license underestimates the
amount of DU present at the PTA. As
explained in Enclosure 1 to the November 9,
2017, letter, the sufficiency of the Davy
Crockett DU inventory was addressed in a
previous application and safety evaluation
report (SER) (Amendment No. 1). The staff
evaluated the licensee’s estimate of the DU
inventory and documented its conclusions in
the associated SERs for the initial licensing
of the ranges with DU at the two military
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23747
installations located in the Hawaiian Islands,
and for Amendment No. 1. As part of its
evaluations in both SERs, the staff considered
the information in the licensee’s report
entitled ‘‘Project Archive Search Report Use
of Cartridge, 20mm Spotting M101 Davy
Crockett Light Weapon M28 on U.S. Army
Installations January 2008 Revised, June
2011.’’ In addition, as part of its review of the
initial license application for the PTA
(ADAMS Accession No. ML13259A081), the
staff previously reviewed the photographs
(ADAMS Accession No. ML09295032) that
were referenced in the petitioner’s July 24,
2017, supplement (ADAMS Accession No.
ML17249A091), as well as other reference
documents provided by the licensee in its
initial ERMP for the PTA (ADAMS Accession
No. ML12046A506) that support the
conclusion that the yellow residue on other
Davy Crockett weapon system components is
not DU.
Comment 3:
The petitioner asserts that the staff
improperly introduced health-effect
possibility as a reason to accept ‘‘corrupt
monitoring methodologies.’’ The petitioner
states that, even so, the estimated number of
dummy warheads from the piston count
should be used in configuring the RESRAD
dose. The petitioner asserts that dose risk to
the public should be assessed in a different
manner from the resident farmer scenario.
Response 3:
The licensee did not include dummy
warheads in its dose assessment because
there is no evidence that dummy rounds
contain DU at PTA. Source Materials License
No. SUC–1593 applies to Davy Crockett
M101 spotting rounds, which contain DU. As
explained in the director’s decision under
Concern 4, scoping and characterization
surveys were performed by the licensee in
the past. The staff, as documented in the SER
for Amendment No. 1, found that the
licensee’s efforts were sufficient to determine
the extent and depth of Davy Crockett DU at
the PTA.
The licensee used the resident farmer
exposure scenario for its dose assessment for
the PTA. The resident farmer is one who
grows her or his own food on the
contaminated site and collects her or his own
water also from the contaminated site. The
staff considers this scenario to be a bounding
scenario for the Davy Crockett M101 spotting
rounds at the RCAs. Once the exposure
scenario is chosen, the second step in a dose
assessment is to predict how the
radionuclides will move through the
environment to where they could come into
contact with humans. The final step in a dose
assessment is to then predict what the
resulting dose would be. The total lifetime
dose received by the individual is calculated
from a given amount of a radionuclide
ingested or inhaled (measured in curies)
multiplied by a dose conversion factor from
a related calculation of the dose from
external penetrating radiation. Given that
calculations for dose assessments are
complex, they are best done on a computer.
The licensee used the computer program or
code called RESRAD (short for RESidual
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
23748
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2018 / Notices
RADioactivity) to carry out the three steps
described above using the resident farmer
scenario. RESRAD is commonly used to make
regulatory decisions about residual
radioactivity levels at nuclear sites. This code
was used by the licensee, and reviewed by
the staff, to assess radiation exposures of a
human receptor located on top of soils
contaminated with DU. RESRAD allows users
to specify the features of their site and to
predict the dose received by an individual at
any time over the next 100,000 years.
RESRAD is particularly important because it
has been accepted for use by the NRC in
making regulatory decisions and is freely
available to the public.
Comment 4:
The petitioner states that the use of
NUREG–1301 is improper because it does not
address stream sediment sampling.
Response 4:
As stated in the director’s decision, while
NUREG–1301 is not specific to DU in the
form of spent rounds present in the
environment, it is conservative for reviewing
the licensee’s proposed sampling methods
and frequency because the expected risks
from the presence of DU at the PTA are
significantly less than those associated with
radiological releases from an operating
nuclear power plant. Also, the fact that this
guidance addresses sediment from [the]
shoreline of surface water instead of stream
sediment does not affect the conservatism of
applying the NUREG to environmental
sampling at PTA.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Comment 5:
The petitioner challenges the staff’s
conclusions that the analytical methods in
the PTA ERMP are appropriate and that the
laboratory preparation methods are
adequately described in the PTA ERMP. The
petitioner states that the analytical method
selected, an alpha spectrometer, presumably
cannot detect 235U unless very long counting
times are used. The petitioner states ‘‘an
overwhelming number of procedural
descriptions are provided with the phrase,
‘TBD (to be determined)’’’ in Annex 17 and
19.
Response 5:
As stated in the director’s decision under
Concern 3, the staff disagrees with the
petitioner that the analytical methods are not
commonly used methods. Alpha
spectrometry (US DOE HASL method 300)
and inductively coupled-plasma mass
spectrometry (ICP–MS) are commonly used
methods for sample analysis to determine
uranium isotopic activity or mass and have
sufficient detection capability to accomplish
the stated objectives of the monitoring
activity.
Furthermore, the petitioner expressed
concerns about appropriateness of the
analytical methods by raising the issue of the
long counting times for U–235. However, as
described in Concern 3, the licensee has not
proposed to count U–235, but instead plans
to use the U–238 to U–234 ratio, as a
surrogate, as required by License Condition
17.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 May 21, 2018
Jkt 241001
With regard to the analytical procedures
being adequately described including the use
of the phrase ‘‘TBD’’, as described in the
director’s decision under Concern 3, the
licensee is not required to submit
information on laboratory preparation
methods beyond the information presented
in the Quality Assurance Plan (Annex 19 to
the Programmatic ERMP) (ADAMS Accession
No. ML16265A233). Also, the licensee is not
required to submit environmental sampling
procedures beyond the information presented
in Annex 19 to the Programmatic ERMP. The
licensee has made a commitment in its
application for License Amendment No. 1
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16004A369) that:
‘‘Each installation-specific ERMP will
describe sampling in terms of sampling
objectives, sampling protocols, analytical
methods, and data quality assurance
protocols. These descriptions will conform to
commonly accepted practices and reliable
sources as described in the Multi-Agency
Radiation Survey and Site Investigation
Manual (MARSSIM) (NRC, DOE, EPA, DOD
2000). Acceptable analytical methods include
those commonly accepted from reliable
references, as presented in MARSSIM, Table
7.2.’’
The staff found this approach acceptable. In
the SER for License Amendment No. 1
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230), the
staff found that, ‘‘. . . in accordance with 10
CFR 40.32(c) . . . that the Army’s proposed
equipment and procedures in the
programmatic RSP [Radiation Safety Plan]
are adequate to protect health and safety and
minimize danger to life or property.’’ Review
of specific procedures are covered in the NRC
inspection process, not licensing. The staff
may ask to review documentation regarding
the analysis of sediment samples, such as
laboratory procedures and methods and
sampling procedures, during NRC
inspections.
Comment 6:
The petitioner asserts that an Oak Ridge
report (ADAMS Accession No.
ML13101A090) demonstrates that the
analytical methods used by the licensee are
improper and that the proposed director’s
decision improperly ignores this report.
Response 6:
As explained in the director’s decision
under Concern 5, as part of the staff’s review
of the petitioner’s concern regarding
composite sample dilution, the staff
requested information (ADAMS Accession
No. ML17297B403) from the licensee,
regarding how it intends to meet the 3-to-1
ratio of U–238 to U–234 in License Condition
17 when compositing sediment samples. The
staff referred to the Oak Ridge Report
(ADAMS Accession No. ML13101A090) in its
request letter (ADAMS Accession No.
ML17297B403), stating that ‘‘this guidance
indicates that a statistically-informed
sampling regime should be followed if
composite sampling is used over an area (i.e.,
not just at one sample location). The detailed
guidance referenced above recommends (1)
retaining sub-samples in case further analysis
is needed, (2) establishing an adjusted limit
that would trigger analysis of individual
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
subsamples, and (3) using sub-samples of the
same volume.’’ In its response to the request
(ADAMS Accession No. ML18009A456), the
licensee clarified that the ‘‘composite’’
samples were all taken in essentially one
location and a provision for taking 10 subsamples was included to ensure sufficient
sample volume was collected. Based on the
licensee’s clarification, the staff determined
that dilution is not a concern as the subsamples are more representative of a single
sample than a ‘‘composite’’ sample.
Comment 7:
The petitioner states that there are
significant barriers to flow from the RCAs at
the PTA to the proposed sample collection
site, and that the staff should have used
objective programs to trace out surface flows.
The petitioner states that the staff should
mandate that the sampling location be
adjacent to the RCA, ‘‘not miles away with
an intermittent lava berm.’’
Response 7:
The petitioner’s comments are directed at
a concern that was not accepted for review
under the 10 CFR 2.206 process and is not
the subject of this director’s decision. The
basis for the rejection of this concern under
the 10 CFR 2.206 process is described on
pages 3 and 4 of Enclosure 1 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML17279A082) to the NRC’s
letter to the petitioner dated November 9,
2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A300
(Pkg.)), under the concern identified as
‘‘Inappropriate Sampling Location.’’ As
described in the staff’s Response 1, above, the
licensee submitted a license amendment
application to the NRC to correct figure
sizing/scaling errors in the ERMP annex for
the PTA and two other sites. Because the
petitioner’s concern regarding the sediment
sampling location at the PTA is now under
staff’s consideration as part of its review of
this license amendment request, the 2.206
process is not appropriate for addressing that
concern. The staff will inform the petitioner
of the outcome of this licensing review.
[FR Doc. 2018–10840 Filed 5–21–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–247 and 50–286; NRC–
2008–0672]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.;
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit
Nos. 2 and 3
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement;
issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing Volume 5
of the plant-specific Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
(FSEIS), Supplement 38 to NUREG–
1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23742-23748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10840]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 40-9083; NRC-2018-0084]
U.S. Army Installation Command
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Director's decision under 10 CFR 2.206; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a
director's decision in response to a petition dated March 16, 2017,
filed by Dr. Michael Reimer (the petitioner), requesting that the NRC
take enforcement-related action with regard to the U.S. Army
Installation Management Command (the licensee). The petitioner's
requests and the director's decision are included in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
DATES: The director's decision was issued on May 15, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0084 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0084. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-
9127; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Snyder, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555[dash]0001; telephone: 301-415-6822, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the director's decision is
attached.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of May, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen Koenick,
Chief, Materials Decommissioning Branch, Division of Decommissioning,
Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards.
Attachment--Director's Decision DD-18-02
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS
Marc L. Dapas, Director
In the Matter of United States Army Installation Management
Command
Pohakuloa Training Area
License No. SUC-1593
Docket No. 40-9083
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206
I. Introduction
By letter dated March 16, 2017,\1\ as supplemented on April
10,\2\ May 21,\3\ June 25,\4\ July 24,\5\ August 16,\6\ August
18,\7\ October 11,\8\ October 12,\9\ October 15,\10\ and November
10, 2017,\11\ and January 15, 2018,\12\ Dr. Michael Reimer (the
petitioner) filed a petition pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206, ``Requests for action
under this subpart,'' with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC or the Commission).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. ML17110A308.
\2\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17250A248.
\3\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17143A165.
\4\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
\5\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17249A091.
\6\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17248A524.
\7\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17249A075.
\8\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17297A372.
\9\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17292A690 (Pkg.).
\10\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18011A202 (Pkg.).
\11\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17346B028.
\12\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18022A567.
\13\ Copies of the petition and other publicly available records
are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS Electronic Reading
Room on the NRC's Web site at https://ww.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS should contact
the reference staff in the NRC Public Document Room by telephone at
1-800-397-4209 or 301-413-4737, or by email to [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner requested that the NRC reconsider the issuance of
Amendment No. 2 to Source Materials License No. SUC-1593
(license),\14\ for the U.S. Army Installation Management Command's
(licensee's) Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). As the basis for the
request, the petitioner asserted that the Environmental Radiation
Monitoring Plan (ERMP)\15\ for the licensed depleted uranium (DU)
that is located in the radiation control areas (RCAs) at the PTA is
inadequate
[[Page 23743]]
to detect DU leaving the RCAs. In the petition and its supplements,
the petitioner stated specific concerns about the lack of air
monitoring and soil sampling at the PTA; the appropriateness of the
sediment sampling location at the PTA; the number of sediment
samples to be collected; the frequency of sediment sampling; the
appropriateness of analytical techniques, including sample analysis
methods; the geologic sampling procedures for sediment collection,
including the appropriateness of data evaluation methods; the
applicability of a guidance document used by the NRC to evaluate the
location and frequency of sediment sampling; the sufficiency of the
Davy Crockett DU inventory conducted for the PTA; the lack of
evaluation of DU oxides; the lack of transparency in the
implementation and reporting of the licensee's environmental
radiation monitoring results for the licensed DU; the lack of
transparency in the NRC's licensing of Davy Crockett DU at the PTA;
and the licensee's use of ranges at the PTA for high explosive fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A164.
\15\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter to the petitioner dated April 25, 2017,\16\ the NRC
staff (staff) acknowledged receipt of the petition. The petition was
assigned to the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
(NMSS) for review and appropriate action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. A
petition review board (PRB) was formed to evaluate the petitioner's
concerns following the 10 CFR 2.206 process per Management Directive
8.11, ``Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions'' (MD 8.11).\17\
The petitioner was offered an opportunity to meet with the PRB
before the PRB's first meeting, but declined this opportunity.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17116A083.
\17\ ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328.
\18\ ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17159A83, ML17177A703 and
ML17177A688.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRB recommended that the petition be partially accepted for
review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process. The NRC shared its
preliminary recommendation \19\ with the petitioner and offered the
petitioner a second opportunity to address the PRB.\20\ The
petitioner accepted the opportunity and requested a teleconference
with the PRB.\21\ The petitioner met with the PRB via teleconference
on October 11, 2017, to clarify the basis for the petition. The
transcript \22\ of this teleconference was treated as a supplement
to the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A757.
\20\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A759.
\21\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A761.
\22\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17297A372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner provided additional information on October
12,\23\ October 15,\24\ and November 10, 2017,\25\ and January 15,
2018,\26\ to supplement the petition. At the petitioner's request, a
third party provided information on his behalf \27\ to supplement
the petition. The licensee provided comments and information on the
petition by e-mails dated July 31 \28\ and October 13, 2017,\29\ and
in the October 11, 2017, teleconference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17292A690 (Pkg.).
\24\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18011A202.
\25\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17346B028.
\26\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18022A567.
\27\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18011A202 (Pkg.).
\28\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17240A219.
\29\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17290A307 (Pkg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By letter dated November 9, 2017,\30\ the NRC informed the
petitioner that the following concerns raised in the petition were
accepted for review under 10 CFR 2.206: (1) inappropriate number of
sediment samples; (2) inappropriate frequency of sediment sampling;
(3) inappropriate and poorly described analytical techniques (sample
analysis methods); (4) inappropriate geological sampling procedures
for sediment collection; and (5) inappropriate data evaluation
methods (leading to dilution of samples) to determine the presence
of depleted uranium outside the ranges (or RCAs) associated with the
PTA. In this letter, the NRC also informed the petitioner that the
other concerns raised in the petition were not accepted for review
under 10 CFR 2.206 and stated the basis for this determination. The
PRB used the criteria for petition evaluation found in Part III of
MD 8.11 to disposition the petitioner's concerns for acceptance or
rejection for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process. On November 29,
2017,\31\ the NRC provided notice that the PRB would address the
petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A300 (Pkg.).
\31\ 82 Fed. Reg. 228 (Nov. 29, 2017), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-11-29/pdf/2017-25830.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By letter dated November 29, 2017,\32\ the NRC requested that
the licensee provide a voluntary response to the petition. By
letters dated December 15, 2017,\33\ and January 19, 2018,\34\ the
licensee provided its voluntary response, and the information
provided was considered by the PRB in its evaluation of the
petition, as explained in the proposed director's decision.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17297B403.
\33\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18009A456.
\34\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18023A991.
\35\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17341A126 (Pkg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to the
petitioner and to the licensee for comment on February 20, 2018.\36\
The petitioner responded with comments on the proposed director's
decision on March 13, 2018.\37\ The licensee did not provide
comments on the proposed director's decision. The petitioner's
comments and the staff's responses to the comments are included as
an attachment to this director's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17340A697 and ML17342A395,
respectively.
\37\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18087A134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the staff's evaluation of the petitioner's March 13,
2018, comments, and the information presented in Section II,
Discussion, and Section III, Conclusions, of this director's
decision, the final director's decision has not changed from the
proposed director's decision.
The petition and other references related to this petition are
available for inspection in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at
the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do
not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR reference
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301[dash]415-4737, or by e-
mail to [email protected].
II. Discussion
Under 10 CFR 2.206(b), the Director of the NRC office with
responsibility for the subject matter shall either institute the
requested proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or
take any other action as may be proper, or advise the petitioner who
made the request in writing that no proceeding will be instituted,
in whole or in part, with respect to the request and the reasons for
the decision.
The petitioner raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the
ERMP for the licensed DU that is located in the RCAs at the PTA (PTA
ERMP).\38\ The PRB analyzed the information provided by the
petitioner in support of his concerns and the results of those
analyses are discussed below. After consideration of the petition,
including the supplemental information supplied by the petitioner,
the NRC denies the petitioner's request to modify, suspend, or take
other action with respect to Source Materials License No. SUC-1593
under 10 CFR 2.206. The decision of the NMSS Director is provided
with respect to each of these concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concern 1: The PTA ERMP allows for an inappropriate number of sediment
samples in that a single sediment sampling location is inadequate.
The petitioner states that the single sampling point as detailed
in the PTA ERMP \39\ is not sufficient. The petitioner specifies
that ``multiple sampling sites should be selected adjacent to each
of the four RCA boundaries and each should be in a water way that
has had observed intermittent water flow sufficient to carry a
sediment load that is deposited at the sample collection site.''
\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A231.
\40\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the staff's safety evaluation report (SER) for Amendment No.
2,\41\ the staff concluded that the site-specific ERMPs were
``consistent with the previously approved [Programmatic ERMP]
approach for preparation of site-specific environmental monitoring
plans,'' as well as with license conditions in Source Materials
License No. SUC-1593, Amendment No. 1.\42\ The approach to selecting
sediment sampling locations specified in the Programmatic ERMP \43\
is to sample sediment in water ways that flow from the RCAs. In
sites with multiple water ways, multiple sediment sampling locations
are used. The PTA has a single sampling site because the staff
considers it a ``dry site'' with no perennial water ways flowing
from the RCAs. The PTA ERMP states that ``[D]ue to low rainfall,
porous soils, and lava
[[Page 23744]]
substrates, no perennial surface water bodies are located on, or
immediately adjacent to, [PTA]. The closest known surface water body
is located 4.5 miles upgradient of [PTA]. There are no perennial
streams within 15 miles of [PTA], but there are intermittent streams
located northeast of [PTA] and only one intermittent stream, Popoo
Gulch, drains the northern portion of [PTA]. Despite occasional
flow, water in the intermittent stream channels infiltrates rapidly
once precipitation stops and the streams become dry.'' \44\ In the
staff's SER for Amendment No. 1,\45\ the NRC approved the
Programmatic ERMP. The staff found that due to the small doses
anticipated from environmental transport pathways, a limited
environmental monitoring program is justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
\42\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A234.
\43\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A218.
\44\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A231.
\45\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, the water in the channel, where the sediment sampling
point is identified in the PTA ERMP, flows only occasionally after
heavy rainfall events with the water in the intermittent stream's
channel infiltrating rapidly once precipitation stops, resulting in
the stream channel becoming dry. The sediment sampling location was
selected by the licensee based on the ``surface water hydrology and
potential for DU contribution [migration].'' \46\ The license
requires the licensee to collect a sediment sample in a designated
area in the only intermittent stream downstream from the RCAs. This
location and the number of sediment samples were found to be
acceptable by the staff in the SER for Amendment No. 2 \47\ because
the approach was consistent with the Programmatic ERMP and limited
sampling for the PTA is appropriate based upon the small risk posed
by the material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A231.
\47\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the staff concluded in its SER for Amendment No. 1 \48\
that the dose from airborne contamination is considered to be highly
unlikely to exceed a potential 1 mrem/yr dose.\49\ The dose from all
other environmental pathways, as bounded by a resident farmer
pathways analysis using RESRAD,\50\ is projected to be less than 4
mrem/yr. Furthermore, actual doses would be further limited because
actual exposure durations are expected to be far less than
subsistence farming residence times. In addition, in the SER for
Amendment No. 1,\51\ the staff independently verified the RESRAD
calculations provided by the licensee and found the use of those
scenarios, parameters, and assumptions to be reasonable and
appropriate. The results from the RESRAD analysis supported the
staff's decision \52\ to require a limited amount of environmental
monitoring outside of the RCA under certain conditions, as required
per Section 4.3 of the Programmatic ERMP, and as required by the PTA
ERMP. Sampling locations at the site are limited; however, this
approach was found to be acceptable by the staff because it is
consistent with the Programmatic ERMP and limited sampling is
acceptable based upon the small risk posed by the material. The
staff found the proposed frequencies, analyses, and actions
sufficient to ensure DU migration outside of the RCA is adequately
monitored while not exposing personnel to undue risk due to
accessing unexploded ordnance areas. Accordingly, the staff
concluded in its SER for License Amendment No. 2 that the PTA ERMP
is adequate for monitoring for transport of DU from the RCAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
\49\ See the SER for Amendment 2 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16343A163, pages 5 and 6 regarding the significance of 1 mrem/year
as related to License Condition 19.
\50\ RESRAD, or RESidual RADioactivity, is a computer code for
evaluation of risk posed by radioactively contaminated sites. The
NRC has approved RESRAD for dose evaluation by licensees involved in
decommissioning, and for staff to assess waste disposal requests and
dose evaluations.
\51\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
\52\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons set forth above, the staff finds that the PTA
ERMP does allow for an appropriate number of sediment samples in
that a single sediment sampling location is adequate.
Concern 2: The PTA ERMP allows for an inappropriate frequency of
sediment samples.
The petitioner states that the licensee should be required to
sample more frequently than quarterly, and that ``sampling several
times a year is not sufficient.'' \53\ The PTA ERMP commits the
licensee to performing sediment sampling on a quarterly basis. This
quarterly sampling frequency exceeds the semi-annual sampling
frequency for sediment sampling recommended in NUREG-1301, ``Offsite
Dose Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent
Controls for Pressurized Water Reactors,'' \54\ April 1991. Because
no guidance exists that is specific to DU in the form of spent
rounds present in the environment, the staff used NUREG-1301 to
inform its review of the licensee's proposed sampling methods and
frequency. Although the PTA RCAs do not produce effluents, as do
pressurized-water reactors, the guidance in NUREG-1301 is
conservative for reviewing the licensee's proposed sampling methods
and frequency because the expected risks from the presence of DU at
the PTA are significantly less than those associated with
radiological releases from an operating nuclear power plant. The
sediment sampling frequency for the PTA is considered by the staff
to be conservative, and therefore adequate because it exceeds the
sampling frequency recommended for effluents from pressurized-water
reactors, for a site with a much lower potential all pathway dose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17110A308.
\54\ ADAMS Accession No. ML091050061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons set forth above, the staff finds that the site-
specific ERMP for the PTA is adequate with respect to the frequency
of samples taken at the PTA.
Concern 3: The PTA ERMP provides inappropriate and poorly described
analytical techniques for the sediment sample analysis methods.
The petitioner states that for the PTA ERMP, the licensee's
``sediment monitoring program is improperly configured.'' \55\ The
petitioner states that there is an ``[i]ncomplete description of
laboratory preparation methods for alpha spectrometry'' and explains
that ``[c]hemicals used in preparation, exchange resins, internal
standards, concentration methods for uranium, preparation of sample
on planchet (electrodeposition or precipitation), counting times,
reference standards, etc. must be identified.'' \56\ Further, the
petitioner states with regard to the PTA sediment monitoring
program, that there is an ``[i]nadequate description of technique of
alpha spectrometry'' and inquires, ``[w]hat is the sensitivity and
what energies will be used for isotope determination? Can other U
isotopes be detected (U-236) and transuranics (Pu, Np, Am)?'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
\56\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
\57\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of the analytical techniques for the ``sediment
sampling program for the PTA,'' the petitioner states that there are
``[i]nadequate analyses for isotopes to identify DU (U-236 and Mo,
the alloy material, and transuranics would be of paramount
interest)'' \58\ and explains that ``[t]he samples should be
analyzed also by an ICP [inductively coupled-plasma] technique that
can identify other isotopes including U-236, and isotopes of Pu, Np
and Am. Such would give a specific indication of reprocessed fuel
rods. These are important for conclusive DU presence.'' \59\
Further, the petitioner disagrees with the NRC statement that
``[t]he methods for sample analysis are commonly utilized methods .
. . '' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
\59\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
\60\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17110A308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, the staff notes that the licensee is not
required to submit information on laboratory preparation methods
beyond the information presented in the Quality Assurance Plan
(Annex 19 to the Programmatic ERMP). \61\ However, the staff may ask
to review documentation regarding the analysis of sediment samples,
such as laboratory procedures and methods, during NRC inspections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The staff disagrees with the petitioner that the proposed
analytical methods are not commonly used methods. Alpha spectrometry
(US DOE HASL method 300) \62\ and inductively coupled-plasma mass
spectrometry (ICP-MS) are commonly used methods for sample analysis
to determine uranium isotopic activity or mass and have sufficient
detection capability to accomplish the stated objectives of the
monitoring activity.63 64 As described in the license at
[[Page 23745]]
Annex 19, the ``Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality
Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP)'' for the Environmental Radiation
Monitoring Program,\65\ ICP-MS will be used to supplement alpha
spectrometry in samples in which the alpha spectrometry results
indicate a U-238/U-234 ratio above 3.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ HASL-300 EML Procedures Manual at https://www.orau.org/ptp/PTP%20Library/library/DOE/eml/hasl300/HASL300TOC.htm
\63\ J. Sabine Becker, International Journal of Spectrometry,
``Inductively coupled plasms mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and laser
ablation ICP-MS for isotopic analysis of long-live radionuclides,''
Volume 242, Issues 2-3, 1 April 2005, Pages 183-195, Elsevier.
\64\ Carvalho, F.P. & Oliveira, J.M. ``Performance of alpha
spectrometry in the analysis of uranium isotopes in environmental
and nuclear materials,'' J Radioanal Nucl Chem (2009) 281: 591.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-009-0046-2.
\65\ ADAMS Accession No.ML16265A233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner states that the current method of evaluation is
not sensitive enough to distinguish DU from natural uranium, and
that using a technique that could detect radionuclides that are
present in trace quantities in DU, but are not naturally occurring,
would provide better evidence of DU transport. Specifically, the
petitioner states that using ICP-MS on each sample, or using it to
detect radionuclides other than U-234, U-235, or U-238, is
necessary. However, as indicated in Annex 19, the minimum detectable
concentration (MDC) for the licensee's proposed alpha spectrometry
technique is 0.1 picocuries per gram (pCi/g). That value is far
below the NRC soil screening values of 13 pCi/g, 8.0 pCi/g, and 14
pCi/g, for U-234, U-235, and U-238, respectively.\66\ Those
screening values, given in Table H.2 in NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Rev.
1, ``Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance,'' \67\ are
concentrations of individual radionuclides in surficial soil that
staff has determined to be protective of public health and
safety.\68\ The staff determined in its SER for Amendment No. 2 \69\
that the two-step analysis method (i.e., using ICP-MS only as a
confirmatory technique for samples with a U-238/U-234 ratio above
3.0) is appropriate. Based on the comparison of the MDC of the
licensee's proposed method to the NRC soil screening values, the
staff continues to find the licensee's proposed use of alpha
spectrometry to be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ The NUREG-1757 Volume 2, Rev. 1, Table H.2 values for the
individual radionuclides were used instead of the values that
account for progeny (i.e., the ``+C'' values) because the enrichment
process that creates DU typically removes most of the progeny with
an atomic weight less than U-234 from the DU.
\67\ ADAMS Accession No. ML063000243.
\68\ Soil screening values represent surficial surface soil
concentrations of individual radionuclides that would be deemed in
compliance with the 25 mrem/y (0.25 mSv/y) unrestricted release dose
limit in 10 CFR 20.1402.
\69\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner raises a related point about the effects of the
natural variation of the U-238 to U-234 ratio in the environment, on
the licensee's ability to detect DU. The petitioner states that
``[t]he heterogeneity of the sample ROC [radionuclide of concern]
will likely provide dilution effects for analysis and minimize
threshold concentrations. This issue has not been addressed by the
Army or the analytical laboratory.'' \70\ Also, the petitioner
states that ``[g]iven the probable dilution factors of sediment
sourcing and mixing multiple collected samples, any ratio of U238/
234 greater than one should be considered indicative of DU. This was
seen in a contractor report (Cabrerra), where soil samples often
showed uranium 238/234 increased activity ratios.'' \71\ As
discussed in further detail in the staff's disposition of Concern 5,
the staff found that the natural variation in the U-238 to U-234
ratio in the environment did not affect the staff's conclusion about
the adequacy of the licensee's proposed method of evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18017A784.
\71\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commitments that the licensee makes in its Programmatic
ERMP, which is tied to the license, require the licensee to
periodically review its Programmatic ERMP and each site-specific
ERMP for revisions that it believes should be made related to
changes in the understanding of risk associated with exposure to DU
in the environment; changes in local/regional land use; changes in
environmental transport characteristics or environmental conditions
that violate the conservative assumptions of the bounding RESRAD
analysis of the Programmatic ERMP in such a way that the RESRAD
analysis is no longer bounding; trends in sampling results
indicating increased mobilization of DU, but at levels below the
bounding RESRAD analysis of the Programmatic ERMP or other
regulatory thresholds; and any other new information that indicates
a need to adjust the site-specific ERMP. Further, the Programmatic
ERMP requires that if the licensee determines that changing site
conditions result in environmental transport or exposure hazards
that exceed those used in the bounding RESRAD calculations, the
licensee must notify the NRC license program manager within 30 days.
The staff found the licensee's commitments reasonable given the
expected level of risk.
The licensee's strategy for routine, as well as periodic,
environmental radiation monitoring at the PTA was addressed in its
applications for Amendment Nos. 1 and 2. In its SERs for Amendment
Nos. 1 and 2, the staff determined that the Programmatic ERMP and
PTA ERMP, respectively, would ensure adequate protection of public
health and safety. The staff previously determined in the SER for
License Amendment No. 2 \72\ that the methods described in the PTA
ERMP and UFP-QAPP were sensitive enough. Through inspection, the
staff may inspect the data collected from implementation of the PTA
ERMP to verify that the sensitivity remains appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons set forth above, the NRC finds that the
licensee's description of its analytical methods in the PTA ERMP is
adequate and the licensee's analytical methods for sediment analysis
are appropriate.
Concern 4: The PTA ERMP allows for inappropriate geological procedures
for sediment collection.
The petitioner expresses concern about the geological procedures
for sediment collection methods, stating, ``[w]hat is presented, if
given to any reasonable person familiar with geologic sampling
procedures, is so egregiously defective and disparate from accepted
sampling procedures, it must be deemed fatally flawed.'' \73\ The
petitioner asserts that the licensee's specific sampling techniques,
method of sample collection, and training are inadequate.\74\ The
petitioner states ``[f]urther, there is no indication that the
samplers will have had specific training in the simple and common
aspects of sampling. Can they distinguish the difference between a
sediment sample and a soil sample or a slump deposit?'' \75\ The
petitioner specifically notes issues with the composite sample
method employed by the licensee. The petitioner also states that
``organics and water'' should be sent for separate analysis and
suggests that core sampling would be beneficial.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17110A308.
\74\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17110A308.
\75\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
\76\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The types of procedures for sediment collection are identified
in each site-specific ERMP and in the Programmatic Quality Assurance
Plan for ERMPs, which are tied to the license.\77\ In the SER for
Amendment No. 1,\78\ the staff found that ``. . . each ERMP contains
prescribed general methods for sample collection and sample analysis
. . .'' Annex 19, ``Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality
Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP),'' for the ERMP includes
worksheets stating the licensee's action levels for sample
evaluation and what actions the licensee is required to take should
the sample data exceed these action levels. The license requires the
licensee to use the type of sampling procedures specified in the
UFP-QAPP.\79\ During inspections, the staff will review site-
specific procedures, such as sediment sampling procedures, as
determined by inspection plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A221 (Pkg.).
\78\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
\79\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner expresses concerns about the adequacy of the
licensee's geological training for individuals tasked with
implementing the environmental monitoring program, but does not
specify why geological training is necessary to take samples
sufficient for the purposes of the PTA ERMP or the Programmatic
ERMP. The NRC does not require geological training to implement the
PTA ERMP. In its SER for License Amendment No. 1,\80\ the staff
found the licensee's commitments regarding training acceptable. In
its application for Amendment No. 2, the licensee made training
commitments with regard to implementation of the ERMP in its UFP-
QAPP \81\ and Programmatic Radiation Safety Plan,\82\ and the staff
found them acceptable as detailed in its associated SER.\83\ The
licensee did not commit to requiring geological training to
implement the PTA ERMP or the Programmatic ERMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
\81\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A233.
\82\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16004A369.
\83\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its SER for Amendment No. 2,\84\ the staff concluded that the
findings described in the SER support the issuance of a license
amendment requiring the use of the site-specific ERMPs and the
associated UFP-QAPP applicable to each military
[[Page 23746]]
installation. The UFP-QAPP addresses the quality assurance, quality
control, and additional technical activities that must be
implemented to ensure that data collected during ERMP activities at
the Davy Crockett installations are of sufficient quality to support
the NRC requirements. The petitioner did not support the claim that
specific geological training is necessary to take samples sufficient
to meet NRC requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner has not provided information to support his
assertion that ``organics and water'' should be sent for separate
analysis. The concentrations of the radionuclides of concern are
obtained from the analysis of the total sample. The analysis
procedure does not require such a separation, nor does the license
require the licensee to separate organics from water for separate
analysis before sediment samples are analyzed. With respect to his
statement that core sampling would be beneficial, the petitioner
states that core sampling would provide historical information.
However, obtaining historical information is not one of the purposes
of the PTA ERMP. Scoping \85\ and characterization surveys were
performed by the licensee in the past,\86\ and the staff, as
documented in the SER for Amendment No. 1, found that they were
sufficient to determine the extent and depth of Davy Crockett DU at
the PTA. In its application for Amendment No. 1, the licensee
reported that the average soil concentrations of uranium inside the
RCA are less than the default NRC screening level for license
termination. The NRC does not require additional characterization
for the PTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ ADAMS Accession No. ML092950352.
\86\ USACE, 2007. Archives Search Report on the Use of
Cartridge, 20MM Spotting Round M101, Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28,
Schofield Barracks and Associated Training Areas, Islands of Oahu
and Hawaii. Prepared by USACE, St Louis District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons set forth above, the NRC finds that the site-
specific ERMP for the PTA is adequate with respect to its
description of procedures for sediment collection methods.
Concern 5: The PTA ERMP allows for inappropriate data evaluation
methods to determine the presence of DU outside the ranges associated
with PTA.
The petitioner states that there is an ``[i]nadequate definition
of the activity ratios used to define DU presence,'' explaining that
``[g]iven the probable dilution factors of sediment sourcing and
mixing multiple collected samples, any ratio of U238/234 greater
than one should be considered indicative of DU. This was seen in a
contractor report (Cabrerra), where soil samples often showed
uranium 238/234 increased activity ratios.'' \87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its evaluation of this concern, the staff requested
information\88\ from the licensee, regarding how it intends to meet
the 3-to-1 ratio of U-238 to U-234 in License Condition 17 when
compositing sediment samples. In its response to the request,\89\
the licensee clarified that the ``composite'' samples were all taken
in essentially one location and a provision for taking 10 sub-
samples was included to ensure sufficient sample volume was
collected. Based on the licensee's clarification, the staff
determined that dilution is not a concern as the sub-samples are
more representative of a single sample than a ``composite'' sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17297B403.
\89\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18009A456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The staff verified that the 3-to-1 ratio of U-238 to U-234 is
appropriate. DU used for military purposes typically has a U-238 to
U-234 activity ratio of approximately 5.5.\90\ If that DU is mixed
with natural uranium in the environment, that ratio will be lower
because natural uranium has a U-238 to U-234 activity ratio of
approximately 1.0.\91\ Pursuant to License Condition 17, the
licensee is required to notify the NRC of any uranium detected with
a U-238 to U-234 ratio of 3 or more. Based on the assumption that
the DU has a U-238 to U-234 ratio of 5.5 and natural uranium has a
U-238 to U-234 activity ratio of 1.0, an activity ratio of 3.0
reflects a mixture of approximately 28 percent natural uranium and
72 percent DU (percent by activity).\92\ Background levels of
natural uranium in soil from PTA are approximately 0.4 pCi/g.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ IAEA, Depleted Uranium, retrieved at https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel-management/depleted-uranium on January 29, 2018.
\91\ U-238 and U-234 in secular equilibrium have an activity
ratio of 1.0; however, that ratio is only approximate in the natural
environment because of differences in how U-238 and U-234 are
retained in rock and soil.
\92\ Because DU has a lower specific activity than natural
uranium, that mixture would be 19 percent natural uranium and 81
percent DU by mass.
\93\ ADAMS Accession No. ML12265A173 (Table 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A sample with 72 percent depleted uranium (by activity) and 0.4
pCi/g natural uranium would contain approximately 1 pCi/g DU, or
approximately 0.15 pCi/g U-234, 0.01 pCi/g U-235, and 0.84 pCi/g U-
238, which are well below the NRC soil screening values for
decommissioning.\94\ Therefore, the licensee's use of the 3.0
activity ratio is acceptable because it would allow the licensee to
identify DU at concentrations below values that NRC finds protective
of public health and safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ The NRC soil screening values for decommissioning are: U-
234: 1.3E+01pCi/g; U-235: 8.0E+00pCi/g, and U-238 1.4E+01pCi/g.
ADAMS Accession No. ML063000243 (Appendix B, Table B.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner refers to a journal article \95\ that explains
that the ratio of U-238 to U-234 in natural uranium can vary because
of differences in how U-238 and U-234 are transported in the
environment. \96\ However, the background concentrations of natural
uranium at PTA are sufficiently low that variation in the U-238 to
U-234 ratio of natural uranium at PTA is not expected to be large
enough to compromise the licensee's ability to detect significant
migration of DU in soils or sediments. For example, if the U-238 to
U-234 ratio of natural uranium in PTA site soil or sediment were
only 0.5 instead of 1.0 (a relatively large natural variation), a
sample would have a U-238 to U-234 ratio of 3.0 if it had 19 percent
natural uranium and 81 percent DU (by activity). Given the natural
uranium background concentration of 0.4 pCi/g in PTA soil, that
mixture would have a total activity of 2.1 pCi/g, or 1.7 pCi/g DU.
As previously indicated, that concentration is well below the NRC
soil screening values for uranium isotopes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ Fleischer, R.L., 2008, Difficulties in using 234U/238U
values to detect enriched or depleted uranium, Health Physics, v.
94, p.292-293.
\96\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17249A091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The environmental processes that cause variation in the U-238 to
U-234 ratio in natural uranium can also affect the U-238 to U-234
ratio in DU exposed to the natural environment. However, the effect
of the alpha recoil process described in the reference \97\ supplied
by the petitioner is to allow more U-234 than U-238 to be
transported in water. That process would tend to increase the U-238
to U-234 ratio in solid samples of DU (i.e., soil and sediment),
making the U-238 to U-234 ratio in those samples greater (i.e., more
likely to exceed the threshold value of 3.0). Therefore, the staff
finds that the previous conclusion that the licensee's proposed
method to detect DU is adequate, is not challenged by either the
expected natural variation in the U-238 to U-234 ratio in site soil
and sediment or consideration of the potential effects of alpha
recoil on DU at the site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Fleischer, R.L., 2008, Difficulties in using 234U/238U
values to detect enriched or depleted uranium, Health Physics, v.
94, p.292-293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons set forth above, the NRC finds that the licensee
has adequate data evaluation methods to determine the presence of DU
at PTA.
III. Conclusion
The NRC fully evaluated the petitioner's concerns and based on
the results of that evaluation, determined that there was no basis
for granting the petitioner's request to modify, suspend, or take
other action with respect to, Source Materials License No. SUC-1593
under 10 CFR 2.206. Accordingly, the NRC denies the petitioner's
request to modify, suspend, or take other action with respect to
Source Materials License No. SUC-1593. As provided in 10 CFR
2.206(c), the staff will file a copy of this final director's
decision with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission to
review. As provided for by that regulation, the director's decision
will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the
date of the decision unless the Commission, on its own motion,
institutes a review of the decision within that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of May, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
[[Page 23747]]
Marc L. Dapas, Director,
Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards
Attachment:
Petitioner's Comments on the
Proposed Director's Decision and
NRC's Responses
ATTACHMENT: PETITIONER'S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DIRECTOR'S DECISION
AND NRC'S RESPONSES
The petitioner provided comments to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) on the proposed director's decision (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML17341A126 (Pkg.)) by electronic mail (e-mail) dated March 13, 2018
(ADAMS Accession No. ML18087A134). In the petitioner's March 13,
2018 e-mail, the petitioner notes that he has ``rephrased some
statements to make it clearer to the review panel members who do not
have full familiarity with the issues.'' For completeness, and where
appropriate, the NRC staff (staff) provides clarifying remarks on
its previous evaluation of the petitioner's concerns on the Davy
Crockett depleted uranium (DU) inventory and the sediment sampling
outside the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) Radiation Control Areas
(RCAs).
The petitioner's comments do not alter the staff's overall
analyses or conclusions in the director's decision and, therefore,
do not require modification to the final director's decision.
Comment 1:
The petitioner asserts that the review process is flawed, as
evidenced by (1) the selection and expertise of the reviewing staff
members; (2) an emphasis on administrative review over technical
review; and (3) the rejection of new and materially relevant facts
presented in the petition and its supplements. With respect to this
latter point, the petitioner provided information on an historic
lava flow and referred to a statement made by the licensee
previously indicating that sediment samples will not be collected
because no sediment is present at the PTA.
Response 1:
The petition was reviewed in accordance with NRC Management
Directive (MD) 8.11. MD 8.11 describes the composition and role of
the petition review board and the process for reviewing Title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.206 petitions. A copy of
MD 8.11 was provided to the petitioner on April 25, 2017 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML17110A299 (Pkg.)).
The staff considered all of the information provided by the
petitioner in its review of the petition and its supplements. The
staff notes that at the time the licensee submitted its initial
license application for Source Materials License No. SUC-1593, the
licensee had not identified an intermittent stream at the PTA. Since
that time, as documented in its application for License Amendment
No. 2, the licensee has identified an intermittent stream for
sediment sampling outside of the PTA RCA boundaries. On page 2-1 of
the Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan (ERMP) in effect for the
PTA (ADAMS Accession No. ML1625A231), the licensee states: ``The
sediment sampling location at Pohakuloa TA was selected based on the
surface water hydrology and potential for DU contribution and is
located as follows:
ERM-01--The selected sampling point is located at an
intermittent stream at the installation's northern boundary,
downstream from the RCAs. ERM-01 is accessible using the Lightning
Trail or via Saddle Road.''
As explained in Enclosure 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A082) to
the NRC's letter to the petitioner dated November 9, 2017 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML17279A300 (Pkg.)), the licensee submitted a license
amendment application (ADAMS Accession No. ML17158B356) to correct
figure sizing/scaling errors in the ERMP annex for the PTA and two
other sites. Because the petitioner's concern regarding the sediment
sampling location at the PTA is now under staff's consideration as
part of its review of this license amendment request, the 10 CFR
2.206 process is not appropriate for addressing that concern. The
staff will inform the petitioner of the outcome of this licensing
review.
Comment 2:
The petitioner asserts that the amount of DU specified in the
license for the PTA is grossly underestimated and must be revised.
In support of this assertion, the petitioner states that the
component parts of the main warhead show a yellow coating consistent
with DU oxide and the existence of firing pistons shows the dummy
Davy Crockett warhead (M-390) was fired. The petitioner states that
this concern is now supported with ``anecdotal evidence'' that the
dummy warhead contained DU. The petitioner provides a link to a blog
and web forum as this anecdotal evidence.
Response 2:
The petitioner's comments are directed at a concern that was not
accepted for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process and is not the
subject of this director's decision. The basis for the rejection of
this concern under the 10 CFR 2.206 process is described on pages 5
and 6 of Enclosure 1 to the proposed director's decision, under the
concern identified as ``Insufficient Davy Crockett DU Inventory.''
The staff is unable to substantiate the new ``anecdotal
evidence'' referred to in the petitioner's comment, and is therefore
unable to conclude that this anecdotal evidence is evidence that the
license underestimates the amount of DU present at the PTA. As
explained in Enclosure 1 to the November 9, 2017, letter, the
sufficiency of the Davy Crockett DU inventory was addressed in a
previous application and safety evaluation report (SER) (Amendment
No. 1). The staff evaluated the licensee's estimate of the DU
inventory and documented its conclusions in the associated SERs for
the initial licensing of the ranges with DU at the two military
installations located in the Hawaiian Islands, and for Amendment No.
1. As part of its evaluations in both SERs, the staff considered the
information in the licensee's report entitled ``Project Archive
Search Report Use of Cartridge, 20mm Spotting M101 Davy Crockett
Light Weapon M28 on U.S. Army Installations January 2008 Revised,
June 2011.'' In addition, as part of its review of the initial
license application for the PTA (ADAMS Accession No. ML13259A081),
the staff previously reviewed the photographs (ADAMS Accession No.
ML09295032) that were referenced in the petitioner's July 24, 2017,
supplement (ADAMS Accession No. ML17249A091), as well as other
reference documents provided by the licensee in its initial ERMP for
the PTA (ADAMS Accession No. ML12046A506) that support the
conclusion that the yellow residue on other Davy Crockett weapon
system components is not DU.
Comment 3:
The petitioner asserts that the staff improperly introduced
health-effect possibility as a reason to accept ``corrupt monitoring
methodologies.'' The petitioner states that, even so, the estimated
number of dummy warheads from the piston count should be used in
configuring the RESRAD dose. The petitioner asserts that dose risk
to the public should be assessed in a different manner from the
resident farmer scenario.
Response 3:
The licensee did not include dummy warheads in its dose
assessment because there is no evidence that dummy rounds contain DU
at PTA. Source Materials License No. SUC-1593 applies to Davy
Crockett M101 spotting rounds, which contain DU. As explained in the
director's decision under Concern 4, scoping and characterization
surveys were performed by the licensee in the past. The staff, as
documented in the SER for Amendment No. 1, found that the licensee's
efforts were sufficient to determine the extent and depth of Davy
Crockett DU at the PTA.
The licensee used the resident farmer exposure scenario for its
dose assessment for the PTA. The resident farmer is one who grows
her or his own food on the contaminated site and collects her or his
own water also from the contaminated site. The staff considers this
scenario to be a bounding scenario for the Davy Crockett M101
spotting rounds at the RCAs. Once the exposure scenario is chosen,
the second step in a dose assessment is to predict how the
radionuclides will move through the environment to where they could
come into contact with humans. The final step in a dose assessment
is to then predict what the resulting dose would be. The total
lifetime dose received by the individual is calculated from a given
amount of a radionuclide ingested or inhaled (measured in curies)
multiplied by a dose conversion factor from a related calculation of
the dose from external penetrating radiation. Given that
calculations for dose assessments are complex, they are best done on
a computer.
The licensee used the computer program or code called RESRAD
(short for RESidual
[[Page 23748]]
RADioactivity) to carry out the three steps described above using
the resident farmer scenario. RESRAD is commonly used to make
regulatory decisions about residual radioactivity levels at nuclear
sites. This code was used by the licensee, and reviewed by the
staff, to assess radiation exposures of a human receptor located on
top of soils contaminated with DU. RESRAD allows users to specify
the features of their site and to predict the dose received by an
individual at any time over the next 100,000 years. RESRAD is
particularly important because it has been accepted for use by the
NRC in making regulatory decisions and is freely available to the
public.
Comment 4:
The petitioner states that the use of NUREG-1301 is improper
because it does not address stream sediment sampling.
Response 4:
As stated in the director's decision, while NUREG-1301 is not
specific to DU in the form of spent rounds present in the
environment, it is conservative for reviewing the licensee's
proposed sampling methods and frequency because the expected risks
from the presence of DU at the PTA are significantly less than those
associated with radiological releases from an operating nuclear
power plant. Also, the fact that this guidance addresses sediment
from [the] shoreline of surface water instead of stream sediment
does not affect the conservatism of applying the NUREG to
environmental sampling at PTA.
Comment 5:
The petitioner challenges the staff's conclusions that the
analytical methods in the PTA ERMP are appropriate and that the
laboratory preparation methods are adequately described in the PTA
ERMP. The petitioner states that the analytical method selected, an
alpha spectrometer, presumably cannot detect \235\U unless very long
counting times are used. The petitioner states ``an overwhelming
number of procedural descriptions are provided with the phrase, `TBD
(to be determined)''' in Annex 17 and 19.
Response 5:
As stated in the director's decision under Concern 3, the staff
disagrees with the petitioner that the analytical methods are not
commonly used methods. Alpha spectrometry (US DOE HASL method 300)
and inductively coupled-plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) are
commonly used methods for sample analysis to determine uranium
isotopic activity or mass and have sufficient detection capability
to accomplish the stated objectives of the monitoring activity.
Furthermore, the petitioner expressed concerns about
appropriateness of the analytical methods by raising the issue of
the long counting times for U-235. However, as described in Concern
3, the licensee has not proposed to count U-235, but instead plans
to use the U-238 to U-234 ratio, as a surrogate, as required by
License Condition 17.
With regard to the analytical procedures being adequately
described including the use of the phrase ``TBD'', as described in
the director's decision under Concern 3, the licensee is not
required to submit information on laboratory preparation methods
beyond the information presented in the Quality Assurance Plan
(Annex 19 to the Programmatic ERMP) (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16265A233). Also, the licensee is not required to submit
environmental sampling procedures beyond the information presented
in Annex 19 to the Programmatic ERMP. The licensee has made a
commitment in its application for License Amendment No. 1 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16004A369) that:
``Each installation-specific ERMP will describe sampling in
terms of sampling objectives, sampling protocols, analytical
methods, and data quality assurance protocols. These descriptions
will conform to commonly accepted practices and reliable sources as
described in the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site
Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) (NRC, DOE, EPA, DOD 2000). Acceptable
analytical methods include those commonly accepted from reliable
references, as presented in MARSSIM, Table 7.2.''
The staff found this approach acceptable. In the SER for License
Amendment No. 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230), the staff found
that, ``. . . in accordance with 10 CFR 40.32(c) . . . that the
Army's proposed equipment and procedures in the programmatic RSP
[Radiation Safety Plan] are adequate to protect health and safety
and minimize danger to life or property.'' Review of specific
procedures are covered in the NRC inspection process, not licensing.
The staff may ask to review documentation regarding the analysis of
sediment samples, such as laboratory procedures and methods and
sampling procedures, during NRC inspections.
Comment 6:
The petitioner asserts that an Oak Ridge report (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13101A090) demonstrates that the analytical methods used by
the licensee are improper and that the proposed director's decision
improperly ignores this report.
Response 6:
As explained in the director's decision under Concern 5, as part
of the staff's review of the petitioner's concern regarding
composite sample dilution, the staff requested information (ADAMS
Accession No. ML17297B403) from the licensee, regarding how it
intends to meet the 3-to-1 ratio of U-238 to U-234 in License
Condition 17 when compositing sediment samples. The staff referred
to the Oak Ridge Report (ADAMS Accession No. ML13101A090) in its
request letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML17297B403), stating that
``this guidance indicates that a statistically-informed sampling
regime should be followed if composite sampling is used over an area
(i.e., not just at one sample location). The detailed guidance
referenced above recommends (1) retaining sub-samples in case
further analysis is needed, (2) establishing an adjusted limit that
would trigger analysis of individual subsamples, and (3) using sub-
samples of the same volume.'' In its response to the request (ADAMS
Accession No. ML18009A456), the licensee clarified that the
``composite'' samples were all taken in essentially one location and
a provision for taking 10 sub-samples was included to ensure
sufficient sample volume was collected. Based on the licensee's
clarification, the staff determined that dilution is not a concern
as the sub-samples are more representative of a single sample than a
``composite'' sample.
Comment 7:
The petitioner states that there are significant barriers to
flow from the RCAs at the PTA to the proposed sample collection
site, and that the staff should have used objective programs to
trace out surface flows. The petitioner states that the staff should
mandate that the sampling location be adjacent to the RCA, ``not
miles away with an intermittent lava berm.''
Response 7:
The petitioner's comments are directed at a concern that was not
accepted for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process and is not the
subject of this director's decision. The basis for the rejection of
this concern under the 10 CFR 2.206 process is described on pages 3
and 4 of Enclosure 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A082) to the NRC's
letter to the petitioner dated November 9, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML17279A300 (Pkg.)), under the concern identified as ``Inappropriate
Sampling Location.'' As described in the staff's Response 1, above,
the licensee submitted a license amendment application to the NRC to
correct figure sizing/scaling errors in the ERMP annex for the PTA
and two other sites. Because the petitioner's concern regarding the
sediment sampling location at the PTA is now under staff's
consideration as part of its review of this license amendment
request, the 2.206 process is not appropriate for addressing that
concern. The staff will inform the petitioner of the outcome of this
licensing review.
[FR Doc. 2018-10840 Filed 5-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P