DRC-2000-001201 - 0901a06880aea5e2

Request to Amend
Source Material License SUA-1358
White Mesa Mill
Docket No. 40-8681
March 16,2000
Prepared by:
International Uranium (USA) Corporation
1050 lTth Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
ICofitact Michelle R. Rehmann, Environmental Manager
I Phone: [phone]
I
II gubmitted to:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2 White Flint North, Mail Stop T-7J9
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
S :\[,IRR\Linde\LindeAR
1.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Material Composition and Volume
1.1 General
1.2 Radiochemical Data
1.3 Hazardous Constituent Data1.4 RegulatoryConsiderations
Transportation Considerations
Process
Safety Measures
4.1 Radiation Safety
4.2 Control of Airborne Contamination
4.3 Vehicle Scan
Other Information
5.1 Added Advantage of Recycling
5.2 Classification of Uranium Material as 11e.(2) Byproduct Material
CERTIFICATION
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Attachment I
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
List of Attachments
Linde Site Location Maps, Volume Estimates and Process History
Uranium Content Estimates, Material Description, Analytical Data, and
Preliminary Material Characterization Report for the Linde Site
IUSAruDEQ Hazardous Waste Protocol
Review of constituents in Linde Site Uranium Materials to Determine
Potential Presence of Listed Hazardous Waste
New York State Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum on
"Contained-In" Criteria for Environmental Media
White Mesa Mill Equipment Release/Radiological Survey Procedure
USACE Value Engineering Proposal for Ashland I and Ashland 2.
Classification of Uranium Material as 1le.(2) Byproduct Material
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
1.0
Amendment Request
Linde
License SUA-1358
March 16,2000
Page I
INTRODUCTION
International Uranium (USA) Corporation ("ruSA") operates the NRC-licensed White Mesa
uranium mill (the "Mill") located approximately six miles south of Blanding, Utah. The mill
processes natural (native, raw) uranium ores and feed materials other than natural ores. These
alternate feed materials are generally processing byproducts from other extraction procedures,
which ruSA processes at IUSA's licensed uranium mill, primarily for their source material
content. All waste associated with IUSA's processing is therefore 11e.(2) byproduct material.
This application to amend NRC Source Material License SUA-1358 requests an amendment to
allow ruSAto process a specific alternate feed, and to dispose of the resulting 11e.(2) byproduct
material in accordance with the Mill operating procedures.
Yellowcake produced from the processing of this material will not cause the currently-approved
yellowcake production limit of 4,380 tons per year ("TPY') to be exceeded. In addition, and as a
result, radiological doses to members of the public in the vicinity of the Mill will not be elevated
above levels previously assessed and approved.
MATERIAL COMPOSITION AND VOLUME
ruSA is requesting an amendment to Source Material License SUA-1358 to authorize receipt and
processing of certain uranium-bearing byproducts, which byproducts originally resulted from the
processing of natural ore for the extraction of uranium. For ease of reference, this byproduct
material is referred to herein as the "Uranium Material". The Uranium Material is located at a
property being managed under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ("FUSII {P"1
in Tonawand4 New York, known as the Linde property. The Linde property is one of four
properties that comprise the Tonawanda Site. NRC has already granted license amendments to
ruSA to process material from two of the other properties within the Tonawanda site, Ashland I
and Ashland 2 which contained uranium byproduct material originally generated at the Linde
property. The Uranium Material is not a residue from a water treatment process.
The Uranium Material will be transported by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE", or the
"Corps") contractor, as part of the FUSRAP Program, from the Linde property to the Mill. A
historic summary of the sources of the Uranium Material is provided below. This history was
derived from the documents listed on page 4 of this Amendment Request.
l.l Historical Summary of Sources
As described above, the Linde property is one of several properties within the Tonawanda, New
York FUSRAP site, which includes Linde, Ashland l, Ashland 2, and Seaway. The regional
setting of Linde, Ashland 1, Ashland 2, and Seaway is shown in Figure l-2 of Attachment l.
Figure l-3 shows the specific locations of the Linde, Ashland l, Ashland 2, and Seaway properties.
S:WIRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Requesr
Linde
License SUA- 1358
'*'n'ui;J.o!
Union Carbide Corporation's former Linde Air Products Division purchased the Linde property
and constructed a ceramics plant at the location in 1942. One of the ceramics processes conducted
by Union Carbide Linde Division at this location consisted of extraction of uranium from ores to
produce uranium salts, for coloration of product glasses. Based on their experience, Union
Carbide was placed under contract with the Manhattan Engineering District ("MED") from 1942 to
1946 to extract uranium from seven different ore sources: four African pitchblende ores and three
domestic ores. Laboratory and pilot plant studies were conducted from 1942 to 1943. From 1943
to 1946, Linde conducted full scale processing of 28,300 tons of ore. The Linde Division contract
with the MED ended in the early 1950's.
The domestic ores processed at Linde were in fact residuals from commercial processing at other
facilities which removed vanadium. The vanadium removal process also removed radium and
other daughter products in the decay chain. As a result, the domestic uranium ores supplied to
Linde had reduced concentrations of radium relative to the uranium and thorium levels. The
African ores contained uranium in equilibrium with all the daughter products in its decay chain.
Figures D-l through D-4, of the United States Department of Energy ("USDOE") Preliminary Site
Assessment in Attachment 1, show the three-phase processes used for domestic and foreign ores.
Triuranium octoxide ("U:Os") was separated from the feedstock by acid digestion, precipitation,
and filtration. The solid, gelatinous filter cake from this step was discarded as solid waste in a
temporary tailings pile on the Linde site. Insoluble precipitates from the solution steps were
combined with the filter cake for disposal on site. Approximately 8,000 tons of filter cake and
precipitates were later relocated to Ashland l. U3Os wzrs converted to uranium dioxide and
uranium tetrafluoride at the Linde site. Residuals from these two steps were reprocessed. A more
detailed discussion of the ore composition, recovery processes, and waste disposal practices is
provided in Attachment l.
Five buildings at the site were involved in MED activities. Building 14 had been constructed by
Union Carbide in the mid-1930's. Buildings 30, 31, 37, and 38 were constructed at the location by
MED, and their ownership was transferred to Linde when the MED contract ended.
Residues from uranium ore processing at the Linde facility were disposed of and/or stored at the
Ashland l, Ashland 2 and Seaway properties. The majority of Linde facility residues were
disposed of on the Ashland I property between 1944 and 1946. No material was transferred from
Linde to Ashland I after this period.In 1974, the subsequent owner of the Ashland I properry
excavated a portion of the Linde residues and soils from the Ashland I site, and relocated them to
the Ashland 2 property. NRC has already approved amendments to IUSA's license for processing
of the portion of the Linde residues and soil moved to Ashland I and Ashland 2.
After transfer of residues to Ashland I was completed, Linde added manufacturing operations at
the Linde facility that very likely contributed additional contaminants to materials remaining on
the Linde site, but would not have affected materials already transferred to Ashland I and/or
Ashland 2.
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
.{mendment Rsquest
Linde
License SLrA- li58tt*.n'ur#3
From 1955 to 1991, the Linde Division operated a gas equipment design and manufacturing
facility on the property. The operation included design, manufacture, testing, and repair of gas
compressors, chillers, filters and other equipment for installation at customer sites. The Linde
Division was divested from Union Carbide in 1991, and changed its name to Praxair. Praxair
discontinued manufacturing operations in 1991 but maintained engineering design offices on the
property. There is no record of any processing activities other than uranium processing, occurring
on the property, either before or after the MED activities.
Renovation of the facility over the years has resulted in consolidation of the MED wastes and
radioactively contaminated soils remaining at the property. In 1977, MED contaminated soil was
removed from the construction area for the new building 90, and placed in two windrows along the
northern property line. The windrows were consolidated into one pile between 1979 and 1982, and
covered in 1992.
The USDOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") negotiated a Federal
Facilities Agreement ("FFA") governing remediation of the Linde property. In 1997, Congress
transferred management responsibility for the sites in the FUSRAP program, including the Linde
Site, to the USACE. All actions by the USACE at the Linde Site are being conducted subject to
the administrative, procedural and regulatory provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and the existing FFA.
USACE issued a Proposed Plan for the Linde Property in 1999 (USACE, March 1999) and a Final
Record of Decision ("ROD") in 2000 (USACE, March 2000). As a result, suffrcient
characterization information on the nature and extent of contamination is already available to
assess the composition and sources of Uranium Material to be excavated.
Over the years, erosion and weathering have spread contamination from the residuals handled and
disposed of at Linde to adjacent soils, increasing the volume of Uranium Materials to be removed
during the remedial excavation. Physically, the Uranium Material is a moist material consisting of
byproducts from uranium processing operations (i.e., "tailings"), mixed with site soils (Remedial
Investigation ("RI") Report USDOE, 1992). According to the USACE Buffalo District, the
USACE estimates the volume of soil to be excavated from the entire Linde property to range from
approximately 35,000 to 70,000 cubic yards ("CY") or somewhat more, depending on conditions
encountered during excavation. These volumes are estimates only. It is difficult to estimate the
extent to which surrounding soils have been contaminated by the tailings, and hence the potential
volumes, with precision. Pre-excavation estimates at other FUSRAP sites in Tonawanda have
been as low as one-half the actual excavated volume. Therefore, to ensure that IUSA will not have
to reapply for an increased volume from this site in the future, this request is for up to 100,000 CY
of Uranium Material.
As described in detail below, 100,000 CY would not come near the Mill's currently approved
yellowcake production limit of 4,380 TPY, and as, even without reprocessing, the composition of
the Uranium Materials is very similar to the Mill's existing tailings, added volumes of Uranium
Material will have no adverse effect on public health, safety, and the environment.
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Rcquest
Linde
License SUA- 1i,58
March 16. 2000
Page {
USACE expects to excavate and deliver the Linde Site materials over a period of ten to fourteen
months or longer. IUSA has previously received NRC approval for a license amendment to process
Uranium Material from the St, Louis FUSRAP site. As described in the IUSA Request for
Amendment for the St. Louis material, the USACE may be expected to excavate and ship
approximately 20,000 to 80,000 CY per yeilr of Uranium Material from the St. Louis Site, and
IUSA would expect to process this material over several years. If the entire volume of Linde
material were received during a period that overlapped with shipments of the St. Louis material,
the processing of the total estimated volume of 180,000 CY in one year would not come near the
Mill's currently approved yellowcake production limit of 4,380 TPY.
Additional information on the Linde property is contained in Attachments 1 and2. Attachment I
includes the following items describing the Uranium Materials and the Linde property operational
history:
1. A detailed site history of the Tonawanda Site, including the Linde property, is provided in
Chapter I of the Remedial Investieation Report for the Tonawanda Site (USDOE,
December 1992) (the "RI").
2. Additional detail on the uranium extraction process is provided in Section 7.0 of the
Preliminar.v Assessment and Site Investigation for Linde Air Products Division of Union
Carbide (USDOE, September 1987).
Attachment 2 includes the following items describing the composition of the Uranium Materials:
1. Chapters 3 and 4 of the Remedial Investigation Report for the Tonawanda Site (USDOE.
December, 1992) describe uranium concentrations and metals and organic contaminant
concentrations in surface and subsurface samples at the Linde property.
2. Portions of the Radiological Survey of the Ashland Oil Company (Former Haist Prooerty).
Tonawanda- New York (U.S. Department of Energy, May L978) describe uranium
concentrations in core samples and approximate distributions of tailings stored on the
Linde property.
3. A summary of the concentrations of chemical contaminants is provided in the Linde Site
Preliminary Material Characterization Report (U S ACE/IT, February 2 000).
Portions of the Preliminary Plan for the Linde Site (USACE, March 1999) describe site
history and radiological contamination.
Portions of the Record of Decision for the Linde Site (USACE, March 2000) describe the
regulatory framework and remediation goals relative to the radiological and chemical
contamination at the site.
4.
5.
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
1.2
\mendment Requcst
[.inde
License SL;A- l:l5lt
lvlarch I 6. 2000
Pagc 5
Radiochemical Data
Process history demonstrates that the Uranium Material at the Linde property resulted from the
processing of natural, mined uranium-bearing ores, and from the processing of uranium-bearing
residuals from natural ores originally processed at other facilities for vanadium. The USACE has
classified the portions of the Linde Uranium Material which were disposed of at and later
excavated from the Ashland I and Ashland 2 Sites, as l1e.(2) byproduct material. It is IUSA's
understanding, from discussions with USACE's contractor, IT Corporation ("1T"), that USACE/IT
also plan to classify the Linde Uranium Material as pre-1978 I le.(2) byproduct material.
Three radiological surveys have been conducted at Linde, which included evaluation of
radiological contamination in soils:
o Oak Ridge National Laboratory, November 1976o Ford, Bacon, and Davis, December 1981, ando Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 1981.
Results of all three studies were summarized in the Remedial Investigation Report for the
Tonawanda Site.
Average uranium content is difficult to estimate, although site history and available data indicate
that recoverable uranium is present. Analytical data provided to IUSA indicate that potential
uranium concentrations at Linde range in samples from nondetectable to 0.3 percent. Based on
these available data, the weighted average grade of uranium for the entire Linde Site is estimated
by IUSA to be approximately 0.07 percent. As stated above, the material containing nondetectable
levels is not likely to be excavated and hence is not likely to be included in the material shipped to
the Mill. Indeed, there is a financial disincentive to the government to excavate material that is
lower in radioactivity levels than the specific cleanup levels.
The ROD for the Linde Site indicates that on this property, soils will be excavated which exceed
the cleanup criteria of 5 piC/g radium for surface soils, 15 pCi/g radium for shallow soils, and a
standard based on a "sum of the ratios" method for three other radioactive contaminants including
total uranium,Ra-226, Th-230. The cleanup criteria are described in detail in Section 9 of the
ROD, provided in Attachment2. Based on the R[ characterization data and ROD, it appears that
an average uranium concentration in soils to be excavated per this guideline may be approximately
0.07 percent, with hot spots ranging up to 0.3 percent, as stated above.
1.3 Hazardous Constituent Data
NRC guidance suggests that if a proposed feed material consists of hazardous waste, listed under
subpart D Section 261.30-33 of 40 CFR (or comparable Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
("RCRA") authorized state regulations), it would be subject to EPA (or state) regulation under
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendmenr Request
Linde
License SUA-1358*-tn'uo#..:
RCRA. To avoid the complexities of NRC/EPA dual regulation, such feed material may not be
approved for processing at a licensed mill. If the licensee can show that the proposed feed material
does not consist of a listed hazardous waste, this issue is resolved. NRC guidance further states
that feed material exhibiting only a characteristic of hazardous waste (ignitable, corrosive, reactive,
toxic) would not be regulated as hazardous waste and could therefore be approved for recycling
and extraction of source material. The NRC Alternate Feed Guidance also states that NRC staff
may consult with EPA (or the state) before making a determination on whether the feed material
contains hazardous waste.
1.3.1 IUSA/UDEQ Hazardous Waste Protocol
In a recent decision regarding the Mill, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Presiding Officer
suggested there was a general need for more specific protocols for determining if alternate feed
materials contain hazardous components. In their Memorandum and Order of February 14,2OOO,
the Commission concluded that this issue warranted further staff refinement and standardization.
IUSA has been cognizant of the need for specific protocols to be used in making determinations as
to whether or not any altemate feeds considered for processing at the Mill contain listed hazardous
wastes, and has taken a pro-active role in the development of such a protocol. IUSA has
established a "Protocol for Determining Whether Alternate Feed Materials are Listed Hazardous
Wastes" (November 22, 1999). This Protocol has been developed in conjunction with, and
accepted by, the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality ("UDEQ') (Letter of
December 7,1999). Copies of the Protocol and UDEQ letter are provided in Attachment 3. The
provisions of the protocol can be summarized as follows:
o In all cases, the protocol requires that IUSA perform a source investigation to collect
information regarding the composition and history of the material, and any existing generator
or agency determinations regarding its regulatory status.
o The protocol states that if the material is known -- by means of chemical data or site history --
to contain no listed hazardous waste, or if an agency has agreed with a generator that the
material is not RCRA listed waste, or made a contained-out determination, IUSA and UDEQ
will agree that the material is not a listed hazardous waste. (The contained-out determination
specified in the protocol is designated by various state agencies as a "contained-in policy". a
"contained-out decision", or both).
. If such a direct confirmation is not available, the protocol describes the additional chemical
process and material handling history information that IUSA will collect and evaluate to assess
whether the chemical contaminants in the material resulted from listed or non-listed sources.
o The protocol also specifies the situations in which ongoing confirmation/acceptance sampling
will be used, in addition to the chemical process and handling history, to make a listed waste
evaluation.
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Request
Lrnde
License SUA-1358
March 16,2000
Page 7
o If the results from any of the decision steps indicate that the material or a constituent of the
material did result, or most likely resulted, from a RCRA listed hazardous waste or RCRA
listed process, the material is rejected.
o The protocol also identifies the types of documentation that ruSA will obtain and maintain on
file, to support the assessment for each different decision scenario.
The above components and conditions of the Protocol are summarized in a decision tree diagram,
or logic flow diagram, included in Attachment 3, and hereinafter referred to as the "Protocol
Diagram". IUSA's evaluations of chemical constituents in the Uranium Material have been
conducted in conformance with this protocol. The discussion of this evaluation, below, will refer
to action boxes and decision diamonds in the Protocol Diagram.
1.3.2 Historic Data Review
In accordance with Box I of the Protocol Diagram, ruSA conducted a Source Investigation of
chemical contamination information and agency determinations available to date. The information
reviewed is described in this section.
A detailed site characterization of the Linde property was conducted by USDOE and described in
the RI. Chemical data from the RI have been provided in Attachment 2. Additional information
relating to the Linde property was presented in the Proposed Plan for the Linde Site (USACE,
1999), and the Linde Site Preliminary Material Characterization Report (USACE, February
2,000). The studies include a detailed site and area history; uranium activity data; and metals and
organic contaminant concentration data.
Thirteen of the contaminant compounds identified at Linde have been determined by USACE,
their contractor, IT, and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
("NYSDEC") to result from potentially listed waste sources. These consist of toluene and twelve
halogenated volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") which are present at very low concentrations.
ruSA and IUSA's independent consultant also agree that although there are also potential non-
listed sources for several of these VOCs, RCRA listed sources arising from post-MED
manufacturing activities at the site most likely contributed to the presence of most or all of these
compounds.
The remainder of the contaminants - Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds ("SVOCs") (specifically
PAHs and phthalates), and metals, have been determined in the Linde Site Preliminary Material
Characteization Report not to result from RCRA listed wastes. This determination was based on
evaluating the same type of process and material handling information that IUSA evaluated in
accordance with Box 8 and Decision Diamond 9 of the Protocol Diagram. ruSA and IUSA's
independent consultant agree with USACEAT's determination. The conclusions of IUSA's
independent consultant regarding all identified contaminants at Linde are provided in Attachment
4.
S:MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Request
Linde
License SUA-1358
March 16,2000
f33 Contained-In/Contained-Out Considerations
The IUSA/UDEQ Protocol Diagram states, in Decision Diamond 2, that if a "regulatory authority
with RCRA jurisdiction over the site agreed with [the] generator's determination that Material is
not listed hazardous waste, made a "contained-out" determination, or determined that the material
or site is not subject to RCRA" then IUSA and UDEQ will consider the material not to be listed
hazardous waste.
The NYSDEC has published a Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum ("TAGM')
addressing contaminants contained in environmental media (NYSDEC, November 1992). This
TAGM defines NYSDEC's policy regarding contaminants (chemicals, compounds, and compound
groups) associated with RCRA listed hazardous wastes detected in environmental media (soil
sediment and water). The TAGM provides specific action levels (concentrations) for each
contaminant. If all contaminants in a given media are present at levels lower than the specified
action levels, then the media does not "contain" RCRA listed hazardous waste. Based on the
extremely low concentrations of VOCs in the Linde site samples, it is IUSA's understanding that
NYSDEC has agreed to allow USACE/IT to apply the TAGM approach to the thirteen VOCs in
Linde materials. As a result, any soils excavated at Linde that contain these VOCs at
concentrations less than the contained-in action levels in the TAGM will not be RCRA listed
hazardous waste. A copy of the NYSDEC TAGM is provided in Attachment 5.
NYSDEC will make a contained-in/contained-out determination for the thirteen VOCs in the
Uranium Material, on a batch by batch basis, subject to the NYSDEC TAGM. This authorization
satisfies the requirements agreed upon by ruSA and UDEQ as documented in the Protocol
Diagram and supporting text. Hence, a contained-out determination made by the NYSDEC would
be sufficient basis for IUSA to consider Uranium Material not to be RCRA-listed hazardous waste
with respect to these thirteen compounds, and to accept such material at the Mill. The remaining
contaminants have already been determined not to result from RCRA listed sources. The
evaluation by IUSA's independent consultant, in Attachment 4, explains why this determination is
justified.
USACE and their contractor, IT, prepared a Linde Site Preliminary Material Characterization
Report (USACE, February 2,000), which compares the levels of the thirteen VOC contaminants
reported in the RI to their respective TAGM action levels. A copy of the Report is provided in
Attachment 3. This evaluation of the R[ data indicates that USACE/IT have determined that twelve
of the thirteen VOC contaminants, as described in Section 1.5, below, were well below (from 5 to
3 million times) their respective TAGM action levels in every sample where they were detected.
One of the contaminants, pentachlorophenol, exceeded the TAGM action level in one or more
samples. Based on these findings, USACE/IT have determined that the majority of Linde site soils
should not be RCRA hazardous waste with respect to these twelve halogenated VOCs. A few
areas of soil may be expected to contain pentachlorophenol at or above the TAGM action level.
Any soils which exceed the TAGM for pentachlorophenol, or any other VOC contaminant, will be
managed as RCRA listed hazardous waste and will not be shipped to ruSA' unless treated on site
S:MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Request
Linde
License SUA- 1358
March 16,2000
in accordance with the TAGM and the treated material meets the TAGM action levels, as
discussed below.
To supplement the preliminary TAGM determinations, as described below, IT is developing a pre-
excavation profile sampling plan to confirm the VOC levels reported in the R[. IT plans to
complete this sampling and report results to USACE and NYSDEC during the second quarter of
2000. ruSA will provide a copy of these results to NRC when they are published.
Further, NYSDEC's TAGM specifies that for the contained-in/contained-out determination to be
applied to excavated media from any site, the owner must prepare a TAGM Sampling Work Plan,
("TAGM SWP") to be approved by NYSDEC, specifying how the media will be sampled and
analyzed during excavation/remediation to confirm that no contaminant exceeds any action level in
the TAGM. IT is currently preparing a draft Sample Work Plan for NYSDEC review. In
accordance with NYSDEC policy, this plan will specify that any material that exceeds any TAGM
action level will either:
1. be considered RCRA listed hazardous waste and shipped to a disposal facility licensed to
receive RCRA hazardous wastes; or
2. may be treated on site at Linde until the concentrations of all chemicals, compounds or
groups are below all TAGM action levels, then shipped off site, to the Mill or other
location, as non-hazardous waste.
In no case will material with any of the thirteen identified contaminants that exceeds a NYSDEC
TAGM action level or TCLP level for the TAGM contaminants be managed as a non-hazardous
waste. IUSA's potential contract with IT will also specify that no material will be shipped to the
Mill with any of the thirteen identified contaminants that exceeds a NYSDEC TAGM action level.
f3.4 Consistency of I\I-YSDEC Approach with IUSAruDEQ Hazardous Waste Protocol
ruSA has determined that the }.IYSDEC contained-in/contained-out decision process and
development of an ITATYSDEC Sampling Work Plan are consistent with Decision Diamond 2 in
the IUSA/UDEQ Protocol, with respect to the thirteen VOC contaminants. IT is developing the
TAGM Sampling Work Plan, which will provide the analytical criteria for this determination.
ruSA will provide NRC a copy of this plan and NYSDEC letter of acceptance when USACE/IT
provide ruSA a final approved copy.
1.3.5 Review by IUSA Independent Consultant
In addition, as discussed above, ruSA engaged an independent consultant, experienced in chemical
process engineering, to review the site history, characterization information, NYSDEC TAGM,
and ruSA protocol, and to make an independent assessment regarding the regulatory
determinations made on the Uranium Material. In addition to review of the documents identified
above, this evaluation has also included a review of publicly available information on Linde and
S :\N4RR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Request
Linde
License SUA-1358
March 16,2000
Page l0
Praxair operations, and interviews with IT and subcontractor personnel familiar with the site. The
process source evaluation performed by IUSA's independent consultant is provided in Attachment
4 The consultant has concluded that based on the contamination information currently available:
1. NYSDEC's application of the TAGM is consistent with the IUSA Protocol for determining
that Uranium Materialto be shipped to the Mill is not RCRA listed hazardous waste.
2. The thirteen compounds identified in the IT Sampling Work Plan should not be considered
RCRA listed hazardous waste whenever their concentrations are below the action levels in
NYSDEC's "contained-in/contained-out" TAGM.
3. All other organic compounds detected to date at Linde and all metals detected to date at Linde
are not associated with RCRA listed wastes.
f.3.6 Proposed Confirmatory Sampling and Analysis
In addition to the chemical sampling reported in the RI documents, in order to confirm that
material shipped to the Mill complies with the NYSDEC TAGM, that is, contains no RCRA listed
wastes, the USACE contractor will perform three levels of sampling on soils from the Linde
property excavation areas as described below.
Pre -Excavation Profi le Samp ling
First, prior to development of their site Excavation and Restoration Plan, the USACE contractor
will perform pre-excavation sampling ("profile sampling") within the area determined in the
USDOE R[ report to contain radiological contamination. The main purpose of the profile sampling
is to confirm the extent of radiologic contamination and the boundaries of the remedial excavation.
However, samples from within the radiologically contaminated area will also be analyzed
according to methods outlined in EPA Guidance SW846 for total Volatile Organic Compounds
("VOCs") and Semivolatile Organic Compounds ("SVOCs"), &s well as hazardous characteristics
including TCLP. The USACE contractor will use the profile sampling results, together with other
site characterization data,
l. to determine whether or not any of the thirteen compounds referred to above are present in the
zone ofexcavation;
2. to confirm whether or not the detected compounds are below each of their respective TAGM
action levels;
3. to determine whether or not any new chemical components are identified within the zone of
excavation.
If any new compounds are detected, IT will assess, with NYSDEC's concurrence, whether or not
they are from RCRA listed sources. If they are determined to be from potentially listed sources,
S:MRR\Linde\LindeAR
{mendment Requcsr
L rnde
License SL;.\- I 358
March 16. 2000
USACE/IT will evaluate whether they are present at concentrations below their respective TAGM
action levels. This data will be provided to IUSA as part of the material profile that will be
required by IUSA's subcontract with the USACE prime contractor.
Post-Excavation and TAGM Sampling
Second, as described above, the USACE contractor will have an approved TAGM SWP in place
prior to start of excavation. Upon excavation of the radiologically contaminated material, the
USACE contractor will perform additional chemical analyses in accordance with the TAGM SWP.
According to the USACE contractor, IT, the TAGM sampling will be considerably more extensive
than the post-excavation sampling performed by IT at the Ashland I and Ashland 2 sites, involving
both a greater frequency of samples and a broader spectrum of analyses. In order to meet the
expanded analyical requirements, IT plans to establish an on-site laboratory.
Sampling locations and frequency have not been determined; however, the TAGM requires that
the sampling be statistically representative of all varieties of media and contaminant sources
encountered in the remedial action. IT anticipates that the frequency will exceed the single
composite of six random grabs per 500 CY performed on site at Ashland I and Ashland 2. The
on-site samples will also be analyzed for a greater number of potential contaminants. In addition
to the total VOC and total SVOC analyses performed for Ashland I and 2 matenal, the TAGM
SWP will require analyses for one or more pesticide suites, TCLP, and other hazardous
characteristics. With the use of the onsite laboratory, IT anticipates that results will be available to
IUSA more quickly than post-excavation results from Ashland 1 or Ashland 2. Due to the need to
evaluate every excavated batch, IT plans to have analyical results available before material is
loaded for shipping. IUSA will require that IT provide the post-excavation TAGM SWP results to
IUSA by fax or email prior to receipt of the Uranium Material at the Mill.
Sampling of Visible Contamination
As a precautionary measure, the excavated material may undergo a third type of sampling. If any
excavated pile shows visible indications of organic contamination, such as staining or chemical
odor, or which indicates the presence of organics when scanned by a photoionization detector
("PID") IT will, if it has not done so otherwise under the TAGM SWP, collect a random sample in
the most visibly contaminated part of the pile, and perform similar analyses in conformance with
the TAGM SWP.
In addition to results from the profile sampling required by IUSA, IT will also provide IUSA the
results from IT's TAGM SWP analytical program before Uranium Material is received at the Mill.
If any new chemical constituents are identified during the TAGM SWP sampling, USACEflT will
use site history and analyzed concentrations to perform an evaluation, subject to NYSDEC's
approval, to determine whether they are:
1. not from RCRA listed sources
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
{mendmenr Request
Linde
License SLi.\- 1358
March 16. 1000
potentially from RCRA listed sources but below the TAGM action level(s), or
RCRA listed hazardous waste.
As described above, any material containing any constituent above its respective TAGM action
level, whether identified in the RI, pre-excavation sampling, or TAGM SWP sampling will be
managed as RCttA listed hazardous waste and will not be included in the Uranium Material to be
shipped to the Mill, unless and until it meets the TAGM action levels. IUSA will require
contractually that the USACE make the TAGM SWP and resulting analytical data available to the
NRC at the NRC's request.
IUSA is considering whether to implement an acceptance sampling program at the Mill for the
Linde material. At this time, IUSA does not propose to perform on-site acceptance sampling of
Linde Uranium Material received at the Mill for the following reasons.
First, the determination regarding RCRA listed waste will be made by the generator
(USACE/IT) in conjunction with, md based on regulatory standards established by, the
NYSDEC, which has RCRA authority over the Linde site. Material will be RCRA classified
and segregated by IT on a batch by batch basis, subject to NYSDEC approval of analytical
results. As described in Section 1.3 above, according to the IUSAruDEQ Protocol, if
NYSDEC, which has RCRA jurisdiction over the site, has agreed with a generator's
determination that the material is not listed hazardous waste, or made a "contained-out"
determination for specific contaminants, IUSA and UDEQ will consider the material not to be
listed hazardous waste with respect to those contaminants.
Second, IUSA understands from discussions with IT staff that the sampling frequency to be
performed by IT for both TAGM contaminants (VOCs) and other contaminants (SVOCs) is
expected to exceed the Mill sampling frequency for the Uranium Material at Ashland I and
Ashland 2 of one sample per 500 CY lot, and will better statistically characterize the material.
That is, with respect to the IUSAruDEQ protocol, the sampling results for both the TAGM and
other constituents can be expected to be very representative. As a result, the increased
sampling at the Linde site will result in more frequent and better sampling than was performed
for either Ashland I or Ashland2 at the Mill; therefore redundant sampling at the Mill is not
necessary.
Third, the IT TAGM SWP program will use analytical limits of detection for TAGM
contaminants and other contaminants three orders of magnitude lower (more sensitive) than
what has been achieved by the Mill's contract laboratory for Mill samples. Adding additional
samples from the Mill will likely result in unnecessary and avoidable data comparison issues.
Fourth, the primary TAGM contaminants at Linde are VOCs. It has been IUSA's experience,
documented by nearly 200 Mill samples from Ashland 2 material and over 160 Mill samples to
date of Ashland I material, that these compounds, if present at the excavation site, are
3.
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Request
Linde
License SUA-1358
"**tou;#fl
volatilized during stockpiling, loading, transport, and unloading, and are consistently non-
detectable in samples collected at the Mill.
o Fifth, due to logistical constraints such as limited staging and storage areas on site, and the
need to make alarge number of batch by batch hazardous waste determinations, IT plans to use
an onsite laboratory to produce chemical characteization results with fast turnaround (while
material is still on site at Linde). ruSA will require contractually that IT make those results
available to IUSA before material is received at the Mill, and to the extent practical, prior to its
being shipped from Linde. ruSA plans to work closely with IT, and to make
acceptance/rejection decisions as soon as possible after the USACE/IT make their hazardous
waste determinations, and based on the same data. This will allow excavated material to be
immediately segregated to the proper on-site staging area (at Linde) - either for loading and
shipment to IUS.\ or into a specially controlled mixed hazardous waste staging area either for
on-site treatment or for shipment to a licensed hazardous waste facility.
It is of paramount importance to IUSA that the Uranium Material does not contain any RCRA
listed hazardous wastes that could lead to potential jurisdictional issues relating to the Mill's
tailings impoundments. If the final TAGM SWP indicates that IT will use a sampling frequency
less than one composite sample per 500 CY for either VOC or SVOC analyses, ruSA will propose
to the NRC a Mill sampling program to supplement the IT on-site sampling program. If results
from any of the above IT analyses indicate that Uranium Material to be shipped contains RCRA
listed waste, the material will be rejected, and will not be shipped to IUSA. If ruSA develops a
supplementary Mill sampling program, and results from any of the Mill analyses indicate that the
Uranium Material contains RCRA listed waste, the material will be rejected and NRC will be
notified immediately.
1.3.7 Compatibility with IUSA Mill Tailings
The Uranium Material contains metals and other constituents that are already present in the Mill
tailings disposed of in the Cell 3 impoundment. Generally, even without reprocessing, the
composition of the Uranium Material is very similar to the composition of the materials currently
present in the Mill's tailings impoundments, because the Uranium Material resulted from the
processing of uranium-bearing ores for the extraction of uranium. Hence, the Uranium Material
should not have an adverse impact on the overall Cell 3 tailings composition.
The Environmental Statement ("ES") for the Mill (USNRC, 1979) assumed that tailings slurry
would have an organic content of 0.2 gallons of organics per 1,000 gallons of tailings slurry.
Further, the ES assumes the organics in tailings would consist primarily of residual kerosene and
some alcohols. The Linde property organics consist primarily of PAH compounds from used oil
and/or paving materials. The PAHs are substantially less volatile and less mobile than kerosene or
alcohols assumed in the ES. Halogenated VOCs were detected at several of the samples, but at
very low levels. Based on IUSA's experience with low levels of halogenated VOCs in the material
previously received from the Ashland I and Ashland 2 FUSRAP sites, regardless of the initial
concentration of VOCs reported in the excavation area soils, these compounds were volatilized by
S:MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Requcst
Linde
License SLiA- 1358
tttntau;*'.0?3
excavation, loading, transport and unloading to nondetectable levels before the material reached
the Mill. Even without this volatilization, the halogenated VOCs are at such low levels as to have
virtually no effect on the tailings impoundments. In other words, the environmental impact from
organic compounds in the Uranium Material is well within the parameters assumed in the NRC
Environmental Statement for the Site.
Furthermore, the volume of tailings that would potentially be generated by processing of the
Uranium Material is comparable to the volume that would be generated from processing an
equivalent volume of ore. The USACE, as described above, may be expected to excavate and ship
up to 100,000 CY (approximately 120,000 tons) of Uranium Material from Linde. This additional
volume is well within the maximum annual throughput rate and tailings generation rate for the Mill
of 680,000 tons per year. Additionally, IUSA is required to conduct regular monitoring of the
impoundment leak detection systems and of the groundwater in the vicinity of the impoundments
to detect leakage if it should occur.
1.4 Regulatory Considerations
Uranium Material Oualifies as "Ore"
According to NRC guidance, for the tailings and wastes from the proposed processing to qualifu as
lle.(2) byproduct material, the feed material must qualifu as "ore." NRC has established the
following definition of ore:
"Ore is a natural or native matter that may be mined and treated for the extraction of
any of its constituents or any other matter from which source material is extracted
in a licensed uranium or thorium mill."
The Uranium Material is a matter from which source material will be extracted in a licensed
uranium mill, and therefore qualifies as'oore" under this definition.
Uranium Material Not Subject to RCRA
The USDOE, as predecessor to USACE in managing the FUSRAP sites, has consistently classified
certain FUSRAP materials, including the Uranium Material at the Linde property, as 1le.(2)
byproduct material. As mentioned in Section 1.2, above, USACE/IT plan to classifu the Uranium
Material as pre-1978 11e.(2) byproduct material.
According to the Linde Site Preliminary Material Characterization Report, USACE/IT will prepare
a Radioactive Material Profile Record ("RMPR") for all material that does not exceed the TAGM
action level for any contaminant potentially from RCRA listed sources (SVOCs and metals at
Linde have already been determined not to be from RCRA listed sources). Material that exceeds
the TAGM action level for any contaminant may need to be managed under a separate RMPR,
possibly as both a radioactive and hazardous waste. In any event, such material will not be
shipped to IUSA, unless and until it meets the TAGM action levels.
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Request
I_ inde
License SLrA- 1358
March 16. 2000
As described in Section 1.3 above, USACE and IT are developing a TAGM SWP to confirm that
the Uranium Material will not be RCRA listed hazardous waste, in accordance with the NYSDEC
TAGM. Material (if any) that does not meet the TAGM action levels, that is, contains RCRA
listed hazardous waste, will not be shipped to the Mill.
Further, as discussed above, IUSA has also engaged an independent expert consultant to perform a
RCRA status evaluation of the Linde Site. This evaluation is provided in Attachment 4, and
summarized below.
Only four classes of organic compounds were detected at Linde. Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons ("PAHs"), and phthalates, which resulted from the background fill at the site;
toluene; and twelve halogenated VOCs.
According to the RI, the PAHs resulted from spills or draining of used motor oil, which was
detected in visible quantities on the site, The presence of asphalt paving would also likely
contribute to the detection of PAHs in the shallow soils. Both of the phthalates are natural
degradation products of the PAHs and are plasticizers present in polymer gloves, personnel
protective equipment, and other sampling equipment. None of the above are RCRA listed sources.
One brominated and eleven chlorinated VOCs were reported in the RI at very low levels,
specifically: bromoform; chloroform; methylene chloride; 1,2 dichloroethane (1,2 DCA); cis- plus
trans- isomers of 1,2 dichloroethane (1,2 DCE); trans 1,2 dichloroethene (trans 1,2 DCE); l.l.l
trichloroethane (TCA); trichloroethene (TCE); l,l,Z,2 tetrachloroethane; tetrachloroethene (PCE)l
pentachlorophenol; and hexachloroethane. The majority of these compounds were detected at 50
parts per billion or less. Two detections of 1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane and several detections of
pentachlorophenol and hexachloroethane were at higher levels. The maximum concentrations of
1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane (2.3 ugkg) and hexachloroethane (2,100 ug.kg) were below rheir
respective TAGMs. The maximum concenetration of pentachlorophenol (4,700 ug/kg) exceeded
its TAGM action level of 3,000 ug/kg. Overall, the organic concentrations were so low that
USACE excluded them from the health risk assessment for the site on the basis that they were too
low to contribute to human health risk. NYSDEC has concurred that at least some of the sources of
halogenated VOCs may be RCRA listed hazardous wastes. IUSA and IUSA's independent
consultant agree with this determination. However, based on the RI data as summarized in the
Preliminary Characterization Report, the reported detections of chlorinated VOCs were few and
the reported concentrations were lower than their respective TAGMs. As a result, NYSDEC and
USACE/IT have agreed on use of a state approved TAGM for determining that soil with
halogenated VOC concentrations below the contained-in action levels in the guidance will not be
RCRA listed hazardous waste.
Toluene was also present at low levels. All toluene detections reported were less than 300 parts per
billion; the majority were less than 50 parts per billion. The R[ also reports that toluene was
detected at shallow depths, of 6 feet or less, and in general, its concentration decreased with depth.
indicating a relatively recent source. The more recent operations at Linde included both
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
.\mendment Request
Linde
License SUA-1i58
**'n',9;#?3
potentially listed sources-solvent and paint thinner-and non-listed sources-paints, coatings,
metal preparation, and finishing. NYSDEC has determined that at least some of the sources of
toluene may be RCRA listed hazardous wastes. IUSA and IUSA's independent consultant concur
with this determination. Based on the RI data as sunmarized in the Preliminary Characterization
Report, the reported detections of toluene were few and the reported concentrations extremely low.
As a result, NYSDEC and USACE/IT have agreed on use of a state approved TAGM for
determining that soil with less than 1,600,000 ug/kg (ppb) toluene will not be RCRA listed
hazardous waste. All the toluene concentrations reported in the RI were below this level.
As described above, the Linde site was filled and graded with a combination of fly-ash, slag,
gravel and clay fill. The fill has been determined to be a source of thorium-232 and arsenic, as
well as a contributor to the elevated levels of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead and silver. The RI
attributes all the elevated metals at the site either to MED waste, fill, or combinations of the two.
The RI does not attribute any of the metals to Linde site manufacturing activities or to any RCRA
listed process sources.
Chemical data was not collected on the portions of the site that were not occupied by MED, which
are currently utilized in Praxair's manufacturing activities, and will not be shipped to the Mill.
As described above, IUSA will continue to review chemical data provided by USACE prior to and
for the duration of the excavation activities at the site, to confirm that no RCRA wastes are
included in material shipped to the Mill.
Justification of Certification Under Certification Test
In the Licensee Certification and Justification test set out in the NRC's Final Position and
Guidance on the Use of Uranium Mill Feed Material Other Than Natural Ores, the licensee must
certify under oath or affirmation that the feed material is to be processed primarity for the recovery
of uranium and for no other primary purpose. IUSA makes this certification below.
Under this Guidance, the licensee must also justifu, with reasonable documentation, the
certification. The justification can be based on financial considerations, the high uranium content
of the feed material, or other grounds.
Uranium Content
As stated above, average uranium content is difficult to estimate, although site history and
available data suggest that recoverable uranium is present. For example, analytical data providedto IUSA indicate uranium content in discrete samples ranging from non-detectable to
approximately 0.3 weight percent, or greater, with an average uranium content for the entire Linde
Site of approximately 0.07 weight percent uranium. It should be noted that:
l) The radionuclide content of the storage pile was not characterized during the R[, since it
was known to contain uranium wastes and to require remediation.
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendmcnt Request
Linde
License SL'A-1358**'n'f;io??
2) Material containing nondetectable levels is not likely to be included in the material shipped
to the Mill.
Considering both of the above factors, the estimate of 0.07 percent uranium, which was based on
the RI data, could be relatively conservative, and overall average uranium values may be
somewhat higher.
Historic reports indicate that uranium ore and residues were stored, consolidated, excavated, and
relocated during various post-MED construction activities at the Linde site, and a portion of the
residues and contaminated soil moved from the Linde Site to the Ashland 1 Site. As a result, the
radionuclide activities and concentrations are highly variable. Over time, the radionuclides from
the disposed of process residues migrated into the surrounding soils. These residues and
contaminated soil comprise the Uranium Material to be shipped to the Mill.
By comparison, the estimated average uranium concentrations in Ashland 2 and Ashland I
materials, as set out in their respective license amendment applications, were 0.05 and 0.06 weight
percent uranium.
Financ ial C ons ider ations
In addition to other financial considerations, if awarded a contract to accept Uranium material,
IUSA will commit contractually, as it did with respect to the Ashland 2, Ashland 1, and St. Louis
Materials, to process the Uranium Material at the Mill for recycling of uranium in consideration of
receiving a recycling fee.
Other Considerations
There are several other grounds to support the certification text, two of which are discussed here.
IUSA has a history of successfully extracting uranium from alternate feed materials, including
from the very similar Ashland 2 materials, and should be considered developed credibility with the
NRC, not only for being technically competent, but also for fulfilling its proposals to recover
uranium from alternate feeds.
In addition, the USDOE, which managed the FUSRAP sites prior to the USACE, determined that
the Uranium Material meets the definition of 1le.(2) byproduct material under the Atomic Energy
Act (the "AEA"). Because of its classification, the Uranium Material could be placed directly in
the Mill's tailings impoundment. Therefore, the fact that IUSA plans to process the Uranium
Material is further evidence that IUSA is primarily processing the Uranium Material for its source
material content, since processing the material would not be necessary to dispose of the material in
the impoundment. This reasoning was applied by the NRC in approving IUSA's application to
amend the Mill's license to allow for the processing of the very similar Ashland I FUSRAP
materials, and is consistent with the rationale underlying the co-disposal test in the Alternate Feed
Guidance, that if material could be placed in the tailings impoundment for disposal without
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
2.0
-.\mendment Request
Linde
L icense SUA- I i 58
ut,,..n'ou;*.o?8
processing, the licensee is processing the material primarily to extract the source material, and not
to change the legal definition of the material. As Joseph H. Holonich, former Branch Chief of the
Uranium Recovery Branch of the NRC, stated in an affidavit dated January 29, 1999 filed in
connection with the Ashland 2 proceedings:
"This direct disposal test clearly satisfies the 'other grounds' test given in Criteria
3(b) of the Alternate Feed Guidance."
Conclusion
As a result of the above factors, and based on the Commission's reasoning in the NRC
Memorandum and Order. Februarv 14. 2000. In the Matter of International Uranium (USA)
Corgoration (Request for Materials License Amendment). Docket No. 40-8681-MLA-4, it is
reasonable for the NRC staff to conclude that uranium can be recovered from the Uranium
Material and that the processing will indeed occur. As a result, this license amendment satisfies
the Certification Test, and the tailings resulting from the processing of the Uranium Material will
be I le.(2) byproduct material.
TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS
IUSA does not have a subcontract in place at this time with IT, the USACE remediation
contractor. As a result, it has not been determined whether Uranium Material transferred to the
Mill would be shipped by truck or by rail in intermodal containers. [f intermodal containers are to
be used, the Uranium Material would be loaded into covered, exclusive-use containers at the Linde
Site. The covered containers would be loaded onto railcars and transported cross-country to the
final rail destination (expected to be either near Grand Junction, Colorado; Cisco, Utah; Green
River, Utah; or East Carbon, Utah), where they will be transferred to trucks for the final leg of the
journey to the Mill. It is expected that four containers will be shipped per rail car, for a total of up
to approximately 1250 cars. The contractor expects that an average of 120 truckloads per week
will be used to transport Uranium Material from the rail transfer site to the Mill. If USACE ships
100,000 CY to IUSA, IUSA expects that an average of 120 truckloads per week will be used to
transport Uranium Material from the rail transfer site to the Mill for a period of up to ten to
fourteen months.
Alternatively, if tmck transport is selected, approximately 120 trucks per week would be loaded at
the Linde Site, and the Uranium Material would be transported by a predetermined surface route
directly to the Mill for a period of up to ten to fourteen months.
The USACE contractor will ,urange with a material handling contractor for the proper labeling,
placarding, manifesting and transport of each shipment of the Uranium Material. Each shipment
will be o'exclusive use" (i.e., the only material in each container will be the Uranium Material).
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Rcquest
Linde
License SUA-1358
*"''n'ru;io?3
For the following reasons, it is not expected that transportation impacts associated with the
movement of the Uranium Material by train and truck from Linde to the Mill will be significant:
o The material will be shipped in exclusive-use containers (i.e., no other material will be in the
containers with the Uranium Material). The containers will be appropriately labeled,
placarded, and manifested, and the shipping company will track shipments from the Linde Site
until they reach the Mill.
o On average during 1998, 385 trucks per day traveled the stretch of State Road l9l between
Monticello, UT and Blanding, UT (1997 NRC personal communication with the State of Utah
Department of Transportation). An average of 120 additional trucks per week traveling this
route to the Mill represents an increased traffic load of only 6.2 percent. The Environmental
Statement (NRC, 1979) which provides the environmental assumptions upon which IUSA's
current license is based, assumed a maximum of up to 53 truck round trips per day associated
with the Blanding ore buying station, and 32 truck round trips per day associated with the
Hanksville ore buying station, or a total of nearly five times as much traffic as would be
generated by transport of the Uranium Material. Shipments are expected to be completed in a
period of fourteen months.
. The containers and trucks involved in transporting the material to the Mill site will be surveyed
and decontaminated, as necessary, prior to leaving the Linde Site for the Mill and again prior to
leaving the Mill site for the return trip.
PROCESS
The Uranium Material will be added to the Mill circuit in a manner similar to that used for the
normal processing of conventional ore, either alone or in combination with other approved
alternate feed materials. The Uranium Material will either be dumped into the ore receiving
hopper and fed to the SAG mill, or nrn through an existing trommel, before being pumped to pulp
Storage. The leaching process may begin in Pulp Storage with the addition of sulfi.ric acid.
The solution will be advanced through the remainder of the Mill circuitry with no anticipated
modifications of any significance to either the circuit or recovery process. Since no physical
changes to the Mill circuit of any significance will be necessary to process this Material, no
construction impacts of any significance beyond those previously assessed will be involved.
Tailings produced by the processing of this material will be disposed of on-site in an existing lined
tailings impoundment (Cell 3). The volume of tailings that would potentially be generated by
processing of the Uranium Material is comparable to the volume that would be generated from
processing an equivalent amount of ore. The USACE, as described above, may be expected to
excavate and ship a total of up to 100,000 CY (approximately 120,000 tons) of Uranium Material
from the Linde Site. The addition to Cell 3 of tailings from the processing of 100,000 tons of
Uranium Material will increase the total amount of tailings in Cell 3 by approximately ten percent,
3.0
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendmenr Rcquest
L. i nde
License SUA-1i58
ut*'n',9;#93
the same increase expected if an equivalent amount of ore were processed. The design of the
existing impoundments has previously been approved by the NRC, and IUSA is required by its
NRC license to conduct regular monitoring of the impoundment liners and of the groundwater
around the impoundments to detect leakage if it should occur. Additional tailings cells will also
require NRC approval and similar monitoring.
IUSA has previously received NRC approval for a license amendment to process material from the
St. Louis FUSRAP site. As described in the IUSA Request for Amendment for the St. Louis
material, the USACE may be expected to excavate and ship approximately 20,000 to 80,000 tons
per year of material from the St. Louis Site, and IUSA would expect to process this material over
several years. If the entire volume of Linde material were received during a period that overlapped
with shipments of the St. Louis material, the maximum amount of tailings that may be added to
Cell 3 in any one year would be approximately 180,000 tons. This would increase the amount of
tailings in Cell 3 by a total of approximately 15 percent in one year, the same amount as would be
expected if a comparable amount of natural ore were processed.
The remaining capacity in the existing Cell 3 is expected to be sufficient for all of the tailings from
the processing of Linde Uranium Material. Since the St. Louis material is expected to be received
and processed over a period of several years, some of the tailings from the St. Louis materials will
probably be disposed of on site in additional NRC approved tailings impoundments. The design of
the existing impoundments has previously been approved by the NRC, and IUSA is required by its
NRC license to conduct regular monitoring of the impoundment liners and of the groundwater
around the impoundments to detect leakage if it should occur. Additional tailings cells will also
require NRC approval and similar monitoring.
SAFETY MEASURES
Mill employees involved in handling the Uranium Material will be provided with personal
protective equipment, including respiratory protection, as required. Airborne particulate and
breathing zone sampling results will be used to establish health and safety guidelines to be
implemented throughout the processing operations.
The Uranium Material will be delivered to the Mill in closed containers via truck. The Uranium
Material will be processed in the Mill circuit in virtually the same manner as conventional ore.
The material will proceed through the leach circuit, CCD circuit, and into the solvent extraction
circuit or ion exchange circuit, in normal process fashion as detailed in Section 3.0 above. Since
there are no major process changes to the Mill circuit, and since the extraction process sequence is
very similar to processing conventional uranium solutions, it is anticipated that no extraordinary
safety hazards will be encountered.
Employee exposure potential during initial material handling operations is expected to be no more
significant than what is normally encountered during conventional milling operations. Employees
will be provided with personal protective equipment including full-face respirators, if required.
4.0
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment Request
[. rnde
License SlrA-1358**'n'.t;#!l
Airborne particulate samples will be collected and analyzed for gross alpha concentrations. If
uranium airborne concentrations exceed 25 percent of the DAC, full-face respiratory protection
will be implemented during the entire sequence of material dumping operations. Spills and
splashed material that may be encountered during this initial material processing will be wetted
and collected during routine work activity. Samples of the Uranium Material indicate it is a
neutral material. Therefore, it is anticipated that no unusual PPE apparel will be required other
than coveralls and rubber gloves during material handling activities. Respiratory protection will be
implemented as determined.
4.1 Control of Airborne Contamination
IUSA does not anticipate any unusual or airborne contamination dispersion when processing the
Uranium Material. The contamination potential is expected to be no more than what is normally
encountered when processing conventional uranium ore. The successive extraction process
circuitry from grinding or washing, leaching, and CCD through solvent extraction and into
precipitation are all liquid processes, and the potential for airborne contamination dispersion is
minimal. Uranium extraction will proceed through the Mill circuit as if the Uranium Material
were conventional uranium ore. The material is a moist solid or in a slurry form once it has been
introduced into the SAG mill or pulp storage tanks. Normal dust control measures will be utilized
prior to the SAG mill.
The efficiency of airborne contamination control measures during the material handling operations
will be assessed while the ore is in stockpile. Airborne particulate samples and breathing zone
samples will be collected in those areas during initial material processing activities and analyzed
for gross alpha. The results will establish health and safety guidelines that will be implemented
throughout the material processing operations.
Personal protective equipment, including respiratory protection as required, will be provided to
those individuals engaged in material processing. Additional environmental air samples will be
taken at nearby locations in the vicinity of material processing activities to ensure adequate
contamination control measures are effective and that the spread of uranium airborne particulates
has been prevented.
4.2 Radiation Safety
The radiation safety program which exists at the Mill, pursuant to the conditions and provisions of
NRC License Number SUA-1358, and applicable Regulations of the Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 10, is adequate to ensure the maximum protection of the worker and environment, and is
consistent with the principle of maintaining exposures of radiation to individual workers and to the
general public to levels As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
4.3
Amendment Request
L inde
License SUA- 1358
March 16. 2000
Page 22
Vehicle Scan
After the cargo has been offloaded at the Mill site, a radiation survey of the vehicle (and
intermodal bin, if used) will be performed consistent with standard Mill procedures (Attachment
6). In general, radiation levels are in accordance with applicable values contained in the NRC
Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use
or Termination of Licenses for Byoroduct. Source. or Special Nuclear Material, U.S. NRC, May,
1987. If radiation levels indicate values in excess of the above limits, appropriate decontamination
procedures would be implemented. However, these limits are appropriate for materials and
equipment released for unrestricted use only, and do not apply to restricted exclusive use
shipments. As stated in Section 2.0 above, the shipments of uranium material to and from the Mill
will be dedicated, exclusive loads; therefore, radiation surveys and radiation levels consistent with
DOT requirements will be applied to returning vehicles and cargo.
5.0 OTHER INFORMATION
5.1 Added Advantage of Recycling
The Value Engineering Study Team of the USACE has proposed that the Corps use recycling and
mineral recovery technologies at a uranium mill to reduce radioactive material disposal costs (See
Attachment 7). The Corps notes that the Mill has the technology necessary to recycle materials for
extraction of uranium, vanadium, rare earth minerals, and other metals, and to provide for disposal
of waste generated as I le.(2) in the Mill's fully lined and NRC-compliant existing tailings
impoundments.
The Corps has found that recycling will add value to the FUSRAP program, and lists the following
advantages of recycling, over disposal:
l. Conforms to Congressional and regulatory mandates that encourage use of recycling.2. Reduces radioactivity of the material to be disposed of.3. Recycles uranium and other minerals.4. Reduces cost of disposal of byproduct from recycling operation.5. Treatment and disposal are performed at one location, and by-product from recycling is
disposed of in an NRC-compliant disposal system, meeting l0 CFR 40 design criteria.6. 11e.(2) by-product is disposed of in existing tailings impoundment which is consistent with
l0 CFR 40 Appendix A, Criterion 2 intent for nonproliferation of small sites.7. Actual cost savings for treatment and disposal versus cost of direct disposal only could be
greater than projected, depending upon quantities of recoverable uranium or other minerals.8. This technology has been demonstrated on multiple waste streams, and has potential
applicability to other FUSRAP sites.
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
,\mendment Request
L inde
License SUA- 1358**tn'rt;#3!
5.2 Classification of Uranium Material as lle.(2) Byproduct Material
As discussed above, USDOE, which managed the Linde Site prior to USACE, determined that the
Linde Site material meets the definition of I le.(2) byproduct material. There is ample authority
under the AEA as amended by UMTRCA for USDOE to classifu the Uranium Material as 1le.(2)
byproduct material. USDOE made that determination with respect to the Uranium Material, and as
a result the Uranium Material is 11e.(2) byproduct material. While the Uranium Material is at the
Linde Site it is I le.(2) byproduct material regulated by USDOE. When the Uranium Material
enters the Mill site it becomes 1le.(2) byproduct material regulated by NRC. This issue is
discussed more fully in the memorandum attached hereto as Attachment 8.
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
Amendment -T;..:
License SUA-1358
March 16. 2000
Page 2"1
Certification of International Uranium (USA) Corporation
(The "Licensee")
I, David C. Frydenlund, the undersigned, for and on behalf of the Licensee, do hereby
certi$ as follows:
l. The Licensee intends to enter into a contract with the prime contractor for the FUSRAP
Linde Site remediation, on behalf of the United States Army Corps. Of Engineers (the "Material
Supplier") under which the Licensee will process certain alternate feed material (the "Material") at
the White Mesa Uranium Mill for the recovery of uranium. As demonstrated in the foregoing
amendment application, based on the uranium content, financial considerations, and other
considerations surrounding the Material and the processing transaction, the Licensee hereby
certifies and affirms that the Material is being processed primarily for the recovery of uranium and
for no other primary purpose.
2. The Licensee further certifies and affirms that the Material, as alternate feed to a
licensed uranium mill, is not subject to regulation as a listed hazardous waste as defined in the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901-6991 and its
implementing regulations, or comparable State laws or regulations governing the regulation of
with NRC^sui for the uranium recovery process being conducted at the White Mesa Mill,
March 16.2000
Date
David C. Frydenlund
Vice President and General Counsel
International Uranium (USA) Corporation
S:\MRR\Linde\LindeAR
ATTACHMENT 1
Linde Site Location Maps, Volume Estimates, and Process History
F-JilOAfrD?AErEltf,US Army Corpsof Engineers.
Buffalo District
PROPOSED PLAN
FOR THE LINDE SITE
TONAWANDA, NEW YORK
MARCH 1999
L \ITED ST.\TES .\R\tY CORPS OT E\GI\EERS
PROPOSED PLAT FOR THE LTNDE SITE
TON A\I'ATDA. \E\!' 1'O RK
A Proposed Plan for the Tonaw'anda Site in Tonawanda. New York was prepared b1. the L'nrted
States Department of Energ,v (DOE) in September 1993 under its authoriry to conduct the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). The 1993 Proposed Plan for the
Tonawanda Site addressed remediation of radioactive contamination at the four (4) locations in
the Town of Tonaw'anda that comprised the Tonawanda Site as defined at that time: the Linde
(now Praxair; Site: the Ashland I Site; the Ashland 2 Site; and the Seaway Site.
On October 13, 1997, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1998 was signed
into law as Public Law 105-62. Pursuant to this law, FUSRAP was transferred from the DOE to
the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). As a result of this ransfer the
responsibility for this project was transferred to USACE and USACE has prepared proposed
plans for and is remediating the Tonawanda Site properties. This Proposed Plan addresses the
Linde Site.
The Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-
245, requires that USACE comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act,42 United States Code 9601 et seq., as amende4 in conducting
FUSRAP cleanup work. Therefore, USACE is conducting this project in accordance with
CERCLA.
USACE reviewed the response action recommended in the 1993 Proposed Plan, supplemental
information contained in the Addendum to the Feasibility Study for the Linde Site, other relevant
documents, and the records of public meetings conducted following preparation of the 1993
Proposed Plan.
USACE does hereby propose that the final remedial action for the Linde Site be the alternative
designated as Altemative 4, Excavation, Decontamination and Institutional Contols, described in
the Proposed Plan. After evaluating this alternative pursuant to the nine criteria described in the
National Contingency Plan (NCP),40 Code of Federal Regulations part 300.430(eX9Xiii),
USACE considers it to be protective of human health and the environment and cost effective.
USACE invites members of the public to review the proposed plan and the supporting documents
which further describe the conditions at the Linde Site and the basis for this proposal. Those
documents rnay be found in the Administrative Record for the Linde Site at the USACE Public
Information Center, 1776 Niagara Sreet, Buffalo, NY 14207 or the Tonawanda Public Library. in
Tonawanda" NY. Members of the public who wish to comment upon this proposed plan may
submit their comments in vwiting to USACE at the following address:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Buffalo District
FUSRAP Information Center
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo, NY 14207-3199
PPFIN2.WPO
Please refer to this proposed plan or to the Linde Sitc in any cornments. All corrunents
wiil be revicwed and considered by USACE in making its final decision on remedial
acrions to bc conducted at the Linde Site. Comments should bc submitted no latcr than
30 days after the date of this proposed plan.
After the close of the public comment period, USACE will review all public cornments,
as well as the information contained in the Administrative Record for this site, and ury
new information developed or received during thc coursc of this pubtic corrmcnt pcriod,
in light of the rcquiremcns of CERCLA and thc NCP. tui arthorizcd ofEcial of USACE
will then makc a fioal selection of the rernpdid action to bc conducted at this sitc. This
decision will be documented in a Record of Decision, which will bc issucd to thc public,
along with a rcsponsc to all commcnts submittcd regarding this proposcd plan.
If thcrc are any questions regarding the commcnt proccss, or the prcposcd plan, pleasc
dircct them to the address noted above, or telephone [phone] or t [phone].
4.@J
Acting Cornmandcr
U.S. Army Eaginccr District, Buffalo
n /'tb^c,/, ttri?
Darc
2.
4.
5.
T.{BLE OF CO\TE\TS
I. PROPOSED PLAN
SITEBACKGROLIND ... +
2.1 Descriptionof thelmpactedProperty ........ -t
SUMMARYOFSITEzuSKS... ,..,.,6
3.1 RadiologicalHealthRisk .......7
3.2 ChemicalHealthRisk. ....8
3.3 Ecological tusk . . 8
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARS)
ANDCLEANUPGUIDELINES.. .....8
4.1 ARARs ......84.2 ARARs and Site Specific Standards for the Linde Site . . . . . 9
SUMMARY OF REMEDTAL ALTERNATIVES , . . IO5.1 Remedial Action Altematives Evaluated in the 1993 FS and PP and Updated
Descriptionof LindeAlternatives .... ...... l0
5.1 LindeSiteAltematives. .......11
5.2 SummaryofCurrentAltematives .... ...... ll
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR LINDE . . . 1]
Glossary of Evaluation Criteria . . I l
ALTERNATIVECOMPARISON.LINDE .......13
7.1 State Acceptance and Community Acceptance . . . . . 17
LINDESITEPREFERREDALTERNATIVE ...,..17
COMMI.INITYROLETNSELECTIONPROCESS ,,,...17
REFERENCES. ...I8
LIST OF FIGTJRES AI\[D TABLES
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Figure 1.
Figtue 2.
Figure 3.
Table 1.
Location of the Town of Tonawanda, New York and the Ashland l,
Ashland 2, Seaway, and Linde Sites
Locations of the Ashland l, Ashland 2, Seaway and Linde Sites
Linde Site Locations
Implementation Costs for Linde
lllPPFIN2.WPD
L \ITED STATES .\R\I\- CORPS OF E\GI\EERS
PROPOSED PLA.\ FOR THE LI\DE SITE
TONAWA\DA, )iEW YORK
I. PROPOSED PLAN
A Proposed Plan (DOE 1993a) for the Tonawanda Site in Tonawanda, New York was prepared
by the Department of Energy (DOE) in September 1993 under its authority to conduct the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). The 1993 Proposed Plan tbr the
Tonawanda Site addressed remediation of radioactive contarnination at the four (4) locations in
the Town of Tonawanda that comprised the Tonawanda Site as defined at that time: the Linde
(now Prarair) Site; the Ashland I Site; the Ashland 2 Site; and the Seaway Site.
In October 1997, responsibility for FUSRAP was transferred to the United States Army Corps o[
Engineers (USACE). As a result of this transfer, responsibility for remediation of the Tonawanda
Site properties was transferred to USACE and USACE has prepared proposed plans for and is
remediating the Tonawanda Site properties. This Proposed Plan addresses the Linde Site.
Numerous concerns and comments were raised by the community and their representatives
regarding the preferred alternative described in DOE's 1993 Proposed Plan, which included the
disposal of remediation wastes from the Tonawanda Site properties in an on-site engineered
disposal facility to be located at Ashland l, Ashland 2, or Seaway. [n 1994, DOE suspended the
decision-making process on the 1993 Proposed Plan and re-evaluated the alternatives that were
proposed.
This Proposed Plan addresses the Linde Site and adjacent areas. A Proposed Plan for the
Ashland I (including Seaway Area D) and Ashland 2 sites, commonly referred to as the Ashland
Sites, was issued by USACE in November 1997 (USACE 1997) and a Record of Decision (ROD)
for the Ashland Sites was issued by USACE in April 1998 (USACE 1998a). Remediation of the
Ashland Sites was initiated by USACE in June 1998. The Seaway Site, Areas A, B and C, is
being addressed separately.
The remedial action for the Linde Site proposed in 1993 included the removal of radioactively
contaminated soil that was detennined to be accessible and not under buildings or stnrcnres that
would requirc demolition prior to excavation. The 1993 Proposed Plan indicates that inaccessible
or access-restricted contaminated soils were to be removed later. Decontamination of Linde
buildings determined to be contarninated with radioactivity in excess of guideline values was also
included in the plan proposed in 1993.
Subsequent to the issuance of the Proposed Plan for Linde in 1993, and in accordance with
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) documentation and public reviews, Buildings 30
and 38 have been demolished and Buildings 14 and 3l have been decontaminated.
PPFIN2.WPO
\\'irh the ctmpletrtrn r'rt'the remoral olBuildings l0 end -18 tiom fie Linde Site end the
decontamination oI Building ] I. no rurther remediation is required tbr those building structures
The remarning radioactive contamination at Linde is limited to soils and to sediments conlarned rn
Site drainlines, except: at Building [.1. w'here some radioactive contamination has been detected
on exterior w'alls, some radioactive contamination remains after decontamination at inaccessible
interior locations: and some inaccessible contaminated soils remain under the building; at the tank
saddles located north of Building 30, where limited surface area radioactive contamination was
detected; in soils in a timber blast wall structure located east of Building 58; and at a subsurface
vault structure, located just west of Building 73, where radioactive waste may be present.
The data on radioactive contamination of soils remaining at the Linde Site has been updated to
reflect additional findings during the course of removal of Buildings 38 and 30 and additional
investigations in Building l4 conducted during building decontamination. Additional
contaminated soil has also been found under Building 57. This Proposed Plan includes
demolishing Building 57 and atiached buildings to gain access to soils under the slab. (See
Section 7 for details of buildings and structures included in the Proposed Plan.)
Accordingly, the plan described herein identifies options for both accessible and a limited quantiry
of currently inaccessible contaminated soils under Building 14 and includes additional
decontamination of areas of buildings and structures that have recently been determined to be
contaminated.
The plan also proposes remediation of adjacent properties, such as the Niagara Mohawk and
Conrail properties, where radioactive contamination has already been identified or may be
identified as the remediation work is implemented.
This plan provides background information on the Linde Site, describes the alternatives
considered in the original November 1993 Proposed Plan and revised altematives developed by
USACE to clean up the Linde Site, presents the rationale for the selection of the preferred
altemative, and outlines the public's role in helping USACE make a decision on a cleanup
approach.
The 1993 prefened altemative for the Linde Site has been revised based on the following: input
from the community after isstrance of the previous draft Proposed Plan; discussions with the
community's representatives; three key documents associated with the original Proposed Plan; and
four recently prepared documents. The three key documents associated with the original
Proposed Plan werc the Remedial Investigation (RI) report (BNI 1993) which describes the
nature and e:<tcnt of areas with elevarcd levels of radionuclides; the Baseline Risk Assessment
(BRA) (DOE 1993b) which assesses the risks to public health and the environment posed by the
site; and the Feasibility Study (FS) (DOE 1993c) which describes how the cleanup options
discussed in the original Proposed Plan were developed and evaluated.
PPFIN2.WPO
The lour recentlr prepared t S.\CE dL)cuments tre:
"Technical \'lemorandum: Linde Site Radioiogical Assessment'' (USACE 1999a). Tius
document evaluates current radiological risks at the Linde Site and future risks. with and
without cleanup, based on updated intbrmation. The assessment concludes that cleanup to the
criteria of ,10 CFR Part 192. the cleanup criteria used at uranium mill sites. would reduce
radiological risks at Linde to acceptable levels. Additional details of proposed cleanup levels
and risks at Linde are described in subsequent sections of this Proposed Plan.
"Synopsis of Historical [nformation on Linde Effluent lnjection Wells" (USACE 1999b). This
document is a review and reassessment of existing information conceming the effects on
groundwater quality resulting from the injection of process wastes to the subsurface during
uranium processing conducted at Linde from 1943 to 1946. This document concludes. as also
concluded in the 1993 Proposed Plan, that groundwater remediation at Linde is not required.
"Addendum to the Feasibility Study for the Linde Site" (USACE 1999c). The Addendum to
the FS for the Linde Site focuses on the Linde Site and summarizes findings and assessments
not available at the time the 1993 DOE FS (DOE 1993c) was prepared. Key findings of the
1993 DOE documents pertaining to the Linde Site and findings of the recent USACE Linde
documents are included. The status of building demolition and decontamination at Linde is
updated, and updated information on radiological contamination is summarized. The
proposed cleanup criteria for Linde Site remediation are identified and assessed. The remedial
alternatives currently being considered for the Linde Site are described and evaluated,
including risks and costs.
. "Post Remedial Action Report for Building 14 at the Linde Site, Tonawanda, New York"
(USACE 1998b). This report provides details of efforts initiated under DOE to
decontaminate Building 14 interior surface and subsurface soils beneath slabs inside the
building where MED-related activities occuned. These decontamination efflorts were
completed by USACE in 1998. The decontamination criteria for the soils and surfaces used
during this effort were established by DOE. The decontamination efforts were completed by
USACE and a few currently inaccessible areas were identified where removal to the criteria
established by DOE was not possible.
The report indicates that risla from residual materials remaining in currently inaccessible areas
would be acccptable trnder curent circumstances and building uses and controls. As detailed
in this Proposcd Plan, one of the altematives evaluated, and the one that is identified as the
prefened altcrnative, involves leaving areas of inaccessible contamination at Building 14 in
place, with institutional controls to ensrue that risks remain acceptable.
This Proposed Plan summarizes information that can be found in greater detail in the reports
named above and in other documents contained in the administrative record file for the site which
can be found at the Public lnformation Center and the Tonawanda Public Library. USACE
encourages the public to review these documents for a more comprehensive discussion of the
alternatives that were considered in the original Proposed Plan.
PPFIN2.WPD
The tLnal decision on the remedl to be implemented,,iill Lre documented rn the ROD tbr the Linue
Site. onll'afterconsideration of all comments receired and ar1) nerv inibrmation presented.
USACE may' modifr the prefened alternative presented here or select another option tiom this
Proposed Plan based on new'information or public and/or regulatory agenc)' comments.
Therefore. the public is encouraged to review' and comment on all of the alternatil'es identit-red.
2. SITE BACKGROUND
From 1942 to 1946, portions of the Linde site (currently Praxair) and a few select buildings
located at Linde in the Town of Tonawanda. New York, were used for separation of uranium
ores. These processing activities, conducted under a Manhattan Engineering District (MED)
contract, resulted in elevated levels of radionuclides in portions of the property and buildings.
Subsequent disposal and relocation of processing wastes from the Linde property resulted in
elevated levels of radionuclides at three nearby properties in the Town of Tonawanda: the
Ashland 1 property, the Seaway property, and the Ashland 2 property. Together these four
properties are referred to as the Tonawanda Site. The locations of the Tonawanda Site properties
are shown in Figtues 1 and 2.
2.1 Description of the Impacted Property
The Linde Site is now owned by Praxair and comprises about 135 acres located at East Park
Drive and Woodward Avenue in the Town of Tonawanda. The Site is bounded on the north and
south by other industry and small businesses, on the east by the Consolidated Rail Corporation
(Conrail) railroad tracks and Niagara Mohawk property and easements, and on the west by a park
owned by Pra:cair which is open to the public. The regional and vicinity locations of the Linde
Site are shown in Figures I and 2, respectively. Linde Site locations are shown in Figure 3.
The property contains offrce buildings, fabrication facilities, warehouse storage areas, material
laydown areas and parking lots. Access to the property is controlled by Pra:<air. Approximately'
1,400 employees work at the Praxair facilities.
Elevated levels of radionuclides at the Linde Site and some adjacent arcas resulted from the
separation of uraninm ores at the property from 1942 to 1946 under a MED contract. As
discussed in the R[ report, there were three phases to the processing conducted at Linde -
Phase l: uranium separation from the ore; Phase 2: conversion of UrO, to uranium dioxide; and
Phase 3: conversion of uranium dioxide to nranium tetrafluoride. The RI report, as well as other
reports (e.g., Acrospace l98l), state that the contaminants of concern at the Linde Site were
primarily associated with the waste strearns and residues of the Phase I operation and that any
residues from the Ptrase 2 and 3 operations were reprocessed, which is discussed in more detail in
Section 2.3. All phases of operation have been reported to have occurred during the 1942 to
1946 period. A review of historical and recent documents indicates that the operations may have
extended to the year 1948, particularly the Phase 2 and 3 operations (DOE 1997). Regardless of
the actual dtration of operations, the primary activity over most, if not all of the period dr"uing
which MED-related activities occured at the Linde Site was the separation of uranir.rm from the
PPFIN2.WPO
L)re. and the principai ctrntaminants of crrncern *ere tiom the processing rrl\\a-stes and resrJ'.ies
tiom that operation since the residues tiom the other tuo phases \\ere reported to hare been
recy cled (Aerospace 1981).
The l99i Proposed Ptan (DOE 1993a) identified three sources of radioactive contamination at
Linde, the uranium processing buildings, surface and subsurtace soils, and sedimens in sumps and
stonn and sanitar.v sew€rs. The primary radioactive contaminants in the soils and sediments are
Uranium-238 (U-138). Radium-226 (Ra-226), Thorium-230 (Th-230), and their respective
radioactive decay products (DOE 1993c). MED-related chemical contaminants are comingled
with the radiologically contaminated soils (DOE 1993a).
As described in Section l, above. additional characterization of radioactive contamination at the
Linde Site has been conducted since the RI report was prepared in 1993. The hndings of these
characterization activities have been incorporated into the site database and were used along with
the data available in 1993. to assess needs for remediation and to formulate the remedial
alternatives described in this Proposed Plan.
The 1993 Remedial Investigation (zu) report for the Tonawanda Site (BNI 1993) indicated that
approximately 55 million gallons of waste effluent containing dissolved uranium oxide was
injected into the subsurface at Linde through seven (7) wells over a period of three years
beginning in 1944. The RI report further indicated that precipitates were formed in the bedrock
formation where injection occured. The RI report concluded that the subsurface radioactive
contamination probably occurs in the subsurface at Linde as minor percentages of uranyl sulfates
and carbonates precipitated in the shale under the Linde site where they are presumed to be
immobile (BNI 1993). No remedial action for groundwater at Linde was proposed in the 1993
Proposed Plan (1993a).
As described in Section l, USACE has conducted a review and reassessment of existing
information conceming groundwater conditions at Linde (USACE 1999b). As was concluded in
the RI report, USACE has concluded that due to the high temperanues and high pH of the
etfluents injected into the subsurface at Linde, most of the heavy metals (including r:ranium and
thorium) would have precipitated when contacting the natural groundwater present in the shallow
bedrock and the contact zone aquifer below the site where the effIuents werc injected. Also
reviewed in the reassessment were the findings of groundwater sampling at the site in 1981 by
Linde, with analysis by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), and 1981 sampling by Oak fudge
Associated Universities, and Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah (FBDU). The results of the sampling in
1981 were compiled and assessed by the Aerospace Corporation (Aerospace 1981).
The USACE review and reassessment compared the l98l groundwater sampling results
summarized in the Aerospace report and the results of one validated groundwater sample
collected during the N in 1992, to current standards for groundwater protection that are
applicable at uranium mill tailings sites. These standards, found in ,10 CFR Part 192, Table l,
Subpart A, the Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill
Tailings, while not directly applicable to Linde, are considered to be rclevant and appropriate in
considering cleanup of the Linde Site. A more detailed discussion of these rcgulations and their
PPFIN2.WPO
rele\3nce to Linde Site cleanup is prorided in Sectiern -l I of this Proposed Plan. The
comparison of the l98l and 1991 eroundwater results to the +0 CFR Part l9l standardr 5[prrs
radionuclide concentrations below' the standards.
USACE also reviewed intbrmation showing that groundwater at the Linde Site and its vicirury'
contains high concentrations of dissolved solids and saliniry, which precludes its use for potable
consumption without costly treatment and also noted that the Linde Site and its vicinity are
serv'iced by municipal sources of drirking water. Therefore, the groundwater is not considered to
be an actual or potential source of drinking water.
Based on the review and reassessment, USACE concurs with the findings of the earlier
documents and concludes that groundwater at the Linde Site does not require remediation
(usAcE r999b).
3. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The 1993 BRA (DOE 1993b) was prepared to evaluate the risk to human health and the
environment from the radioactive and chemical constituents at the site. [n accordance with
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance, the primary health risks investigated were
cancer and other chemical-related illnesses as well as the ecological risks. This assessment
evaluated the potential risks that could develop in the absence of cleanup and assumes that no
controls (e.g., fencing, maintenance, protective clothing, etc.) rue, or will be, in place. The
purpose of the BRA was to determine the need for cleanup and provide a baseline against which
the remedial action alternatives were compared. The complete report is in the administrative
record file and a brief summary of the radiological and chemical health risks as well as the
ecological risks is provided herein.
The BRA identified the means by which people and the environment may be exposed to
constituents present at the Tonawanda site. Mathematical models were used to predict the
possible effects on human health and the environment from exposure to elevated levels of
radionuclides and chemicals for both present and future uses at the site. Under Section
300.a00(e)(2XiXAX2) of the NCP "acceptable exposune levels are generally concentration levels
that represent an excess upper bonnd life-time cancer risk to an individual of betrveen 104 and
10'6 using information on the relationship betrveen dose and response." *The l0 6 risk level shall
be used as the point of departurc for determining remediation goals for altematives when
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are not available or not
suffrciently protective because of the pres€nce of multiple pathways of exposurc."
The modeled risk estimates in the BRA were then compared to the NCP's risk criteria. The
findings of these comparisons and USACE's updated risk characterization for the site are
described below.
PPFIN2.WPO
3.1 Radiological Health Risk
The l99i gR { provides risk estimates tbr average (mean) exposure conditions under
hyporhetical scenarios fbr current and projected future land use. These estimated risks are
calculated using the average radionuclide concentrations present at the properties. The results
predicted that. for the current land uses. no one would be exposed to unacceptable risks. For
assumed future land uses. the mean radiological risk, as was reported in the original 1993
Proposed Plan, was predicted to be within the NCP's range of acceptabiliry at Linde.
EPA's guidance for risk characterization requires that the modeling to estimate risks also include
what is called a Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) scenario. RME calculations assume that
a worker at the site for a longer period of time than the average worker (30 years for the RME
worker and 22 years for the average worker), would be exposed to higher concentrations of dust
than the average worker, would inhale more air than the average worker, would spend more time
each day outside than the average worker, and would ingest more soil each day than the average
worker. Using these higher RME exposure assumptions, the BRA reported that RME risks to
workers in some Linde Site areas slightly exceed the NCP's target risk range under current
conditions. The BRA assumed that future use of the Linde Site will be commerciaUindrstrial.
As briefly described in Section 1, USACE prepared a Technical Memorandum (USACE 1999a)
evaltrating radiological risks at the Linde Site assuming no action is taken and also assessing risks
after cleanup.
The 1999 USACE assessment of radiological risks at the Linde Site used updated information on
the location of radiologically contaminated soils. The Linde Site currently is used for commercial
and industrial purposes, and industrial facilities have been present at the site for more than 60
years. Given the past and current use of the Linde Site for industial and commercial uses over
more than 60 years, including the ownership of part of the property by the Erie County Industnal
Development Authoritv (ECIDA) to promote industrial use and the zoning restrictions on the
property, USACE has concluded that the reasonably anticipated future land use of the propertv
will be for commerciaVindustrial purposes (USACE 1999c). The assessment considered the most
Iikely future land use of the Linde Site to be its current cornmerciaVindustrial use.
The results of the 1999 USACE assessment show current risks to commerciaUindustrial workers
at the site to be higher than the NCP's target risk range for several areas of the Linde Site. The
assessment also showed that cleanup to the criteria of 40 CFR Part 192 and the site-specific
criteria for uranium, in these areas, would result in acceptable risks. Details of the 40 CFR Pan
192 and site-specific criteria and the rationale for selecting those criteria for Linde Site cleanup
are addressed in Section 4 of this Proposed Plan.
PPFIN2.WPO
3.2 Chemical Health Risk
The 1993 BRA also evaluated cancer and chemical toxicir,v* risks. The risk of developing cancer
over a 70-.v-ear lifetime from chemical carcinogens at the site was evaluated for both average
(mean) exposure and for P*V[E. None of the estimated cancer risks exceeded the EPA risk range
of acceptabiliqv tbr current or furure land uses. In addition. no unaccepuble effects w'ould be
expected for non-cancer chemical illnesses under curent land uses.
The potential for chemical noncarcinogenic health effects is expressed as chemical-specific harqrd
quotients (HQs). HQs were tabulated for all chemicals of concern where reference doses or
reference concentrations are cunently available. HQs are summed for each pathway to provide a
total hazard index (HI) for the pathway. The calculated HIs for all exposure pathways for all
scenarios evaluated at the Tonawanda Site properties are much less than t thus indicating that no
unacceptable effects would be expected.
3.3 Ecological Risk
The Ecological Risk Assessment included in the 1993 BRA follows EPA's general procedures for
ecological assessments in the Superfund program. The characterization of habitats and biota at
risk are semiqualitative, and screening of conuminants and assessment of potential impacts to
biota are based on measured environmental concentrations of the constituents and toxicological
effects reported in the literature:
The Linde Site is located in a highly modified urban, indusuial area and provides minimal urban
wildlife habitat supporting only cosmopolitan species of birds and small mammals. No threatened
or endangered species exist on the Linde Site and ecological risks are minimal. USACE has
concluded that no significant impact will result from any of the Linde remedial altematives
(USACE 1999c).
APPLICABLE OR RELEVAI{T AI\D APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
(ARARS) Al{D CLEAI\ruP GUIDELINES
ARARs
When remediation of a site is being conducted in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP,
selected remedies must comply with ARARs and be protective of human health and the
environment.
Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive
environmental protection requiremens, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal
environmental or state environmental or facility siting laws that specifically address a hazardous
substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location or other circumstance at a CERCLA
site. An applicable requirement directly and fully addresses an element of the rcmedial action.
4.
4.1
PPFIN2.WPO
Relerant and appropriate requirements are those cleanup standards. standards tricontrtrl..ind
other substanti!'e enl'ironmental protection requirements. criteria or Iimitations promuigated un,.ler
tbderal environmental or state environmental or taciliry' siting law's that. uhile not "applicable" to
a hazardous substance. pollutant. contaminant. remedial action. location or other circumstance at
a CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the
CERCLA site that their use is suited to the particular site.
Only those state standards that are promulgated, are identified by the state in a timely manner. and
are more stringent than federal requirements may be applicable or relevant and appropriate.
USACE has determined that the following are the cleanup ARARS for the remedial activities at
the Linde Site.
4.2 ARARS and Site Specific Standards for the Linde Site
The standards found in 40 CFR Part 192 are not considered applicable because the regulation is
only applicable to specific sites designated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
(UMTRCA). However, USACE has determined that 40 CFR Part 192 is relevant and appropriate
to the cleanup of the Linde Site. This determination was made based on the similarity of the
uranium processing activities and resulting radionuclides found in the waste after processing at
uranium mill sites where the regulation is applicable. In addition, the requirements are well suited
to the site.
Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 192 is relevant and appropriate to the Linde Site cleanup, because
Subpart A establishes groundwater standards that are cross-referenced from Subpart B of 40
CFR Part 192. These standards include maximum concenmtions for radionuclides in
groundwater as follows:
. Combined radium-226 and radium-228 - 5 pCiAiter (L). Combined uranium-234 and uranium-238 - 30 pC{L. Gross alpha particle activity (excluding radon and uranium) - 15 pcilL
As described in Section 2.1, a review of groundwater sampling results from the Linde Site shows
that these standards are not exceeded. These findings, along with the other findings described in
Section 2.1, are the basis for concluding that remediation of groundwater is not requhed at the
Linde Site.
Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 192 addresses cleanup of land and buildings contaminated with residual
radioactive nurcrial from inactive uranium processing sites, and sets standards for residual
concentrations of Ra-226 in soil. It requires that radium concentrations shall not exceed
background by more than 5 p0rlg in the top 15 cm of soil or 15 pCi/g in any 15 cm layer below
the top layer, averaged over an area of 100 m2.
Subpart B also provides standards for any occupied or habitable building. Thesc standards
require that the remedial action shall be and reasonable effort shall be made to:
PPFIil2.WPO
. achrerei.rnarrnuai argl3og(rrrequi\alent)radonJecay productconcentrationtincluding
background) not to exceed 0.01 \I'orking Level 1WL). In any'case. the radon decay
product concentration lincluding background) shall not exceed 0.03 WL. and
. the level of gafirma radiation shall not exceed the background level by more than 20
microroentgens per hour.
These 40 CFR Part 192. Subpart B requirements are considered relevant and appropriate to the
cleanup of the Linde Site and buildings.
Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 192 applies to UMTRCA sites and requires that releases of radon-212
(Rn-222) and Rn-220 into the atmosphere resulting from the management of uanium and thorium
byproduct materials shall not exceed an average release rate of 20 pCi/mete/-second (m2-s). This
requirement is considered relevant and appropriate to the remedial action at the Linde Site.
Implementation of the proposed plan will result in radon rcleases below the stated limits.
In addition to the 40 CFR Part 192 criteria USACE's 1999 radiological assessment of the Linde
Site (USACE 1999a) also addresses a cleanup guideline for total uranium at the Linde Site
because 40 CFR Part 192 does not address uranium in situations where there are specific areas of
elevated concentrations. USACE determined that a uranium cleanup level that would meet the
CERCLA acceptable risk range was needed to enable USACE to address possible areas during
remediation where soils are contaminated predominantly with uranium and very linle radium and
thorium. Testing has indicated that there are some possible areas of elevated concentation
possibly due to accidental spills of product (e.g., U3Os, Uranium dioxide, and UFn) during MED
operations. The USACE assessment considered the radiological risk associated with the presence
of uranium in Linde Site soils and also the risks associated with uranium due to its chemical
toxicitv. As described in the assessment report (USACE 1999a), a uranium cleanup level for
Linde Site soils based on limiting radiological risks was determined to be more restrictive than the
cleanup level based on the chemical toxicity of uanium. A uranium cleanup guideline of 600
pCilg was established based on limiting potential radiological risks due to r:ranium in Linde Site
soils to I x l0'5. Together, the 40 CFR Part 192 criteria and the uranium cleanup level of 600
pCtlg, are the cleanup criteria being proposed for remediation of the Linde Site.
5. SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATTYES
5.f Remedirl Action Alternetives Evaluated in the f993 FS and PP and Updated
Description of Linde Altemrtives
Detailed descriptions of the remedial altematives considered for the Tonawanda site in 1993,
including the Linde Site, can be found in the FS (DOE l93c), which is available in the
administrative record. A total of 5 dternatives werc considered in the FS. The following section
describes the 1993 alternatives and updates the descriptions of alternatives being considered by
USACE for the Linde Site.
l0PPFIN2.WPO
5.1 Linde Site .\lternatives
Alternative [: No Action. The no-action alternative is required under CERCLA regulations to
prol'ide a baseline for comparison with other altematives. Under this altemative. no action is
taken to implement remedial activities. Periodic monitoring of the Site as appropriate would be
continued. This alternative was evaluated in the 1993 FS and is the baseline for comparison with
other alternatives for the Linde Site.
Alternative 2: Complete Excavation and Decontamination with Ofrsite Disposal. This
alternative was evaluated in the 1993 FS. Complete excavation of MED-contaminated soils
containing radionuclides above guidelines and offsite disposal and decontamination of the surfaces
of structures exceeding guidelines would remove the source of elevated levels of radionuclides
from the Linde Site. Section 4 addresses the cleanup guidelines proposed by USACE for Linde.
Alternative 3: Complete Excavation with Onsite Disposel This altemative is similar to
Alternative 2 regarding excavation of soils, however, all excavated soils would be placed in an on-
site engineered disposal cell to be located on Ashland l, Ashland 2 or Seaway. Instinrtional
controls would be imposed to control access to the onsite engineered disposal cell and the cell
would be designed to minimize future exposures or releases to the environment. Because this
altemative originally envisioned the excavation and consolidation of all MED-related
contaminated soils from the fotu Tonawanda FUSRAP sites, it is no longer being considered for
remediation of the Linde Site, and has, therefore, been eliminated.
Alternative 4: Partial Excavetion with Ofrsite DisposaL ln the 1993 FS, this alternative
included the excavation of accessible contaminated soils, institutional controls and containment
for "access-restricted" soils, demolition of Buildings 14, 3l and 38, decontamination of Building
30 and offsite disposal. Soils covered by buildings or stnrctures were determined to be access-
restricted. Under this alternative, the soils were to be left in place until the buildings or structures
were abandoned and demolished.
Given the demolition of Buildings 38 and 30 and the decontamination of Building 14, including
removal of all but a limited volume of contaminated soil beneath Building 14 that is considered
inaccessible due to stnrcttual considerations, only a limited quantity of contaminated soil is
currently considered inaccessible at the Linde Site. Accordingly, Alternative 4 has been
redefined as Ercevation, Decontemination and Institutionel Controls. Under this alternative.
surfaces and soil with contamination exceeding cleanup guidelines would be either
decontaminated or removed from the site at all locations except the limited quantity that may exist
at Building 14. Institutional Controls would be placed on the ue of Building 14 to preclude
futue exposure to MED-related radionuclides that could exceed acceptable risk levels. The
controls could include measures such as deed restrictions, prohibiting intnrsion into building areas
or subsurface areas without imposing restrictive conditions, restricting use of areas, employee
training, posting wamings and similar measures.
Alternative 5: Partial Excavation With On-Site Disposal. Alternative 5 was the same as
Alternative 4 in the 1993 FS and PP, except contarninated soils rcmoved from Linde would be
llPPFIN2.WPO
disprrsed in an on-site engrneered disposal cell to L'e ltrcated at.\shland 1. .{shland 1...r1 \s.1,,r,.1'.
Atter reriewing the concerns expressed b1 the communin regarding the creation o[the proptseJ
cell. USACE eliminated this option from hrnher consideration.
Alternative 6: Containment w'ith Institutional Controls. Containment for the Linde Site
would involve capping of areas exceeding guidelines tbr radiological contamination. Because this
alternative, when applied to the Linde Site, is basically an on-site disposal action, it is no longer
being considered for the remediation of the Linde Site.
5.2 Summary of Current Alternatives
As described above. the remedial alternatives curently being considered by USACE for the Linde
Site are:
. Altemative I - No Action.. Altemative 2 - Complete Excavation and Decontamination with Off-Site Disposal.. Alternative 4 - Excavation, Decontamination and Instinrtional Controls
6. ANALYSIS OF ALTERI\IATIVES FOR LINDE
The altematives described above were evaluated using CERCLA criteria to determine the most
favorable actions for cleanup of the Linde Site. These criteria are described below. They were
established to ensure that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment, meets
regulatory reQuirements, is cost effective, and utilizes permanent solutions and fieatment to the
maximum extent practicable. The results of the detailed evaluation of altematives to remediate
the Linde Site are summarized in the following section. Key elements of the evah:ation are
described below.
Glossary of Evaluation Criterie
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment - addresses whether an
altemative provides adequate protection and describes how risks are eliminate4 reduced. or
controlled through Eeatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
Complience with Federel end State Environmental Regulations - addresses if a remedy
would mect all of the ARARs of other Federal and State environmental laws.
Long-Term Efiectiveness and Permanence - addresses the remaining risk and the abiliry of
an alternative to protect human health and the environment over time, once cleanup goals
have been met.
Short-Term Efiectiveness end Environmental Impacts - addresses the impacts to the
community and site workers during cleanup including the amount of time it takes to complete
the action.
t2PPFIN2.WPO
Reduction in Toxicit-r', )Iobiliry-, or Volume through Treatment - addresses the
anticipated performance of treatment that perrnanentlv and significantl.n- reduces toxicitl.
mobilitv. or volume of waste.
Implementabilit"v - addresses the technical and administrative feasibiliry of an altemative.
including the availabilir,v* of materials and sen'ices required for cleanup.
. Cost - compares the differences in cost. including capital, operation, and maintenance costs.
. State Acceptance - evaluates whether the State agrees with, opposes, or has no comrnent on
the preferred altemative.
. Community Acceptance - addresses the issues and concems the public may have regarding
each of the alternatives.
7. ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON . LINDE
The purpose of the following analysis is to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each
alternative, when compared with each other, based on the evalr.ration criteria. This information is
used to select a preferred alternative.
The altematives considered in the evaluation, Alternatives l, 2 and 4, would involve the
following:
. Alternative l, No Action. This altemative would involve no remediation of the Linde
Site. Periodic monitoring would be required.
. Alternative 2, Complete Excavation and Decontamination with Ofrsite Disposal.
This altemative would involve the demolition of buildings necessary to remediate the site
with either acquisition of or compensation for those buildings. These buildings include
Buildings 14, 57 , 67 , 73, 738, 7 5, and 76 and would also include the building slabs and
foundations. The slabs that are now remaining after the demolition of Buildings 30 and i8
would be removed. A wall in Building 3l would be removed to urccess sub-slab and sub-
footing soil exceeding criteria. Contaminated sediments in drainlines and contaminated
soils in thc blast wall stnrcnre east of Building 58 would be removed. The subsurface
vault west of Building 73 would be investigated and removed if found to be contaminated.
MED-rclated soils exceeding the 40 CFR Par. 192 criteria, including the uranium cleanup
guideline of 600 pCrlg, would be removed from the site. The volume of soil to be
removed is estimated to be 18,000 cy (USACE 1999c). The tank saddles north of
Building 30 would be remediated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 192 standards.
Alternative 4, Excavation, Decontamination and Institutionel Controls. Altemative .l
is similar to Alternative 2 except that Building 14 would not be demolished. Currently
l3PPFIN2-WPO
inaccessible soils under the tbundation end supporting structures at Buiidins l-l rr,,ui.j
also be left in place. An estimated 60 c1' of soils exceeding the remor al cntena existed
under the building slab and foundation. prior to recentl)'conducted remediation r.rithin
Building 14 (USACE 1999c). Currentl.v inaccessible surt'ace contamination in the intenor
of Building 1.1 would be left in place. Areas determined to be contaminated on the
exterior of Building l4 would be decontaminated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 192
standards. Instirutional controls would be implemented in Building l4 to preclude
exposures to MED-related radiological contaminants in excess of acceptable limits. These
controls could include measures such as deed restrictions, prohibiting intrusion into
building areas or subsurface areas without imposing restrictive conditions, restricting use
of areas, employee training, posting wamings, and similar measures. Periodic reviews.
every five years, would be conducted to ensure the effectiveness of the institutional
controls.
The results of the evaluation are summarized in the following sections.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environmenr. The alternative providing complete
excavation of soils containing radionuclides above guidelines and decontamination of surfaces.
specifically Alternative 2, provides the greatest degree of protection to human health and the
environment, because the materials containing radionuclides above guidelines are removed from
the site and are permanently isolated in a disposal facility. A degree of risk to workers is involved
with implementing this altemative, as well as Alternative 4, because the associated work involves
intrusive activities for handling and moving all materials containing radionuclides above
guidelines. These risks can be minimized by using safety procedures and equipment. Alternativ'e
4 is also protective of human health and the environment because institutional controls in Building
14 would preclude exposures to contaminated building zueas. Altemative I provides no increased
protection over the current site conditions and would not be protective of human health if current
restrictions on exposure to ileas containing contamination were to be discontinued.
Compliance with AMRI. Alternative 2 mees the ARARs becar.rse all soil containing MED-
related radionuclides exceeding the cleanup guideline would be excavated and permanently
isolated in an oFsite disposal cell or facility and all surface contamination would be remediated or
eliminated by demolition and isolated in an off-site disposal cell or facility. Alternative 4 could
involve leaving in place some surface contamination inside Building 14 and some soil above the
cleanup criteria beneattr Building 14. As indicated above, decontamination efforts have already
occurred wittrin Building 14 and the soils beneath the interior slabs. Accessible soils and surfaces
were decontaminatcd to the criteria established by DOE and currcntly inaccessible areas clearly
identified (USACE 1998c). All areas, both currently accessible and inaccessible, will be assessed
in terms of the final site cleanup criteria to be established in the ROD. Areas where soil is
currently accessible, both within Building 14 and throughout the site, will be remediated and will
meet the ARARs. The inaccessible soils and surface contarnination remaining in place will also
meet the ARARS with the imposition of institutional controls. The controls will insue the
continuance of conditions that meet the surface criteria of 40 CFR Part 192. Altemative l,
however, is noncompliant with the ARARs because all of the waste on the Linde Site containing
radionuclides above the guideline, remains on-site with no additional protection provided.
PPFtt{2.WPO l4
t
Long-rcrm Ellectiveness und Permanence. A primarl measure of the long-term eltectireness trt'
an altematil'e is the magnirude of residual risk to human health after remediation. The adequacl
and reliabilitv of engineering and/or instirutional controls used to manage residual materials that
remain onsite must also be considered.
Alternative 2 has the highest degree of long-term effectiveness and permanence because all soils
containing radionuclides above guideline are excavated and removed from the site.
Alternative 4 has a high degree of effectiveness, but relies on long-term institutional controls to
ensure that exposure pathways remain blocked. The magnitude of residual risk and exposures to
human health and the environment is directly related to the adeqr:acy and reliability of institutional
controls. However, it is reasonably expected that institutional controls can be effectively
implemented.
For all the alternatives, except Alternative l, the risk calculated for an industriaVcommercial
worker at the Site, is within acceptable levels.
Altemative 1, no action, has low long-term effectiveness because the post-implementation
remedial risks equal those now at the site.
Short-term Effectiveness and Environmental Impacrs. Short-term effectiveness is measured with
respect to protection of community and workers as well as short-term environmental impacts
during remedial actions and time until remedial action objectives are achieved. An increase in the
complexity of an alternative typically resuls in a decrease in short-term effectiveness because o[
increased handling and processing. Also, alternatives involving offsite disposal of wastes would
result in a decrease in short+erm effectiveness because of the increased time required and
transportation-related risks.
Alternative l, no action, is the most effective in protecting the community and workers and
controlling impacr during implementation since no actions that could create impacts are
undertaken. Alternative I requircs the shortest time to implement. The short-term effectiveness
of the other altematives rank in the following order: Alternative 4 (Excavatioq Decontamination.
and Institutional Contols), and Alternative 2 (Complete Excavation and Decontamination With
Off-Site Disposal).
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Yolume through Treatment. None of the altematives provides
treatment on site for the materials to be removed. Alternatives 2 and 4, which provide for offsite
disposal, will include containment at the final disposal location and any treatment which is
required to meet ttre standards of the offsite facility. These alternatives thus will achieve
reduction in mobility, although no Eeatnent is planned which will reduce the toxicity or volume
of the disposed materials. The remaining alternative, no actiorL would provide no removal of
materials. The 1993 Feasibility Study (DOE 1993c) evaluated currently available treatnent
technologies for ueatnent in the course of removal and fotrnd none are economically and
technologically feasible at this time.
l5PPFIN2.WPO
lmplementttbilin In resard to implementabilin. the alternatires rrere eraluated \\lth resFcct ro
the tbllow'ine:
. abilitl' to construct and operate the technolog,v.. reliabilitv of the technology.. ease of undertaking additional remedial actions,. abilitv to monitor effectiveness,. abilir.r" to obtain approvals and coordinate with regulatory agencies,. availability of offsite disposal services and capacity, and. availability of necessary equipment and specialists.
The degree of difficulty in implementing an alternative increases with the complexity of the
remediation activity. The design, engineering, as6 administrative requirements of Alternative l.
no action, are essentially negligible. The remaining alternatives are all technically and
administratively feasible. The engineering, design. and adminismtive requirements increase with
the complexiry of the altematives in the following order: Altemative 4 (Excavation,
Decontamination and Institutional Connols); and Alternative 2 (Complete Excavation and
Deconumination with Off:Site Disposal). Materials and services for the various alternatives are
readily available. The degree of difficulty in implementing these altematives increases with the
amount and type of soils to be excavated and the distance to the selected disposal facility. The
implementation of institutional controls (Alternative 4) is considered to be feasible and
implementable given controls that have already been implemented over the years at Linde. The
controls could include measures such as deed restrictions, prohibiting intusion into building areas
without imposing restrictive conditions, restricting use of areas, employee training, posting
warnings, and similar measures.
Cosr. The comparative analysis of costs compares the differences in capital, operations and
maintenance (O&M), and present worth values. Costs for each of the alternatives presented in
the original plan were provided in detail in Appendix G of the 1993 Feasibility Study. These costs
were for the entire Tonawanda Site, not just Linde. Since the completion of the original Proposed
Plan, the costing methodology has changed, primarily in the area of assessing program
management costs. Additionally, remediation of buildings at the Linde Sirc has changed the
components of the assessed altematives and a more detailed analysis of volumes of soils
containing radionuclides above guidelines has been conducted using threedimensional modeling.
These new cost estimates, based on 1998 dollars, have been made for the Linde Site. Table I
presents the curreut cost estimates for the Linde Site alternatives using total 1998 dollars as well
as the 30-year present worth estimates, assuming anet 5o/o growth. Alternatives 3 and 5 are not
included in the Table as they ile no longer being considere{ as discussed in Section 5.1.
PPFIN2.WPO l6
able l. Im entation Costs lor Linde
Alternatir e Description Cost
( 1998 S)
Present \\ orth
It Sozo
No Action s902.000 $16 r.000
2
Complete Excavation and Decontamination With
Off-Site Disposal s43.231.000 $.r I .53 i.000
4
Excavation, Decontam ination and I nstitutional
Controls $28.21 7.000 s25.766.000
7.1 State Acceptance and Community Acceptanc
These criteria are not evaluated formally until comments from state regulators and communiry
members on the Proposed Plan are reviewed.
State and community input received during the 1993 public comment process on the 1993
Tonawanda PP resulted in the elimination of Altematives 3 and 5 from consideration as discussed
in Section 5.1.
8. LINDE SITE PREFERRED ALTERNATTVE
USACE prefers Alternative 4, Excavation, Decontarnination and Institutional Controls. This
alternative is believed to provide the best balance among the considered alternatives with respecr
to the evaluation criteria will protect human health and the environment, will comply with
ARARs, and is considered cost effective. This altemative would involve excavation and off-site
disposal of MED<ontaminated soils exceeding 40 CFR Part 192 criteria and uranium above 600
pCr/g, except in inaccessible areas under Building 14, where soils with MED-related
contamination exceeding guidelines could be left in place. Contaminated sediments in drainlines
would be removed. The subsurface vault west of Building 73 would be investigated and removed
if found to be contaminated. Surficial contamination exceeding guidelines at locations determined
to be inaccessible would also be left in place within Building 14. Decontamination of the e>iterior
of Building 14 and the tank saddles north of Building 30 will be performed in accordance with -10
CFR Part 192 criteria tn*irutional controls would be implemented in Building 14 to preclude
unacceptable exposues to cootaminants. Periodic reviews, every five years, would be conducted
to ensure the effectiveness of the institutional controls.
9. COMMI,JMTY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS
Public input is encouraged by USACE to ensure that the remedy selected for the Linde Site meets
the needs of the local community in addition to being an effective solution to the problem.
The administrative record file contains all of the documentation used to support the prefened
remedy, and is available at the following locations:
PPFIN2.WPD t7
L'S.\CE FL.SR\P Public Intbrmation Center
1776 \iagara Street
Buffalo. NY 14207
Tonawanda Public Librarv
333 Main Street
Tonawanda. NY 14150
The public is encouraged to review and comment on all altematives described in this Proposed
Plan and the supporting Feasibility Study and Addendum to the Feasibility Srudy.
Comments on the proposed remedial action at the Linde Site will be accepted for 30 days
following issuance of the Proposed Plan in accordance with CERCLA "as amended," and the
NCP. A public meeting will be held during the comment period to receive any verbal comments
the public wishes to make. Written comments the public wishes to make or submit regarding the
preferred remedy will be received at the meeting or during the 30day period. Responses to
public comments will be presented in a response to comments in the ROD, which will document
the hnal remedy selected for Linde Site.
All wrinen comments should be addressed to:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Buffalo District
FUSRAP Information Center
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo, NY 14207
IO. R.EFERENCES
Aerospace 1981. Evaluation of the 1943-1946 Liquid Effluent Dischargefrom the Linde Air
Products Company Ceramics Plant. December.
Bechtel National, Inc. BNI) 1993. Remedial Investigationfor the Tona'nanda Site,
DO ilO R/2 I 949-300. Febnrary.
U.S. Departrnent of Energy (DOE) 1993a Proposed Planfor the Tonavvanda Site,
DO E/O N 2 I 9 5 0- 2 3 i. November.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1993b. Baseline Rislrlssessment for the Tonasanda Site,
DO UO N 2 I 9 5 0-00 3. August.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1993c. Feasibility Studyfor the Tonoyanda Site, CNN
110104. November.
PPFIN2.WPD t8
L'.S. Department of Energr (DOE) 19q7 Linking Legacies, Connecting the Colcl Il'ttr .\uc'!c'tir
ll'eapons Production Processes to Their Environmental Consequences. Januarl'.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1997. Proposed Planfor Ashland I and
,lshland 2 Sites, Tonu*-anda, \'ew I'or,t November.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1998a. Record of Decisionfor the .4shland I
(including Seoway Area D) and Ashland 2 Sites, Tonawanda, New York. Apil.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1998b. Post-Remedial Action Reporr for
Building ll at the Linde Site, Tonavanda, New York Draft November.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1999a. Technical Memorandum: Linde Site
Radiological Assessmerar. March.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1999b. Synopsis of Historical lnformation on
Linde Effluent Injection llells. March.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1999c. Addendum to the Feasibility Study for
the Linde Sire. March.
PPFtt{2.h'PO l9
UNDE
ASHIJI.ID I
ASHlll.tD 2
SEAIVAY
ASHI-AI.ID 1, ASHI-AI{D 2,
AND SEAWAY
;; ;;\.rf;;;:;.;.;;:;.11:r:..::lJl(E ERE;;:;:1.1:1::;,;iq::.;:1;:;. 1()-.rj .,,: ',.;: :,.:;:.,;ii,
o
NGUNE T
I,OCATION OF TEE TO'N OF TOI{A'rNDr" NEf, YORr rND
ASEITilD I, ITIEI.IIU) 2, SEAtrAY tItD UITIDB SNESo
U)C-lF
a
L
z.
z,
D
trl?r)
ni
..r =gJ€'i
-aqr<
g&
2J
,J)
an
F
l&
U'
=
(J
-.ftmnlr ^9q eEI lirr.8'1 .il iil
i
I.l
ila
\,/
\^.tJ
E
E
t
a3
__cgL_ZZ
-- gI
PRELII.lIIIIARY ASSESSMENT AND
SITE INVESTIGATION
FOR
LINDE AIR PRODUCTS
DIVISION OF UNION CARBIDE
TONAWANDA, NY
SEPTEMBER I987
PrePared for
UNITED SIATES DEPARTMENT OF I'J'TERGY
OAK RIDGE OPERAIIONS OFFICE
under conEract No. DE-ACo5-8LOR20722
By
BechEeI NaEionaI, Inc'
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Becht,eI Job No. 14501
2,OOO r,gi L. These high 1eve1s of total dissolved
salinity Preclude the use of this water for potab
without extensive and costly treatnent' Its use
certain industries that can tolerate the high saI
dissolved solids' (Ref ' 2) The nearest resident
niles fron the site' (Ref' I)
J,:
solrds and
Ie constunPt ion
is restricted to
inity and total
ial welI is 1 ' 25
7.0
7.1
LINDE AIB PRODUCTS OPBRATIONS
B ack gro uud
The Linde Air Products coEPany operated' for the MED' a
facilityknownastheCerauicsPlant.Thcplantperforuedthree
processee: in the step I process, orea and, occasionaliy' residues
frontheSteplloperationHeraproceseedtoproduceuraniunoxide;
intheStepllProcess'uraniunoxidewascoaverted.intouraniuu
dioxide;andintheStepIIIProcesE'uraniuudioxidewasconverted
into uraniun tetrafluoride' Process flow sheets and uraniuu mass
balanceg for both the African ore and the Doucstic ore are shown in
Attachuents D-1 through D-4' The discussion here wiIl consider
onlytheSteplprocesssioceitwasthlsProcct!rhichgenerated
thewastes.ResiduelfronstepllProcessandSteplllProcess
were recyclcd. (Bcf' I)
7,2 SteP f Process
SteplbeganshakedownopcrationcinJuna/July1943and
continued operationruntll nid-July 1946' (Ref' l)
SulfuricacidwaraddedtothcorcslurryuntilapHof0.?to
o.g Has reached. Pyrolucite or EeSnGritc (MnOe) was added to
oxidizeanyreduceduraniutl.Theaixturewatdigeatcdat90oc
for3houreandthencooledwithweakwaahgolutionat600c.
!, ,'
A- l3
o
The uraniun was in solution as uranyl sulfate' and many of the
iopurities(iron,eilica,phosphorous'vanadiun'alumina)HereaIso
partially in solution. (Ref' 1)
soda ash was added until the pH reached about 9.2. soue of the
sodiun bicarbonate waa also added, which Precipitated most of the
iopuritiesandlefttheuraniuninsolutionassodiunuranyl
tricarbonate. The slurry was filtered in the Moore filters ' and
the cake hauled to the tailings pile' (Ref' 1)
TheliquorecontainedvanadiunandPhosPhorousas
objectionable inpurities. These were reuoved by the addition of
ferrous and ferric sulfates, respectivery. The resultant iron cake
wasfilteredoffinPlateandfrauePressesan.dhauledtothe
tailingc piIe. The liquors were treated with caustic soda which
resulted in the precipitation of the uraniun a3 sodium diuranate'
The fittrate fron this step was dicharged ar waste effruent'
(Eef. 1)
Thephosphatecakewasasinilarcakethatresultcdfrouthe
precipitatioo of phocphorous and lead (during thc processiug of 3t
pitchblende ores) by the addition of godiun sulfide and ferric
sulfate. cobart, nickcl, and uolybdenun coupoundc and guarl
auounts of radiuu wcra prercnt in the cake in addition to the
phosphate. (Rcf. I)
Thevanadiuncake(donesticoreProcessingl)wasProducedfron
the addition of lead sulfate to precipitate the vanadlun as lead
vanadate. Liquids (containing the uraniun) frou thc PreciPitation
went to the lead renoval tanks, and the alurry was transferred to
the lead recovery tanks bcfore disposal. The Process was revised
in 1945, when ferrous and ferric sulfate Here added to the donestic
A- 14
o oreSoutionstoretrovethevanadiumandphosphorous.These!iaS
were stored 8t the Haist Property' (Ref' I)
Thesodiundiuranatecakewastreatedwithsulfuricacidand
annoniunsulfateandwasconvertedtoanaouoniunuranylsulfate
couplex.ThisHasrenovedinafilterPress.Thecake(acidleach
cake)wasfedtoacalcioertodriveofftheaEBonia'sulfur
dioxide and trioxide, and water' leaving the black oxide of
uraniuo. (Ref' I)
ThetreatmentofAfricanorewasverysimilartothatof
donestic ore' which is described above' The digestion step
requiredrnorepyrolucitebecauseEoreoftheuraniunwagina
reducedstate.Also,bariunchloridehadtobeaddedtoactasa
,,gatherer,'for the radiun. The African ore contained little
vanadiuuorphosphorout,3otheironsulfatestePHesonitted.
Iustead, sodiuu sulfide was added to reEove the lead' The
reuaind.er of the Process wag the aale' The uolybdenun stayed in
solution when the uraniuu was precipitated' (Bef' 1)
Tab}es2through4presentthcreaultsoftheasEayoftypical
oreaandproductsfrouthcLindeplanta'wellrastheregultsof
selectedanalysecofrcsidues.Thesevaluclarefronhistorical
recordsandareallPrc-lgsS.Thcanalysir.ofsolidgfrouthe
liquideffl'ucntgavcthefollowingvalucs(basedoDoBesetof
saDPIes): (Rcf' 1)
43.64t
37.zLX
1. 05t6.74r
0.6?x
9.04r
7,g Liouid Effluents in
DurinE the initial
lhe Steo ! Process
operations' uraniun was
!
I
I
l
Sodiun'Sulfates
Calciun
Carbon Dioxide
I ront{ater
!
l
A- 15
preciPitated from
o
Table 2 :Typical' .{nalYses of Seleeted Ores Processed by Linde
Dorrttl c Orcs
Fonlgn Orcr
Pltchbl and.
9:rccn: of
3ouound
Tortcrtl tr
0-2c
L- 19 L-30 L-50 R-10
uloe
Yzos
li:o3
PDO
Pzos
Sl02
Cr0
xt0
ryo
cd
,c203
Al 203
Cu0
coz
r{r20
Rr
!5.E
2.5
0.02
0.01
2,5
13.0
17.0
0.3
12.0
5.0
12.5-2.0
2.S
2.63
n.6
a.2
10.5.
0.2
0.35
0.t
0.2
50.0
!.0
13.0
2.2
9.0
3. 53
0.26
0.3
0.1
55.t
' .52
ll.rl
0.2
1.7r
13.51
2.tt
0.25
L7 .72
0..0
0.31
{.62
5l .14
0.1.
5l.r
1.0
13.$t
0.55
t .97
9.{2
2.9
$I
5.7
2.2
0.3
5.16
0.23
1.92
6..5
?.7e
(23.7 rgltonl
r Th.rl yrlur! a?r mlcrl .33ry3 rn6 dr oo! ilG!3tlrlly lndtcrt! r!^ rve?!91' .TlL L'30
rnC !.-SO.n iiry:tiriir'-orri ria u 3uch rtFl not lirrrrtrd tn ur. tlDl6 ln
fseciCf t i.- Stoitrrly. L-19 rnrt BUI .n txlt rplrlttd.
nef. I
A-15
Table 3:Tvpical -{nalYses of Product- i r- oPeration
From the Linde SteP I
Product Fro Procclsln9
Peretnt of
Congoun6 L-U, ( 19.3).L-U, (1914)€L-!i
u loe
Acld Solullcs
Sr 02
rcld Sulfldt t{ctrl3
(}lre)2 C03 lnroluDlr
HlO3 InloluDlr
Al 203
Fc203
?zos
xrZ0
V r0r
Sor
lg
3
Cd
c1
Itn
Rrrl Ertns
97.0 (rlnl
0.5 (url
0.05 (lrrl
0.6 (rul
0.5 (srl
0.3 (nr)
0.2 (ul
0.3 (rul
0.05 (oul
0.05 (xr)
0.0010 (url
0.0002 (rrr)
0.0005 (sr)
0.05 (rrrl
0.005 (ru)
0.0015 (lerl
98.2_
0.52
97 .7
0.31
0.3
0.0t
0.u
0.05
0.038
.027
0..2
lo. r
J
0.63
0.21
0.35.
0.29 (S03)
I
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
. ?h. vrlura of L-19 1pr3l lrt 3D'G{flclt'lont for-tlr groduct rhllr tlr oth'r s rt''
;ileiiii;-tii.lr'u,ii-rv rnt rrerrs'nt'n'rtngo'
" L-19 rrr trt dltfr?tnllrttd frcr 6Ul' tnd L'! rrr qclcrl of L'50'
Ref. I
A-17
to
a
ac
!
o
a,
gi
a.
ttu -.6:y,o r
a,
-E
Cl
aca
a
o
!I
a5
o
t,a
o
!I
a
gi
a,
o
ELl,
I
)o
ai-rrael
I.,
!aI-ld
,ge
raa,-,3-taraD>,-a-
C-ar, a,a3
!al
t,oL
Coga-IC'a
I'at,il
l-'t3a'.D
a-9C,OaoD5
a
€
tia
a
.,
R
!
a
h
A
aaa,
a
aIoIc5t3L
e
aa
(atc
l9lolel-lula,tr
loIL'l.l-l.l!I prrI l,laI gr.I -tI sil=lla,I :lI ..
l3I Lrtal.t-l.oISl:laIJl.l-la.Itt-l.l>
aRa
o
t
Iaa
at l.t
tloc
iaaY6
I
,J' qf Yf* 3= 3?
=- ll ll
== -ar Ctra-.r-- a\.- Fitr
ttl.t |.l a?tL'L +- ie ib
=
3 77 .i5. ii
-: ^: .i i - i. G"'t
Ar Ar ara carrll22 2?55 55
-- --
G'
a6.r€,
.t,
-aY
A at l'l Ft 't a'lh! hb ii,=Eiii{
.id ag1 a6
+t
aa
€li
I.til.|
a.! tt1lo€,
tratl,t?
ail
ia Garl30
xL
-6a r')
ab-
xEOt-.ra
-?
a,i aalca
ta
egr
tt at
tloc
Itrae
-a
a,to-.a, aatJIJ3e-oaLt
-4,aae:.3 -.i=3 E
*.rsf,rE= * tf i!EE -= i? 5,isg, jJ =s =s
-at FlFt aa F.'-5t 2i !t ii
=; =E :.i ii-:G: ja o- 3-
!t-
:!t iEs 3Es i-is
gtarJI
!oaea-aa
aa,
.aa
-Bt-aocts2,-.t9A.- a3
aa,2€
agF
l.Lc
A-18
IJ!(
t,
?a
a
t)
!a4
LICL*oIJ
I,I-
o
aeTJ
t
to
I2
caL2
o
tltI
a)I
o
E,r
ET
a
o
a
U
oIJ
o
o
t
t-
a
o
o
n
n
a
<t
o
.o(l
F.
o
o
solutionuSingaProCedurethatinvolvedaddingsulfuricacidto
the uraniuur tricarbonate-rich solution and heating it to drive off
carbon dioxide; this was followed by adding relatively snall
aoounts of caust ic to cause this Precipitation ' The effluent froo
thisprocedurehadapHthata}loweditsdisposalintotheeanitary
seHer.ThisnethodofPrecipitationwasabandouedln1943,
however,becauseitwasrelativelyslowandallowednoreuo}ybdenuu
andotheritopuritiestocontaalnatetheproductthanthedirect
caustic uethod of Precipitation' Linde developed the direct
caustic uethod, which resulted in a better product in lcsa tine'
The nethod was essentially a brute-force reuoval of uraniuu through
the direct addition of caustic to the Pre8naDt solutioo' driving
thepHtolevelgashighasll.S.Asaresult,theuraniuu
precipitated as diuranate, desPlte the PretGncc of the carbonate'
(Ref. r )
onedrawbacktothisuethodwasthattheeffluenthadahigh
pHandwaenolongeraccegtablefordircctdisPosallntothe
sanitary sewer. As an alternative, two options coDsidered were the
use of disposal weIls or discharge iato Two-Mile creek' Although
the discharge into thc creek was approved by thc State of New York'
a decision Ha! uakc to uac dllpoaal wellr whencvsr Pottible and to
rely on thc Two-Mile creek option only when neceltary' (8ef' 1)
.The efflucnt disposal wells wQrc approxiuately 40 E (I50 fect)
deep and pass through b clay foruation, into a ltravel and sand
layer and a varigated carbonate fornatloo, Possibly a alxture of
EagDesite, and dolonite or Iiuestone. tlell logs for three of the
disposal weIIs are Prcscnted in Attachnent F-5 through F-7 ' Thc
groundwater in a section'of the carbonate foruation wag identified
A- I9
as saItr./ater, and the water from the particular aquifer involved
was found to be unacceptable for use by Linde' It was betieved by
the cotrpany to have been contaminated prior to I944 and before the
iojectionofanyStepleffluent.TheaquiferwhichLindeinjected
itswasteintoistheCanillusShaleasdiscussedabove.It
aPPearsthatthequalityofthewaterintheCauillusShalein
Ig44nayhavebeensiuilartocurrentconditions.(Ref.I)
Two-l,liIe Creek flows through the Linde facility and a park,
where it is dauued to create a pond, and then into the Nia8ara
River. The storm lrewer discharged into the creek via a storm
drainageditchthatentcredthecreekdowustreanofthedau
(Attachnent F-3). One neuoranduE !,ugaests that the creek uay have
diluted the effluent 10 to 1; however, analysir of pE data frou
O
other nenoranda suggest that the creek nay have had a frow rate uP
totootiuesgreaterthaothatoftheeffluentdrainagcrate.The
averagepllofthecreek'EeasuredoverenE-dayPeriodinMarch
1945, Has about 8.3 uprtrcaa of the storu aewer discharge and 10'3
downstream of the discharge. Recent estinates of creek flow rates
during the sutrEer sutsgGlt that, at a uiniuiun, creek flow rates
would have been 15 to 40 tiues the average effluent discharge
rates; the flow ratcl in thc creek HcrG luch grcater in thc 1940's
because inductrial opcrationc discharged Plant water into the
creek. (Ref. I)
7.4 Characteristics of ttrc Filtrate
Thefiltratedlechargedtothescrcrgorwcllcwatahigh-pH
solution (usually above pB of l0' however' during Junc 1943 and
Decenber Ig43 the pH was probably closer to 7) coutlsting uainry of
ions fron excess sodiuu sulfate, sodiuu carbonatc, and rodiun
A- 20
o
ta at
hydroxide.Inaddition,sotrechlorrdeions,frornthebarruu
chlorideaddedtoenhanceradiumrecovery,wouldalsohavebeen
present,alongwithasnallaEountofavarietyofconPlexanions
ofmanyuinoreleuentssuchasvanadiuu,nickel,andcobalt(Table
2 Iists the constituents of the ores )' Aumoniun sulfate froo the
wash of the uraniun precipitate rsould be expected to react rapidly
withthecausticandreleasesoEeanuonia.ThisHasProbablythe
causeoftheincidentsinwhichPutrPhouseoperatorswerebothered
byaEEoniaenissionsfroutherellclocatedinthePuaPhorrse.
(Ref. t )
Thisconp}exsolutionwouldalsocontainsuallquantitiesof
uraniuuandradiuu.Attbelowconcentratlonfoundinthese
effluentg,itisdifficulttoprojectwhichuraniuuandradiun
species would be favored and what thetr solublllty would be' The
uraDiun and radiun would be present in sorution as werl as in
colloidal foru, and the relative anount of each ic difficult to
assess. The inpact of thll is not significant for urani'un because
standardg for incolublc and solublc uraniun ar€ the seEe' llowever'
standards for roluble and insoluble radiuu differ by a factor of
1000. It is believcd that the analytical techniqucs ugcd at that
tinewouldnotbavcdlffcrcntiatcdbctwegnthecolubleand
insolublcfractloog;hcnce,thcconcentratloucofuraniunand
radiuu in thc cfflucnts (based on the techniques used) t{ould be
total uraniuu and radlub. An analysia of tbc solubility of various
radium conpounda auggestc that a significant portion of the radiun
andprobablyuraniunintheeffluentwouldbcsolublc.(Ref.I)
7.5 Volune of Bffluents
AsindicatedPreviously,theliquidwastefroutheStepl
A-21
a:-r:1i-
process, the f iltrate from the Precipitatioo of the sodium
diuranatewhichfoll'owedtheadditionofcausticsoda,sodiun
hydroxide(AttachuentD-1),Hasinitialllydischargedintothe
ganitarysewersysten.ItaPPearsthatLindebegandisposingof
theeffluentsinonsitewellsduringorafterAprillg44andthat,
froulg44tol946,threewellslocatedintheareaofPlantNo.I
andfourwellslocatedneartheCeranicsPlantwereusedduring
variousPeriodsforthisPurPose.Frontinetotine,ther*eIls
wouldbecoueclogged,overflow'andhavetobecleaned.During
theseperiods,theeffluentswouldbedivertedtoastorusewer
that connected with the Niagara River throuSh two-iliIc Creek'
BasedontheinforuationinProsressreportrandvariougoPerating
Eeuoranda, it ,: estiuated that liquid wartc volunes geoerated by
the Proceas during the period the wells were in uce Has at follows:
April to Deceuber 1944 - LZL x 106 I (32 x 10c gal)
Januray to;;;;;;'i-rgcs ist;loc 1 (51 x 103 sar)
Januarv to JuIv 1946 ioe * iot t izg x loc ral)
Total 4ZZ x loc I (111 x 10c gal)
Based on the estinates of liquld effluent fron the ore
processingfrom1945to1945'itaPPearsthataboutSotofthe
effluent rras injected loto thc rells and thc reralnder into the
storusewer.AssunlnSthatacinulardurplngratioexistingin
1944andcarly}g4S,ltaPPear.thataDaddttionalToxtocI(I8x
1066a1)Dayhavebeendisposedofinthewells.Itistherefore
assuned that, during the Period fron April 1944 to July 1945' about
2lO x l0c 1 (55 x 106 gal) of waste ras disporcd of in the wells
andtherenainderinthgstornsewertoTwo-MileCrcck.AtI
effluentspriortoAprillg44(8otoox10c1or2030x106
gal)areassumedtohavebeendischargcdtothesanltaryseHer.
A-22
o(
7
Re f ' I )
.6 Uraniuu Concentration in the Effluents
The concentration of uraniun in the eff Iuent or the Percent of
efficiencY; Production
soEe extent, the tYPeuraniuut Iost varied dePending on extraction
rate (wash rates, filtering rates); and' to
of ore Processed' (Ref' l)
DurinElg43andthefirsttwononthsoflg44'uraniuo
extractionefficienciesgeoerallyrangedaround93to94percent.
Through the renainder of 1944, efficiencies Eenerally exceeded a
96r uraniuu recovery rate aod occasionally were at high as 98r'
Extractionefficenciesoverlg4SaveragedaboutgEtandwere
souewhat rower in 1946, probably due to the lower gradc naterial
being proceBsed. (Ref' 1)
Uraniumlossesintheeffluentsinlg43(duringthelower
extraction efficieucy period) eppear to be on the order of 2 to 3
percentoftheuraniuuintheore.Thisuaterialwa!losttothe
sewer system. In 1944, however, the data indicate that losses were
genera}lyavailableProgresEreportsindicatethatlaterlosses
were uaintained below o.5r of thc uraniun ia the ore' (Ref' 1)
Theweeklyaverasclofuraniuuoxideconcentrations.inthe
effruents anaryzed fror April rg44 to Jury 1945 rantsd between
0.01f "rra O.Oee g""t of ""t " of cffluent'
:1tt
the average belnS about 0.026 gra! Per liter 1g/L): Thic would
iupIythattheProce33.lostanavera8eofabou@u,
oxide per uillion liters or 220 lb of uraniuu oxidc Per uillion
gallonsofeffluentduringtheperiodwhenthewellsandatoro
sewerwerebein6used.Concentrationcofuraniuuoxideinthe
effluent during the period when the sanitary sewcr $as used for
A-23
disposaloftheeffluentwa6somewhathigher.Itisesti'mat,edthat
thecoDcentrationsaverage0.Is6/linI943and0.o3E,/Lduringthe
first three uonths of 1g44, or about I2oo and 250 rb of uranium
oxide Per uillion gallons' respectively' (Ref' 1)
Assumingtheselossratesandfrou2Iox106Iofeffluent
disposed of in the wells' about 5'4 x IO3 kg of uraniun oxide
(about3Ciofoaturaluraniun)Heredischargedtothewells.The
reuainder of the process effluents discharged to the storn sewer
duringthisperiod,about2L2xloalwouldhavecontainedabout
5.6 x IO3 kg of uraniun oxide' Therefore' based on the
available data, the total uraniun oxide contained in the effluent
releasedfrornAprillg44toJuIy1946wasaboutltxl03kE,or
about 5 Ci of natural uraniuu' (Ref' 1)
7.7
Soneestiaategoftheoaxiuuuanountofradiuudigcharged
duriugtheProceBsingofthet-30andt-Soorescanbeuade,based
onthefactthatcontractsrithAfricanMetalscalledforthe
return of at least 95I of the radiuu in thc Procqcsed ore' Actual
Proccssingogerationccupgoecdlyheldthcloscestolegsthan3t
(9?roftheradiuureuainedintheresjdues).Aasuningetotalof\v.
986 uetric tonr of UcOr Produccd fron thc t-30 lod t-50 orGt and a
uraniunextractiouefficlcncyofaboutg?I,thcrcwereS62metric
tous of uraniuD, or less than 595 Ci of natural uraniuu (about 290
ciof2gaU)inthe.orc..Thiswouldiuplyabout2gociof22cRa(in
equilibriuu with 2aeu) and naxinun efflucnt losrcr aEouEtiog to 8'5
ciof22cRa.AsimilaranalysisforthR.loorc'butassuninga
gsr extraction efficiency, would suggc3t that a Eaxiuun of 2'7 ci
ofradiutDwaslostduringtheProceesingloftheoro.(Ref.l)
A-24
?.o
!!c
iii:iiiiiiilrllllllllc,,?co6
rggi 3ls,r*$ !9e
L'g
=q-
a,i.
C)
!
9AAg EE
g
A.Er :'t! f=2r)EE Er .E. 5f-i E3t roGE lt
@a E.t
3
=oIlr
(
)B
ilB
D)(r
D-l
Eha* ,i.8
E.i<.E-
oI
3t
EDl.,l
Flt
t,l5
\;
\il
E:; s
jI
o
II
..E
!EB0.
1,I.l|
l7_]t
Ilu
TEI{
I,
^
\
Eov
,EoV
I.';E,
g
o
E
E.toul
!Hs
)
e-
Xe,Eb.
Ec)
gV2
Pcr
aOas
a-
<o
q,
-E=?c0,
=-,-o,.
6r.Et
o,tIE
E
Bq
o
ciE
E3nl
i.
?!
EE3;-o-O3JrO
q
FI'
Esl
E
EI
3o
-2
=E!a
t.=
=3Ee
ET
ur .loo
o
D-2
@fl)B
a
a
L
o
cnc
o
cn
3
L
=q6e
="f :
Ii=E
sl i :
iEE E
liti,
IIE!E
si: ii
2?
Ia
!,:lii;3!;;il:
tltlli
a
irssg33
!, i,l
iiiriii
lllttll
sgglSii
)B
]iI
Eg7- c'E.8 6
= EE E! IE 5J--: E{ ;i oEE .r
@Q
D) (Qr
D-3
?t
e
E
B3
.I
EtgE
fill
tr>iBcEd3.9
ED-9c-ciovl-
o
C'
CJ
L<.c-<
L
a, '.)C;>
g>
-'?.c-
EEiEELg tr!E .lcT EEt !I: -tI
EEEE
EiIE
!!iI
EI: i
lilEi,
EiiEil
illlil
Eii iB E.. :
cn
=-e,=
L.- Cl
EBed
;'3:t5€c,
IsB!8cEFt-
Ic
IU
3
EI
.no
e -c,
=o'7 -aiE
=.=E>=>EgEi
6.ts(,O
\
!
)
i= EE I
1" lln
I
E l..j et-s
lEs I lE\f;(/lt
iL[*
BDc
V
i$Cis
.EE8'r a,
u6i
a
B
E
E./
65
7,1
:t5G
aaa
c!
vv
8,.t
.n
Slul
TElr;
tr*sd,ntJ
D-{
:
t
The Linde, Ashland L, Ashland 2, and Seaway properties are
Iocated in the Town of Tonawanda, Er5.e County, New York. Tonawanda
is inmediately north of Buffalo, New York, and is bounded on the
west by the Niagara River, which flows northwest by the site toward
Lake Ontario at an average of 11.3 km/h (7 nph). Lake Erie is less
than 15 km (10 ni) to the southwest, and Lake Ontario is 34 km
(21 ni) to the north. The following sections provide a description
of each property, a historical overview of surveys, and a summary
of previous investigations
1.3. 1 Sulnary of SeabaLcal l,teuoranda
Data for the Tonawanda site RI were collected in two phases.
The first phase of data collection activi.ties was linlted to
developing a general understanding of the site. As a bagic
understanding of the eite sae achieved, subsequent selective
investigations focused on gathering suffLcient additional
inforroation to support evaluation of rernedl.al action alternatives.
The technical mernoranda listed below docrrnent earlier
investigations. The background inforuation they contain was used
to deter:mine the seope of the RI activities discussed in this
report.
. Formerlv Utilized IdED/AEC Siteg R.enedial ActiorrfroqfaD-
Radiolocrical Surrrev of the Fotmer Linde Uraniun Refinerv.
Tonawanda. New York (ORNL 1978a).
o Radiolo<rical Survev of the Ashland Oil Conpanv (Fomer Haist
Prooertvl. Tonasanda. New York (ORNL 1978b).
o Radiolooical Survev of the Seawav fndustrial Park-
Tonawanda, New York (ORNL 1978.c) .
o preliminarv Encrineerinq and Environmental Evaluatlon of the
pernedial Action Alternatives for the Linde Air Produetg
Site. TonawanCa. New York (FBDU 1981a).
- ---
scl_00a1 lt2t,,tnl L-7
I
a
(BNI le87).
Landfill. Tonawanda. New york (Wehran L979).
1.3.2 Linde
Descriptiou
Linde is rocated at East park DrLve and l{oodward Avenue,approxinatery 2.5 kn (1.5 ni) fron the Niagara River. Figure 1_4j's an aerial view of the property. several buildings on the 55-ha(135-acre) property (Figrure 1-5) are currently used as offlces,research laboratorieE, fabricatton facilities, and storage areas;access to the property is controlled. Approxinately
L,7OO employees work at the onslte facilities (union carbiderndustrial Gases) - The property is bounded on the north and southby other industries and suall businesses, on the east byconsolidated Rail corporation (conrall) rairroad tracks and an openarea, and on the west by a park (part of the former sherldan parkGolf course) that is now owned by Linde and is open to the pubric.A number of residential propertLee are Located withl.n severarhundred feet of Linde.
Utilltlcs
The Linda property i; eerved by clty rater, electricity,natural 9i8, and serage eysteas. It is underlain by a serles ofutility tunnelg that lntcrconnect soEe of the uain bulldlngs andhouse distribution rineg lor conpreseqd alr, erectrlclty, orrygen,nitrogen, natural gtsr and telephone services; the tunnels are alsoused to collect condensation. Extensive networks of storm seuers,sanitary sewers, potable water llnee, and na.--urar gas lLnes alsounderlie the property. -- -+{r_ isolated area in the southern portion ofthe property contains undeilround hydrogen rines. Figures 1-6
56-Oat QAAntzt 1-8
and L-7 show the locations of najor storzr and sanitary sewers,
respectivelY.
stolslwater drains to the west and south and discharges at sevenmain outlets (see Figrure 1-5) . Runof f frorn the extreme southernportion of the property drains to a 1-m (3-ft) storm drain line inthe center of woodward Avenue, 3.3 m (11 ft) below grade. Most ofthe storawater drains to the west and discharges into a twin-cerl,2'3- by 3-n (7- by 9-ft) conduit nrnning along tlre western side ofthe propertyi the discharge flows into frronire creei downstream ofSheridan Lake.
The sanitary sewer systeu at Linde consists of two uaJorbranches. The northern sanitary seerer branch servesBuildings 30, 31, 38, 90, and other buildings to the northi ttresouthern branch serves Burrdlngs 2, g, L4, 1oo, and others to thesouth. Both branches drain to the west and eupty into a 1.1_E
( 3 . s-ft) sanitary seuer nal.n.
EistorT
Flve Llnde butldlnEs uere lnvolved in MED actlvltlee betweenL942 and 1946: BuLldlng 14 (butlt by unlon carblde in theaid-193os) and BuildLngs 30, 31, 37, and 38 (built by MBD on landowned by union carblde). onnership of Buildings 30, 31, 37, and 38was transferred to r.lnde when the MED contract wag teruinated.
Tabre 1-1 describes actlvltles and operatlons trrat toot< place inthese buildlngs and tbelr curent uses.
Linde was eelected because of the coupanyrs experience in thecerauics buelncae, uhlch lmrolved procesalng uranlun to produce thesalts used to color cerallc Elazes. under the t{ED contract,uranium fror scvsn d,Ltferent sources raa proceseed at lrlndc: fourAfrican ore! (threo lw-grrade pltchblendes and a torbernlte) andthree douestlc otrea (carnotlte frou cororado).
The donestLc ore tal,ltnga aent to tinde resurted frolconnercial processlng, conducted priuariry in ttre westernunited states, to renone vanadluu. The vanadirrn reuoval processLesulted in disnrption_ 9f tbe uranium decay chaln and the reuoval:f radium. For this reasoi-, the donestic uraniun supplied to Linde
so3_oo5l lw2clt2,1-9
had low concentrations of radj.u:n compared with the natural uranj.u.n
and thoriun-23O concentrations. The following are tlpical
constituents of the douestic ores processed at Linde
(Aerospace 1981):
Compound
Percentagebv Weicrht
Triuranium octoxide (UgOc) I5.g
Yttrium oxide (yzOs) 2.s
Molybdenum tri.oxide (UoOr) O. 02
Lead uonoxide (pbO) O.O1
Phosphorous pentoxide (pzOs) 2.s
SLlicon dioxide (SiO2) 13.O
Calciul oxide (CaO) 1Z.O
Magnesirru. oxide (t{go) 0.3
Iron(IIf) oxide (Fe2O3) L2.O
Alurninuu oxj.de (A12q) 5. O
Ehe African orea eblpped to LtndG aB unprocessed ulnLnE ores
contained uraniun in equlllbrlun vltb all ol tbe daughter products
in its decay chain (e.g.r thoriru-230 and radlum-2261 . The ottrer
constltuents of tbe ores were elnllar to those of the douestic
ores. Following laboratory and ptlot plant etudleg (conducted frou
L942 to 1943), uraniur proceaalng bogan at r,lnde ln tgta. FroD
July 1943 to July 1946, tbe porl.od tn whlch LLnde proceaeed uraniun
for uED, a total of 25r7oo notrlc tonner (2gr3oo tonc) of ore wae
processed (OnfIJ 1978a).
A threc-phasc Procett war used to eeparats uranLuu frou the
uranlun ores and taillnge. pbagc 1 (conducted Ln Buj.ldtng 30)
consiated of soparating trlrrraniur octoxlde (uror) fron the
feedstock uaterlals by a geriee of proceae steps conslstLng of acid
d,LgeetLon, precipltation, and flltratLon. rte f,lltratq (u+rid
reuaining fron the processlng operatlons) f,rou thls step waa
discarded ae liguld wagte into the lnJection vells, storn Bewers,
I or eanltary seuera;'anC.the fllter calcq vac dLscarded ae solid
waste and uas urtiuately taken to Ashland 1. The triuranlun
50t_0061 lwzrlr2,1-10
octoxide from Phase 1 was processed into uranium dioxide (Uoz) in
Phase 2 (Building 30). In Phase 3 (Buildings 31 and 38), the
uraniuu dioxide was converted to uranium tetrafluoride (UF.).
Residues fron Phases 2 and 3 tere reprocessed (Aerospace 1981).
Because the first phase of urani.um processing operatlons was
the source of the waste, that phase is examined in detail to
provide a description of the tlpes of waste that were produced.
Figure 1-8 is a flow diagrrau of Phase L, which consisted of the
following steps:
1. Sulfuric acid was added to tlre ore elurry until the pII of the
ui:<ture reached 0.7 to O.8. All couponents of the ores
(radloactive and cheaical) became partially dlssolved during
this acid extraction process.
2. Pyrolucite or brarurlte was added to tlre ore slurry solution to
oxidize any reduced uranlrul present.
o
O 3. Tbe solution was dlgested at 90'c (194'F) for 3 hours.
4. After the dlgestLon process waa coDpleted, the solutLon was
cooled wlth a weak wasb solutLon at 6O'C (14O'F). At thLs
point, the uranLnn wae in solution as uranyl sulfate.
5. After the solutJ.on cooled, soda aeh vas added untLl the
solutlon reacb€d a pE ol, 9.2.
6. At tblc polnt, sodLu[ bLcarbonate wae added to the solution.
This tteB preclpltated uost of the iupuritles and left the
uraniul in aolution ag godlul uranyl tricarbonate.
7. The eolution ras fLltared with l.{oore fllters. llhe reaultLng
residues Uere consl,dered sou.d ctagtc and wcrc taken to a
teuporary tatllnga plIo norttr of BulldlnEe 30, 38, 39, and 58.
503_0061 tt2l?.rrr2,1-11
8. rhe procedure used for the next task depended on the type ofore being Processed. rf the ore lras dones.-tc, ferrous andferric sulfates were ado =d to reuove the r .nadirrm andphosphorous- rf the ore was Afrlcan, bariun chloride was
added to remove the radluu.
9' For the douestic ores, the resultant iron cake residues rrerefirtered off in prate and frane presses and taken to a
tenporary taiJ.ings pile nortb of Bulldinge 30, 38, 39, and 58.
10. The ligtrors were treated with caustLc soda, causlngprecipitation of the uranLuu ae sodlun dluranate. Thefiltrate was discharged as a waste effluent into the sanitaryseuers, stora sewer'r Or onsLte dlsposal weIls.
11. The sodiun diuranate cake frou step 1o was treated wlthsulfuric acid and annnoniuu eulfate to producg an annnonLuuuranyl sulfate couplex.
L2 ' Tbe aunoniun uranyr sulfate conplex was reuoved in a fllterpress and fed to a calcLner to'drive off the anuonla, sulfurdioxide, surf,ur trroxide, and water, leavlng uraniun oxide tobe processed in phase 2.
The princiPal eolld wagto reaultlng frou phaee 1 was a so1ld,gelatinoue fllter calcc concr.stLng o! lryurltlee re1ainJ.ng afterflltratlon of tbc uranlru carbonat. eolutionr. phase r algoproduced lnsolubh prectpLtato of tbo dlssolv€d constltuente,
whLch uere coblned wLtb tbc taillnEc. rhe preclpltated speeiesincluded largo Srantltles of gilicon dloxlde, iron hydroxLder.calciun hydroxlde, calcirru carbonate, alunlnun hydroxide, leadsulfate, Iead vanadate, barlun gulfatq, barlua carbonate, nagrnesir:mhydroxide, uagnesiutl carbonate, and lron couplexee of vanadlrrn andphosphor*rs (Aerospace 1991) .
Between 1943 and 19116, approxiuatery ? rzso uetrlc tonnes
(8rooo tons) of fllt€= qaltl_fron the Phaee r processl.ng of douesticores were taken fron the' teuporary taillngs pile at Llnde and
50r_o031 (r:212c/92,L-L2
o
transported to the former Haist property (Ashland L) in Tonawanda
(ORNL 1978b). these residues contained approxinately 0.54 percent
uranir.m oxide [39,100 kg (g6rloo rb) of natural uraniu], which
corresPonds to 26.5 Ci of natural uranium (ORNL 1978b). Because
the residues fron the African ore were relativefy hlgh in radiun
content compared vith the processed domestic ore residues, the
African ore supplier required that the African ore residues be
stored separately so that the radium could be qrtracted. Between
1943 and 1946, approximately 18,600 metric tonnes (2o,5oo tons) of
residues werb shipped to the former Lake Ontarlo Ordnance Works in
r.eviston, New Yorlg, where they could be isorated and stored in a
secure area (Aerospace 1981). The production progress reports also
showed that approximately 140 metric tonnes (154 tons) of African
ore residues rrere shipped to Ulddlesex, New Jersey
(Aerospace 1981).
The radloactive liquid effluent resulting frou filtration ofthe sod,iun diuranate cake (step 10) naa inltlally dlscharged to thesanitary sewer systeu; by Decenber 1943, approxiuately 55 x 105 L
(14.5 x 1o' gar) had been dLecharged. By Aprtl 1944, a total of
approxiuately 100 x 106 L (26.4 x 10' gaI) had been dlscharged intothe sanitary sewer systen (Aerospaee 19g1). eoncentratlons of
uraniuu oxide in ttre effluentg averaged 0.LS gll in tgng and
o.03 g/L dtrrlng the flrst three uontlrs of 1944 (Aerospace 1981).
Therefore, approxiuately 91600 kg (2lrcioo rb) of uraniun oxide(i.e., 6.5 cL of natural uranLum) was releaeed Lnto the eanLtary
sewer systeu (Aerospace 1991).
Because proce6s cbanges increaeed the pH of ttre effluent (Iess
than 11.5), dLschargrc to the eanitar? sewer wae halted Ln
ApriJ. L944, and onsite, deep-rell inJectlon of llquid effluent was
implemented. Betseen June 1944 and July 1946, Llnde dieposed of
liquid waste ln seven wells: one group of Urree werls east of
Building r.4 and another group of four near Buildings 30 and 38
(Figure 1-5). The disposal serls ranged fron 2g to 46 u (90 to
150 ft) deepi soDe l,ere drllled 9 to 12 u (30 to 40 ft) into
,bedrock (Aerospace 1981). These wells have been backfllled with
trastr (e.g. , rnetal -aebf+ql-by Linde and are not available for
s03-0061 (ttu2a/r2t 1-13
salrpling. the injection we1ls do not appear to be filled with
grout.
when the injection werls became brocked and backed-up, the
effluent was discharged into a drainage ditch along the northern
property boundary that discharged into a stora se$rer conduiti the
conduit ernptied into ITouiIe Creek dorrnstream of the dau that
creates the Linde pond. Approxirnately 20g x 106 L (55 x 105 gal)
of effluent was discharged into the eeven disposar werrs, and
2L2 x 106 L (56 x 105 gal) of effluent wae discharged into Tr.ronile
creek via the stom sewer between June 1944 and July 1946
(Aerospace 1981). Historical records indicate tlrat radiun-226 and
uranlum-23$ were the principal radLoactLve uaterials in the llquid
effluent.
Frou April L944 to July 1946, tbe average concentration of
nranLun oxide in the ltquid elfluent waa 0.026 glL
(Aerospace 1981). Tbis concentratlon would inpry that sr600 kg
(12r3o0 lb) of uraniun oxl.de (1.e., 3.9 ci of natural uraniun) was
released into the storo sewer leadlng to frroulle creet<, and
5r40o kg (11r9o0 lb) of uranirru oxlde (1.e., 3.? cl of natural
uranium) were inJected into Ure onglte relle.
The anount of raditll dLaposed of wlth the llguld effluent can
be estimated based on tie knowledge that the effluent wae
discharged when tlre radluu-226 concentratlon ln the waste reached a
maximurn of 2.6 x 1o-! g/t (2.2 x 10-10 ur/gal) (Aeroepace 1981);
hovever, the radiun-226 concentratLon ueually did not reaclr thLs
level. conserrratlvely hlEh egtlnatea baeed on tlre total anount of
Ii5rld effluent dlsehatgred frou botb tha douestLc ores (low ln
radiun) and the African ores (hlgh Ln radirrn) lndlcated that the
auount of radLul-226 released lnto the ganltarT sewer was
approxiuately 2 . 6 Cl, the auourt releaeed lnto tlre gtoru draln was
approxiuately 5.5 Cl, and tlre anorurt lnJected lnto tlre wel1s was
approxinately 5.5 Cl. Becauee tlre Dage of 1Cl o! radlrrn-226 ls
eqnal to L g, the Dass of radl.un released courd have been 10 to
15 g over a period of several years. Tegte perforned by ttre
University of Rochester in 1945 lndlcate tlrat the total auount of
radLun-226 disposed"''of 'ufQ the llgrrld effluent could be ae lou as
approxiuately 0.6 cl (Abrospace 1981). .
503_00at (u2l2clr2,1-14
Renovatj'on of the entire facility over the years has prompted
the consolidation of contarninated naterials. In Lg77, before the
constrtrction of Building 90 began, soil contaminated during MED
operations was renoved from the constnrction area and placed in two
windrows along the northern and eastern fences of the property andin the tailings pile on the northern portion of the property (see
Figure 1-5). Betueen L979 and 1982, the wl.ndrows and pire of
contauinated naterial were consolidated into one uncovered, pile
west of Building 90. The plle of coneolldated uaterials was
covered in 1992
Previous Surreys
Three radiological sun/eys have been perforned at Linde to
detetaine whether radioactlve contaaLnants uere present in excessof existing gruidelines. The flrst wae conducted by oak Rldge
Nati.onar raborator? (ORNL) durlng october and Noveuber Lg76
(ORNL 1978a). The survey included ttre followlng Deasurenents:
:esid,ual alpha and beta-grnila contauLnatlon levels in Buildlngs 30,31, 37, 38, and. 14; q<ternal gauna radLatlon levers at 1 n (3 ft)
above the surface in theee buildings and outdoors throughout ttre
Linde property; radon and radon daughter concentrations in ttre airin ttrese buildings; uranLun-z3l, radLurn-226, actiniun-z27, and
thoriun-z32 concentrations in the soil sanplee taken both onsLte
and offsite; uraniun-23i, uranlrrn-234, rad!.un-226, and thoriun-230
in surface water on and n€ar tlre property, and airborne
concentrations of uranlur-238, radlun-226, and thoriuu-zt2 in
Building 30.
The second surnrey was conducted by Ford, Bacon, & DavLe utah,Inc- (FBDU) in D,eceuber 1981 (FBDU 1981a). The Burivey lncluded thefolloning Deaaureuentg: reeldual alpha and beta-gaDDa
contanination levele in Bulldl.ngs 30r,31, 37r 39, and 14; enternal
ganma radiation levels at 1 u (3 ft) above the surface in tlrese
buildings and outdoors throughout the r,inde propertyr radon and
radon daughter concentrations in the air in these buildlngs;I'raniuu-z3}, radiun:226, .?!d thorfuu-zlz concentratlons Ln onsitesoil, surface water, and groundwater sanples.
503-0051 tl:2l2al92t 1-1s
The third survey, conducted in 1981 by oak Ridge AssociatedO :H;;:;l;, illll; ;r,':H;:,:::il1::l:-[:":::,il::;,,
thoriurn-23}, and thorium-232 concentrations in onsite and offsitesoil, sediments, surface water (including a private well and citywater), groundwater and onsite disposal/test wel1s, and sanitaryand storm sewers (oRAU 1981). this section sunmarizes the conbinedfindings of a1l surveys
8ulface rater. Background surface water sarnpres were collectedby oRAU at thei f ive locations shown in Figrure 1-9, at location w7in Figrure 1-10, and frou the Tonauanda nunicipal water supply(oRAU 1981) ' Additional offsite water sauples rrere collected byoRNL and oRAU fron Twonile creeki oR![L collected one backgroundsaupl'e (I{8) upstrean of the Linde outfall. oRAU arso sanpled aprivate well at 538 Twonile creek Road (tf13). The offsite sauplinglocations are shown in Fignrres 1-9 and 1-10. onsite water sampreswere colleeted by ORNL, FBDU, and oRAU fron the storm and sanitaryse,er systeus, surface vater, boreholes, a conveyor pit inBuilding 30, and two test wells developed near ttro of the originaldisposal we1ls (see Figrures 1-5 and 1_11).
The radiun concentration found in the conveyor pit (Table r_2tmay be the result of. ore uaterial frou the conveyor that uoved theore fro, one location to another inside Bullding 30.Scdinoat- oRAu and ORNL collected sedluent sauples aroundTonawanda to determine backgrround levels for this area (seeFigure 1-9) . offsite sedinent sanples 'rere collected fron I.irouilecreek at points upstreaE, dornstrean, and at the Linde dischargepoint (see Figrure 1-1o). ORAU collected onsite sediuent sanplesfron five stotm sewers and two sanitary aeuers that were part ofthe original sever systen that existed in the vicinity of thedisposal welrc (see Figruree 1-5 and 1-12). Radionuclideconcentrations in all sedLnent sauples collected offslte rrere nearbackground levels, except for uraniua-238 at sanpling locations M3and M5 and thoriuu-232 at M5 (Table 1_3).
Arthough the serers have undergone periodic cleanings since-' 1946 (oRAU 1981) , sanpl-e-s .frou the storu and sanitary serrers showed
O"o"ve-background
levers roitrr radionucrides
tcl-mat $zr8un 1-16
Soil. The soil sanpling program conducted by ORNL at the Linde
property involved collecting 5 offsite sanples (Figure 1-10) and
drilling 35 boreholes around Buildings L4,30, 31, 37, and 38 in
the northwestern corner of the parking area and along a section of
the Conrail line used to ship the ore. ORNL also drilled seven
boreholes inside Building 3o. To verify the ORNL results, FBDU
drilled 20 boreholes in the saDe outside areas as ORNL and also
drilled boreholes in Buildings 30 and 31. ORAU colrected soil
sampres during the deveropuent of two new wells near two of the
inj ection weUs.
Onslte soil sanples collected in the ORt{t, FBDU, and ORAU
suriveys (Figrre 1-13) were analyzed for radiun-226, uraniuo-23s,
uraniuru-238, and thorLun-23z. On the basis of these suriveys (which
did not take into account t-be possible presence of thoriun-23o),
the following prineipal areas of contauinatl.on were identlfled:
o The northwestern corner of the main parking area
o The northeastern corner of ttre plant and the Linde spur of
the Conrail line
o The soil beneatlr Bullding 30, within 6.1 u (2o ft) of
Building 30 on tlre western and soutbern sldes, and wltlrin
12 u (40 ft) of tbe eastern side of tlre building
The northwesterrr corn€r of the parklng area was contaninated
wittr radiun-226 and uranluu-238 to an average depth of 0.9 n
(3 ft); the hlghest concentrations were 13 and trsoo pcLli,
respectively (ORIIL 1978a). The northeastern corner of the property
was contauinatod wlth radlru-226 and uranlu!-238 at uaxinrrm
concentratlone of 6.9 ,and 139 pCl/g, respectJ.vely; the average
depth of contanlnatlon was eetiuated, to be 0.3 E (1 ft). The
principal contanLnants ln t-he soil beneath and around Bulldlng 30
lrere. radlurn-226 and uraniun-238. The maxiurrn concentrations (based
on the ORI{L sunrey) were 813 and 1,37O pCilq, respectlvely, and the
average depth of i'ontaui_natlon was given as 0.3 r (1 ft); houever,
503-0061 lx2t2alj2t 1-L7
the FBDU sutrrey (FBDU 198la) indicated contanination as deep as
2.4 ro (8 ft) .
Buildings. The 1976 suri\rey found the interior surfaces of
Buildings L4,30, 31, 37, and 38 to be radioactively contaninated
(ORNL 1978a). In 1980 the property ordner decontaninated
Buildings 14 and 37 by removing the contaminated ceuent flooring
and ceuent walI surfaces until levels below twice the background
level were reached. Contauinated uaterlal was teupgrary placed in
the tailings piJ.e until consolidated into the pile west of,
Buildlng 9O (BNI 1992a). During the 1981 sulivey, Buildings 30, 31,
and 38 ttere spct-surrreyed to verlfy tbe results of the L976 sulivey,
and Buildings 14 and 37 erere resurrreyed (FBDU 1981a). FBDU also
sur/eyed Building SO, which was constnrcted betneen L977 and 1981.
After tlre surrrey in 1981, Building 3z was deuolLEhed. Debrie
showlng radioactlvity exceedlng twlce the backErrorurd level was
pJ.aced on tlre tailings pile until uoved to the plre west of
&rilding goi uncontauinated debris waa dleposed of conventlonally
(i.e., taken to the Tonn of Tonawanda landfill) (BNI 1992a) .
Buildlnq 14: Building re wae used as a pllot plant during the
early part of the uranlur operations. Because it
had been decontauinated by the elte ouner after
tlre ORNL au!'vey, fBlf,, nade a coaplete
radlologrLcal surr/oy o! the bulldlng ln 1981. The
uaxl.nun orternal gama radlatLon readlng frou
thle surryey was 2O IR/h, lncludlng backgrround.
The naxluuu obecrved dlrect (flxed) alpha
contanlnatlon level ra! 120 dpu/100 cuz at one
locatlon, all othar relahge uer6 leee than the
DoE Euidell.ne of 100 dpu/100 cu2. Trangferable
alpha contauLnatLon was less tlran 20 dpn/lo0 c.uz
throughout the bullfling, and beta-ga@a
contamination at all locatlons waa less than
O.2 urad/h. Radon daughter concentratlons hrere
aeasured at lese than 0.015 WL. The building was
Cbnstrdeqed by FBDU to be free of contaoLnation.
50t_o0a1 11212rfi21 1-18
Buildinq 30: The FBDU sura/ey found that most of the floor
area, rafters, walls, and ceilings of Building 30
exceeded DoE guidelines for both fixed and
transferable contanination. Fixed radioactivi.ty
on exhaust fans was also above gridelines.
Building 30 Eay originally have had a dirt floor
that becaue radioactively contaainated during
uranitro processing. Later, a concrete floor vas
poured over the dk-t floor, Ieaving eubsurface
radioactive contanination in the soil beneattr the
concrete.
Building 31: The PBDU survey found that surface contauination
in Bullding lt uae belou DoE crlteria at all
meaaureDent locatlone, ORIIIJ reported renovable
alpha levels of 30o dpu/loo d tn tlre roof
vents. Because these roo! vents were notnally
inaccessible and the readLnge do not exceed
guidelines, they were not congLdered to be a
probleu (ORlfL 19?8a) .
FBIX, personnel raeasured radon daughter
concentratLons above O.O3 I{L at two dlfferent
locatLons ln Bulldlng 31 and durlng two different
tine perJ,ode. lt-hle ftndlng uas not e:<plained or
conffuoed by other surveys.
Buildlncr 37: I'hls very eDaU bulldlng was decontanlnated in
1980 follorlng ttre 1976 ORI{L sun €y, and no
radloactive uaterl.al exceedlng DOE crlterla was
detected by the FBPU sulrvey. lflrsre is no
docunentation of the procedures used for
decontauination.
50r_0061 tvzlzclr2,1-19
Buildinq 38: Alpha contamination exceedi-ng DoE guidelines wasfound by the FBDU sur/ey at several locations onthe rafters and ceiling. Beta-garuoa readings
exceeded 0.2 nrad/h at uost points on the floorwhere Deasureuents t ere possible; equipuentstored in some areas restricted the sutr eys.Building 38 is considered to be radioactively
contauinated.
Bulldino'90: Before Bullding 90 was constnrcted, residual low_level contaninated soil waa reDoved fron theconstnrction area and placed in two wLndrowa
a10ng the northern and eastenr fences and in onesaall plle ln the nortbern patit of the property.
The FBDU Burrey forurd no radlatlon readlngs abovenatural backgro,nd ln B'lldlng s0, and radon fluxthrough the floor of tbe bulldlng was less than0.1 pCi/d/s (oRtrL 1928a) .
o rn sunnar?, tJe bulldj.ng BurveyB deternlned that the radiologlcalcondr.tlons of the bulldlngs uere as !o110vg:
14:
30:
o
a
a
a
a
BuJ.lding
Building
BuLlding 3t:
BuLldlng 37:
Bulldlng 38:
. Bulldlng 90!
free of contrnLnatlon
elevated Levels of alpba, beta, and gaunaactlvlty on tbc raUc and ceillng and beneaththe concrete lloor
f,rec of contrntnatlon
frcc of contrnlnatlon
elevated levele of alpha, beta, and garrna
.actlvlty on thc floor, walls, and ceillngfree of contmlnatlon
5ot-ooal lx2lzalr2,l-20
(\
['*'1
e
e
C
II
III
III
\/
'ONt€Rt0clI l0r(0t 8L0c l?
90 0
6r!
"E
o
tr3€lrttrcto
rr- -LJt E n IL---
;, @d
frr-l
IrtTl
t=-t*
l<t)lel-
l<l-lf
trltrtn lnEtt o
ra(r 16111q 6 0t903r rtlt
PilStrit tcrilo r coltutirlto.urtntrr
rom€n tcrltor c Gorrutmlto lrtEnlt
PRffitr tororit
,OE: S€E tltrf i-l Fm lrfiullo| or llrltollc:l IJSEo Ffi Urxtu rnoctssttG.
fTI qltrotrt
' + FEict
+ tltltolo
o
Ew{
sott
0 20c .00 fEtI#0 to t20 lltrtns
Figure 1-5
Plan View ol Unde
r29 Rr5f059.ocll
1-47
C
t
s*a
gE
SE
€EII
gt
FE!r
ss.sa!
q-'soAA;t
1Er!iHCJ
is!!t{E
.i.l
gE
si
#t
tIA
=
=
EE
9f
=!i5!r:oio5!sEoc
I8EctG',ataa:'
.t
=EC' I'aEcaaoprU.f3g
!lOa-E.i€i:.Ga-,Etlto3ia!E;;il
5Ep:€r6 0Ec lt-.!l e:i! a-5;t
E:.EEEIiEI5 Efeli
-dlIr
:11iIi3 E-c!EtE ri
f !i;-.r=aE
E EIE( '.r.'I! iI.F
,i ile; c.l
J
I
=UIT' u)Ocn
r, lll5g
3coo-Jz
I
oz-1
=s3rsl-
a(U=siOFcEO
=Oo=9:o!E
=
=z
tr3
lI.o
3oJtl.
(
LlJ
tt- zi'uJ-ozoo
zootrctr
- -L^ U58rEi@@tsto
sEuE:r-<go6-E
EgEf
u,
TEo
aoA) sa:6
z
o
CE UJYo
EAJ IIJtr
oFU'2'OHC-a<lr :ibEo
zIF<r-<oJF868
lrJ
or$38r
E9A
338
G
s3s$f t r
=a
c,
o-
@.o
E
GI
oooEc
o
o@o:EoO
='tr)iE'a(o
J
.9oo
Eoo
og)
-sooo(,o
(L
o
1-50
Tab1e 1-1
activities arod operatious iu Linde Buildings
Constnrcted in 1930s bv Union Carbide
Building 14 Used for laboratory and pilot ptant studies foruranir.u separation in early part of MEDoperations. currently used for offices,research laboratories, and fabricationfacilities.
Constrrrcted bv MED on Union Carbide orooertv; ownership transferredto Ll-nde at a later date
Building 30
Bullding 31
Building 37
Building 38
Used as primary process bullding for uranLum
processS.ng (Step 1: ores to U3O3i Step 2: U:oato UO2) during MED operatione and soneprocessing of netallLc nicl<cl uitlr nLtrlc acidto produce nickel salt. Gurently used as ashipping and receiving warehouee.
Used in uraniur aeparation process (Step 3:fluorinatlon of UO2 to U8.) durlng l{EDoperations. Cu:rently used for uaintenance andofflces.
Used ln uraniu!! separation procesa durlng tcooperations. Deoolished ln 1981.
Used in uraniuu separatLon procesa (Step 3:fluorl.nation of UO2 to UFr) durlng MEDoperatlons. C\urently not l.n use; access isreetricted.
hrllt in an area where talllnEr acgtruulateddurlng lrlED operatlons. Talllnga wer€ reuovedfrou the site when operatlonr ceaecd ln tgle.Balore congtrrrctLon, soll contauinated wlthlov-level radioactivlty ttas reuoved frou the
congtrnrction area and stored ln a plle west oftbe buLldl.ng. Currently uscd ar a warehouee
and for general shtpptnE and receLvl.ng..
Constnrcted after uranLurn processLncr ooeratLons ceased
auildlng so
50!_006r <vv2Elr2,1-63
c
G
c
ii,'i,'ir aRr' R6?'i,'i: Artr R6lj.,..oians .ril'.Jr, ,, RSIO ar2t ta
{'o j't r, ,rso oHl
ir, ,'#j,,li"3J:i
.Rn JrroR2o i 'l
Ino .Rr6 onr I LJ*,
i' tr+
trqr
l;
l!
t-l4l-t-
l'
n t02
Rlt2
lr0.
Rill
Rll6
att2l
I t05
aRr2l
rg
5
IIJ
trffnctn rnBtE o
A
a
fj-]
rJc€ilo.t rcrltil
iln8o.t rcrnc
ErJlt0t,G
+ t[lGt
+ Ultl0r0 I
scrt
200 {00 ttEr
nctnrY torom l---.-c 60 t20 lcrti3
129 Rr5F056.DGx - Figure 2-1
First-Phase naaioiQical $ii Silpling Locations at Linde
2-33
l.
l=l2
ld
l=lu
co
e(
Slal;!:.tr:alvt
zlctttr Irort,
r.D i
0
O
EEI
lrtttcttr IIEIG c0
IGIO.I rcril0
tlEsEn tcrilO ccoltrrtrrtto umll
tmtn tfirrtot trcorlrltnrlo lrltill
First- Phase Ch erriical
fi-] otutrc
rtrtt
-.:- alluoro
{00 ttfl
0 30 1r0 ,ermt
5Crtf,
200
o Figu
Soil
re 2-2
Sampling Locations at Linde
nt2
Rr0r
El€-r LJ[1..[-J-ll-l nEc-tl-l F+ lr
r29 RrS057.oCI
2-34
/1
(,*\
i
ctol
cl
-l
!E
l=
i=
t3l:
l;
/,--3ttj///_ et !2
/,LRt52
trlT
Rt29
Rt30JRlll
RI
Rt {7
n ta2
FAtrtrlg
{-l0l,olr
14
Rt{6
Rl{5
t LRl19I
-
Rl5lEllii
H,'i'*
RI J'
aRllS
.]i
liri
Ptillrc rnEr
O'Ig
5
A
l----l
ttrlnctn mrcrtxc o
ructnlo.t lrr'lol
Pfu[Rtr lororn
aJtt0l|(-
Fttft
+ f,rltr0r0
scrt
0 200 {00 flLIF-.-{+0 30 r20 r(Itns
. 129
)
Rt5F09l.0cll Figure 2-3
Second-Phase Radiological Soil Sampling Locations Along Northeastern
Fenceline at Linde
2-35
Prnil|G
q o tr4
o
.c
U'Fo'.E o(ECo'-i
t-
-J (U9o.= ro
-+ q,t- I-L.-(UE.<t' ar'i :=,vr-(\J: #
^gY(, o.
or<u=tL.Y (l)cDoo(I,-.-OEE<a-\9-rrG
;=!)e(E(a.c(oo-aIE'
ooo
CN!
E -E! =r5E =ro
utl2eI--ulI: r*t'
9ElildI
I
Htn Lnd llrrs.-
$I.'.l'ra
"8."ffit&I
\\
\\
\
I
,
I
tl
\"#\
,
G,
E
I-l
rl0l orEcno
rrfttsfio lororn
mrnr0t oill{I
rrltn !@r
r tu0r0
\S
Figure 3-1
Drainage Area of Twomile Creek
3-75
) 129 R15f055.ofil Glco
3.0 PEYSICAI CIIARACTERISTICS OF TI{E STSDY AREA
The following sections describe the physical and environmental
characteristics of the site that are relevant to identifying and
evaluating potential transport pathways, mechanisms, and receptors.
The information presented here provides a foundation for the
discussions of the nature and extent of contamination and
contaminant fate and transport in Sections 4.0 and 5.0,
respectively.
3. 1 8I'RFACE AEJLTI'REs
The Tonawanda site is located in the Eastern l,.ake Section of
the Central Lowland physiogfraphic province (Fennenan 1946). The
characteristic landscape of this section consists of dissected and
glaciated lowlands and escarpnents. ?he specific physical surface
features of the Tonawanda properties are described in the following
sections.
3.1.1 Liada
Linde is situated on a broad lowland east of Ttrouile Creek, a
tributary of the Niagara River. The elevation of the property is
approxinately 180 n (600 ft) above t{sL (FBDU 1981a}. ?he property
contains office buildings, fabrication facilities, warehouse
storage areas, material laydorn areas, and parklng lots (see
Figure 1-5). The property is underlain by a series of utillty
tunners that interconnect soae of the uain buildings and by an
extensive nctuork of storu and sanitary seuers. Storu runoff is
collected and channeled to the vestern portion of the property,
where it is dlgcharged into a 2.1- by 2.7-t (z- by 9-ft) twin cell
conduit built by the Toun of Tonawanda (Figrrre 1-6) .
The Linde property is generally flit because the surface soil
has been graded. The nain parking lot in the northwestern corner
of the property is covered with packed gravel (soll is exposed
rhere gravel does not'. eIist) . Most areas around the buildings are
paved with concrete. Sever-il railroad spurs extend onto the
s6-05, (t,/utf2l 3-1
property from the conrail railroad located outsj-de the easternproperty boundary. The soil in the area of the railroad tracks ishard, packed gravel. The soil along the fence bordering the
boundary is vegetated with native grasses.
A soil and tinber blast wall is located east of Building 58.
The blast waII consists of soil piled next to the building wal1 andheld in place with wooden planks. The soil in this area is alsovegetated with native girasses.
contaninated soil was renoved from the Building 90 area beforeconstrrrction of the building. The soil was placed in two windrows,
one between Buildings 73 and 73B and the eastern property boundary
and the other nor:th of, Buildlng so along the northern property
boundary (see Figrure 1-5). soil reuoved frou the Building go areawas also placed in a ttrird pile on the nortlrern portion of tlreproperty. The three piles were subsequently consolldated into oneuncovered pile west of Bullding s0. A pile of contaninated wasteuaterial formerly located north of Buildlng ta (PBDU 1981a) Dayhave been included in the waste co.solidation; however, the exactdisposition of this uaterLal is unknown.
3.1.2 Aghlaad 1
Ashland 1 is currently beLng used for disasseubly of
Ashland oil Refinery equipuent. The property is roughly
rectangrular in shape, approxlnately 35g u (11125 ft) rong and 122 u.(400 ft) wide. Ttro larEc petroleuo product storage tanks werefotmerly located at Asbland 1. construetlon of the tankg involved
excavation and reuovar of approxJ.uately 41600 d (Erooo yd!) of
contauinated uaterLal. Sone of ttre contaninated soil was used tobuild ealthen betms surroundlng the atorage tanks. Tbe beloed areais equipped wlth a suDp punp systen to prrrp nuroff into an openditch and then to an RCP beneath the searray landftll, whlch euptlesinto Rattlesnake creek and then lnto Ttroulle creek. The tanks rrere
reuoved ln 1989. Native grasBes, weeds, and shnrbs uat<e up thesite vegetation. The area lnslde the berns and the inner area ofthe norther:r part of-.ttre. property are mostly bare soLl.
5o3_o05, (t:2l2rlr2,3-2
o
3.3.2 6ite DraiDage Cbaracteristics
Liude
Linde is a heavily industrialized property, and most of the
area is inpenrious to infiltration of storawater. The property
covers a total area of 54.5 ha (135 acres). The actual plant area
(buildings, pavenent, and compacted gravel surfaces) covers 26.7 ha
(66 acres), representing approximately 50 percent of the property.
The average basin slope is 0.63 percent:
All nrnof f collects in the plant I s stom serrer systeu and
drains into Ttrornile creeki there are seven stora sewer outfalls
(see Figrure 1-5). Outfalls 1 and 2 draLn stormwater trrnoff from
the southern end of the property, and botJr eupty into a 9t-cu
(35-in. ) municipal stoto sewer line under l{oodward Avenue. The
nunicipal line joins the Ttrouile Creek twin conduLts.
The third outf,all drains a suall area in front of the main
of,fice building and nrnoff frou the buildlng roofs. The nrnoff
enters a 91-sn (36-in. ) orlvert tbat corurecte to tlre Ttrouile Creek
twin conduits
The fourth outfall dralng ttre uldd,le portion of, the property.
Stotm nrnoff collects in a 91-er (36-1n. ) culvert tbat connects
directly with the ftrouLle Creek tvln condults.
The f,ifth outf,all collectg nuroff f,rou a veraz suall area in the
western patt of the property and corurects witi the ftrouLle Creek
twin conduits througb a 51-cu (20-Ln.) culvert.
the sixth outfall collects nuroff frou uoet of tlre northern end
of the property and also collects shallos grroundwater Ln
agricultural tlle beneath the gravel-paclred parkinE areas. A 76-q
(3o-in. ) conduLt conveya ttre r:unoff and groundrater f,rou thLe area
into the ftroulle Creek tsl.n condults.
The seventh outfall collects nrnoff fron the e<treue northern
section of Linde. Tbls drainage systeu also includes underground
agricultural tiles. Surface nrnoff fron the northwestern corner of
the plant area is collected by a drainage ditch Just outsl.de the
Linde fencei f,Ios tn thigjltch is conveyed into the fnouile Creek
twin conduit by a 76-ct (30-in.) culvert.
so3_0o5, 1x2t201r2,3-10
A11 conduits in the sewer s)'stem that are larger than 30 cf,l
(L2 in. ) in diameter are reinforced concrete culverts. Conduits
that are 30 crn (12 in. ) or smaller are nade of vitrified tile
unless they are under buildings or driveways, where the loads
require heavY cast iron.
Because Linde is an industrial property with a significant
portion of the surface area paved and covered by buildings, little
erosion is evident.
Asblasd 1
Ashland 1 is located on the grounds of, the Asbland Oil Conpany
refinery beside the Niagara River. Ashland t has a drainage area
of 4.4 ha (10.8 acres) that closely follows tlre propelty boundary,
as shown in Figrure 3-3, the figrre also shows flow pattrs on the
property. '
The topography of ttre property is flat except where the ground
has been altered by construction activlties of ttre oll coDpany.
The average basin slope is only 3-3 percent.
The section of tbe property to tbe east of the berued area is
flat and covered with grass except for soue gnpaved roads, atl
electrical station, and a snall building. Drainage f,ro1 tJtis
section is directed toward the ditcb tbat runs along tlre boundar?
.between Ashland Oil and Seaway (see Flgure 3-3)'
In the uiddle of the propertyi a 1.2-ha (3-acre) area !'as
enclosed by a larEe bela conetrmcted in L974 to capture epills from
two large petroleun product storage tanlsg i the tanl<s have been
rernoved. lfbe beto ia approxinately 2.1 u (7 tt) bigh at lts
highest pol,nt. Water frou precipitation collects in the betned
area and lnfLltrates the beru, evaporates, or ie pumped over the
berm by neans of a suall puDP in the soutlreastern corner of tJre
area. the water pumped froa ttre berued area f,lowg into an open
channel and travels northwestward to the drainage ditctl along the
Ashland l/Seaway boundarlz'
The westerrr section of Ashland 1 ie relatively lov-lying and is
covered with ta}I-itrrasS-and large bushes. Overland nrnoft f,ron
this area collects in'a snall ditch nrnning to the west; flow in
s03 005? at:u2urzl 3 -11
o
this ditch gioes through a 3O-cm (12-in. )
main ditch along the Seaway boundary.
All of the drainage frou Ashland 1 is
(described in Section 3.1) that forms the
steel pipe and into the
directed into the ditch
headwaters of Rattlesnake
creek. This ditch (see Fignrre 3-3) frows to the west arong the
seaway boundary into a Low narshy area drained by a 0.9-D- (3-ft-)
diarueter RCP that runs diagonally under Seaway.
There is little evidence of erosion on Ashland l; the only
exposed ground is the unpaved roads. Sedinent settles out in the
beraed area (one-third of the property), and water that is pqnped
out contains only suall anounts of sedinent. The drainage ditch
along the Seaway fence has a slope of approxlnately 1.5 percent and
contains thick vegetation; uost sedinent reaching the dltclr should
settle out before reachlng tJre Seaway pipe.
AsblaDd 2
The Ashland 2 area is approxiaatery 43 ha (1oz acres) and isflat with suall depressione. The average basLn slope le 2 percent.
storo nrnoff leaveE tbe property through the fLve channels
shown in Flgure 3-4. cbannel 1 dralns the eastern portlon of
Ashland 2i approxinatery 38 percent of the total area of tlre
property ls in the eastern drainage.area. lllre dltch is about o.9 E(3 ft) wide and o.3 D (1 ft) deep; as sbown in ftgrure 3-4, drainage
is toward the northeaat. After crossing the Ashland 2 boundary,
the ditch nrns 793 ! (21600 ft) nortlrward before lt euptles lnto
firomile Creek approxinately 6 n (2o ft) below tJre Fletcher Street
bridge over frrouile Crecls. lIlre channel Lg dl.rected, und,er frrouile
Creek Road tbrough a 76-cu (30-in. ) culvert.
Channel 2, Rattlegnalce Creek, is tbe nal,n cbarurel for nrnoff
from the propetty (eee Plgrure 3-4). Approxlnately 59 percent of
Ashland 2 overland rrrnoff eupties into Rattlesnake Creek. tfhe
creek enters the Niagara lrlohawk property at ttre outlet of the
o.9-u- (3-ft-) diaueter RCP and crosses Ashland 2 throuEb a wide,
0.9-tr- (3-ft-) deep channel. Another drainage ditch Ln the western
portion of the proSiErty .lqirrs Rattlesnake creek Just across the
Benson Development coup'any property line. Thls drainage ditch
303_0057 tx2l2clr2l 3-:-2
approaching future commercial and industrial uses unhampered by
restrictive categorizing, thus extending the desirability of
flexible zoning, subject to change with changing condition'r (Town
of Tonawanda 1989).
Liade
Present land use at Linde j.s strictly industria.l. The Linde
Gas Products CoupiDyr Incorporated, operates an industrlal gas
production iacility tltere. Altlrough portions of the propeft,y were
previously owned by. ttre Eown of Tonawanda, Excclsior Stee1 Ball
Company, ItletropolLtan Counerclal Cor2oratlon, and the hrl.lnan
Trolley land coupany, the land wae not used by any of theee owners
(FBDU 1981a). The land nay have been used as far:uland in tbe past.
The westera slde of, tbe property, where the ualn offLce bullding is
located, includes a portlon of the foruer sheridan park Golf
Course, which LLnde purchased frou the Tovn of Tonawanda
(sAIc 1992a).
The area near tlnde ie used f,or a ui:cture of Lnduetrlal,
connercial, recreational, pub1l.c, and residenttal puqposes
(Figure 3-45). A publlc park west of the property le owned by
Linde; beyond the park is a resLdential area. The clogest
residential area ie west of Eagt Park DrLve on tlre uestertr boundary
of Linde. An elenentarl school Ls located at the eoutiern end of
the park; beyond tbe gctrool are bulldlnge assocLated wlth tbe local
recreation and blghway departuents. Linde ie borurded on the north
and soutlr by other lnduetrlee and suall businesses, on tlre east by
an open area rlth ral,lroad tracks orned and operated by Conrai.I,
and on the wcrt by the foruer Sheridan Parlc GoIf Couree, nou owned
by Linde. lfbc areas eaet and north of LLnde acrosa Mllttary Road
and Sheridan llrlvc, reepectLvely, are also reeLdentLal. lfhe
Kenmore Slster of l{ercy llospltal ls approxiuately 0.8 h (0.5 nl1
frou Linde. In sulr[ar-!r, there are six schoole, a hospltal, two
recreational areas, two comunlty buildlngs, and a senlor citizens
center witlrLn 1.6 ]o (1 nt) of Llnde (sAIc 1992a).
.,-\s
5Or_O057 lt:U2Clr2'3-59
buildings and beneath Building 30, and (2) portions of
Buildings L4, 30, 31, and 38 to confirrr previous sun/ey resuLts.
Supplernental investigations were conducted fron Novenber 1990
through May L991 to investigate four potential contaninant sources:
(1) contaninated soil beyond the nor*,heastern corner fenceline,
(2) contaninated soil in the blast wall adjacent to Building 58,
(3) effluents injected into the subsurface bedrock and basal
contact zone, and (4) a subsurface vault potentially containing
radioactive materials.
EoiL Cbaracteristics at lLnde
To detetoine the nature and extent of contamination at Linde,
the nature of the constnrction uaterials used as filt at the
property uust be considered. Ihe natural soils at LLnde appear to
have been covered. by a ftll layer ranging in thlckness frou o to
5.1 B (o to L7 ft). flrle fillr BS noted in borehole logrs, contains
substantial quantities of slag and fly ash that uas apparently
brought onsite fron local sourcea for gradlng purposes during
consttrrction of the LLnde facility. Botlr of these uaterlals are
known to contaln hearry uetals at concentratLons above naturally
occurring levels, and fly aeh is aleo reported'to contaLn
radionuclides, including thoriun-zez (LfD 1929). ThorLuru-232 was
not present in tlre I.IED ores, and lts presence in a sample can
suggest the presence of fly asb; bowever, the absence of
thoriun-232 does not conetltute proof tbat tlre naterial being
analyzed is MED related.
Because slag and tly aeh are speclflcally exeupted frou RcRA
regnrlation ['[o crR 261..{(b) (7) and 4o cFR 261.4(b) (a)J, the
background values for hearry uetals and radionuclides should be
adjusted to account for their influence. This is essentLal for
puryoses of this study because a prine objective of ttre RI is to
identify the nature and extent of any hazardous uraterLale
(radioactive or othenrlse) associated nith MED activitLes. The
effect of fly ash on the sanpling results has been evaluated by
)sampling boreholes'that. qre outside areas of radioactive
contanination where the field geologist has specifically identified
)
t
503_006. (t:212C192'4-9
fl..' ash in the borehole 1og. Boreholes that meet these criteria
a 829R19' B29R2O, 829R49 829R59, and 829R51. Chenica] data are
available only for 829R61.
The data for B29R51 (Table 4-5) indicate that the shallow soil
lo to 0.5 n (0 to 2 ft) I contains above-background levels of
arsenic (62-6 ppn), cadrnium (1.4 ppn), chrouiun (35.1 ppD), copper
(151 ppn), lead (121 ppu), and sirver (3.7 pprn). The vanadiun
concentration (22.2 pptr) is within the native background range
(19.5 to 31.8 ppn) i the concentration of thoriu!-232 is greater
than 1 pCi/g, while the uraniun-z38 concentration is 1ess than
10 pci/9. Additionally, the sanple is identifled in tlre borehole
rog as consisting of slag and 40 percent clay and fly ash. The
concentrations of netals detected in the natural soils beneatlr this
horizon are very sinilar to those publisbed by the state of
New York and USGS as background for claya ln Erle County. The only
above-background values are those for arsenlc and zLnc, botb of
which are fairly uobile in the subsurface and nay have orlgJ.nated
i-n the overlying fill materials. (The arsenLc concentratlons are
probably overesti-uated because of interferant probleue ln tlreanal'ysis.) Ehe potential for MED-related contanlnatLon at thlslocatlon is frou eff,luent lnJectlon welle; borever, because of tlre
pH stages and addition of carbonates and hydroxldes, the effluent
should not contain copper, lead, or chrouLuu. ltterefore, these
constituents are uuch Dore likely to hage orlglnated frou waste
uotor oi1 in thr ranprc and a ri:rturo of fly arb and ahE. i
MED-associated uateriaL does not appear to be present at tbls
sanpling location.
Surfacc and BuDrurlacc goLl outgide of Bu!.l6lagr at rrlaCc
Radioauolldcg. The priuary radioactl.ve contanlnantg ln soil at
Linde are uraniun-zgg, radlun-226, and tlrorlun-z3o, which appear to
be concentrated in four areaa (Ftgrrei t-l through 4-3).
Radiological data for contaminated soll in tlrese four areas are
suumarized in Tab1e 4-6, radlological data'for all soil srr'rFlinlf
50t-00ay t2l2cl92,4-10
o
Area 1. According to Linde personnel, soil was probably
brought into Area l, in the northwestern corner of the nain parking
area, dS fill and grading uateria] (Figure 4-1). The ground
surface of the parking lot is several feet above the ground surface
of the R. P. Adans property irnnediately to the north; the
difference in elevation supports the theory that fill material was
placed in Area 1.
The uaxinum depth of radioactive contamination is 1.2 B (4 ft)
found in B29R10. OnIy two subsurface sanples exceeded the DOE
guideline of 15 pci/g for thoriun-23O: one in B29R05 (23 pci/g)
and one in 829R07 (3O pCi/g).
Cheulcal data exiet f,or tro boretroleg (B29R1O and B29R16) in
Area 1. The lead-vanadLum relationshlp l.s weak yet dlecernible at
829R10, and the radlur-226 (5 pci/g) and thorlun-23o (5.9 pci/g)
concentrations are a^bove guidelines in the surtaee soil sanple.
The lead-vanadiun relatLonshlp ls not present in 829R16. Because
the radionuclides are not above gruidelines and the vanadiun
concentrations are relatively los ln 829R16, the activlty is caused
by the presence of slag and fly ash, not Stage 2 fllter cake.
&gE-3. Area 2 is along ttre norttrern borurdarT of ttre property
in the northeastera corner of ttre parklnE area (Ftgtrre 4-1).
Contarninated residues were brougbt into Area 2 before the
constttrction of Buildlng SO. Contr;inated soils uere reuoved from
the constnrction area of, Building 90 and placed in a windrow
between the location for Bullding 9O and the northern property line
(see Figrure 1-5). Between 1979 and 1982, the uaterials in the
windrow were uoved to a pile beelde the norttrerrt end of
Building 9O. !I'ho pLlo, approxlnatcly 5 I (15 ft) high
(Fignrre 4-4), uat not eaupled during t-he RI becauge tlre material is
known to be radloactively contaninated.
SoDe sauplee were collected to a depth of 1.2 E (4 ft), and
gamma log readlnge Lndlcated ttrat radLoactive contauLnation Day
reach a depth of 1.2 u (4 ft) in onljr one borehole (B29R66). This
borehole contains uraniuu-238 contauinatLon (40 pci/g) between
0.6 and 1.2 u (2 and 4 ft), but no other radionuclides in the
) borehole are above'guide-Iines.
503-006. lx2l2cl92,4-11
onry one sample corrected in Area 2 was analyzed for the
presence of chenicars (82gR6g). This borehole has elevated
uranium-238 (14.0 pci/g) and radirrn-226 (3.1 pci/g) concentrations
and a thoriun-230 concentration (d.3 pci/g) above the DoEgnrideline. The sanple frou this borehole does not have the
elevated lead and vanadiun levels characteristic of Stage 2 filter
cake, but erevated zinc, arsenj.c, Eanfranese, calciuu, and copperare present. The elevated revels of uanganese, calcium, copper,
and radionuclides indicate that Stage 1 filter cake may have been
rnixed with the natural uaterials ln this area. The borehole 1ogfor B29R58 describes a cray fill wittr slag. The results forindividual locations in Area 2 indicate ttrat the uost rikerylocation of MED-related uaterial is in the area Just south of thepile (829R66 and B29R?L|, but ttrere Bay be uinor ulxing such asthat indicated in B29R6B and 829R55.
The renainder .of tbe area q<hlbiting radlonuclide
concentrations above DOE gridelines appears to bave fly ash in thefill, uixed with MED uaterial. The fly ash is conflmed by the
Presence of thoriun-z32 at concentratLons Ereater than I pCl/g andborehole log obserrrations notlng bigh percentages of fly ash(e.g-, 829R69, wittr a So-percent f1y aeb est{ilate and thorir:u-zrz
concentration of 3 pci/g). Ehe area prevlously contalned
MED-related uaterials in a windrori Eore of tiese uaterialE areprobably still mixed ritb ttre soilg.
ArgE-3. Area 3 | along the northeastertr corner fenceline,
encoBpasses a spur of the railroad (Flgrure 4-21. So11e eanples werecollected to a deptb of 1.5 rl (5 ft); radloactLve contauination
reached a deptlr of 1.2 E (4 ft). Sanplee collected f,rou 829R116
contained concentratlone of uraniuu-z3g (1zo pcLtgl, radiun-226
(24o pci/g), and thoriun-23o (z1o pci/g) that exceeded DoEgnriderines. the boretrole uaa BaDpled to a depth of o.9 u (3 ft),
and ganna logr readings conliru that radloactl.ve contanlnation doeenot extend beyond that depth. The surface sanple collected from
829R116 during the site characterizatton was tie only satple that
showed thorium-z32 above the DOE gridelLne.
Because sanplinE in A5ea 3 indicated that radioactive
contanination extended ueyina the properity boundary, additJ.onal
503_00a. lt2/2slr2,4-l.2
o
samples e/ere collected during the 1990-9t investigation. The
second-phase investigation results indicate that the primary
contaninants west of the railroad spur are uranir-rn-Zle and
thorir:rn-230 at depths of less than 1.2 m (4 ft) and that the
primary contaminant east of the railroad spur is thoriun-230 at
depths of less than 0.5 n (2 ft). Results are presented i.n
Appendix A.
Radioactive contamination was detected in 18 auger holes
drilled during the second-phase investigation; Figure 4-2 shows the
approxiuate depths and errtent of radioactive contar,,ination in soil.
Samples collected from 829R145 had the highest concentrations of
uraniun-238 (100 pci/g), radium-226 (43 pci/g), and thorir:n-Z3o
(11o pci/g), all of which are above DoE gruidelines. These saroples
$rere collected to a deptb of 0.9 ll (3 ft).
llhree tlpes of actlvLties aesociated wlth MED procesaea rere
conducted in the area desigmated as contaninated in plgure 4-2.
During the years of uranlun processing, uraniuu ore was transported
to Linde on tbe conrair raLlroad spurs, and sorLd processing
'residues were ptled in tlre area north of Bulldings 30, 38, 39,
and 58. Before Building 90 uas constnrcted, soil contaaLnated
during MED operations was excavated frou the constnrctlon area and
. praced in trro windrows, one of whlch was located betrreen
Buildings 73 and 73B and tlre property boundary (Flgrures 1-5
and 4-2).
Building 73 and 738 were constlrrcted in 1963 and 1926,
respectively. contauinated soile fron ttre constnrctLon of
Building 90 were not placed in the area between Bulldinga 73
and 738 and the property bourdary untll af,ter L9?6i therefore,
these soils could not have contauinated the area beneath
Buildings 73 and 73B. No contauination sas known to have been
placed in the area before the building was constnrcted, and no
samples uere collected beneatlr the buildlngs because no hletorical
evidence showed reason to suspect the presence of contauination.
829R103 and 829R101 are known to be contauinated. The uaterials
found in 829R101 (1.e., uraniuu-238, radlun-226, and thorLun-23O
hbove DOE gridelinEs)'-aPpear to be trIED related, whlle those found
in 829R10-3, which has Substantial anounts of slag and very little
s03_0o6. lulzalt2,4 -13
o
(Iess than 7.0 pCi/g) uranium, trdy
estitrate for the contatrinated soil
not be. To give a consern'atj_ve
volu:ne, contamination is
presently considered to exist Deneath the buildings.
No soil saDples were taken frou directly beneath the railroad
spur because an access agreeDent could not be obtained. However,to give a conservative estiuate for the contaminated soil volume,contauination is presently considered to exist beneath the spur
because shallow contanination at depths of less than 1 D (3 ft)exists on both sides of the spUr.
only one borehore (829R101) was sanpled for anarysis ofchenical constituents in Area 3. The sample contained uoderatelyhigh levels of lead (42.9 ppD) and vanadiun (50 ppu). The
lead-vanadiun relationship indicateg the presence of MED-relatedmaterials. The source of contatninatLon (1.e., stage 2 fllter cake)ie confimed by the radionucllde concentratLons furanlun -23a(54.O pcl/g), radiun-22.6 (12.0 pCl/g), and thorLr:n_23}(23.o pcLlgl I above DOE guldellneg.
Area 4. Area 4 is around Buildlngs 38 and 59 and in and aroundBullding 30 (Flgtrre 4-3). sanples collected fron B29R3g lnsideBuLldlng 30 contained concentrationg (above DoE gruidellnes) ofuraniun-23$ (930 pcl/g), radiua-226 (150 pcttgl, and thoriun-zgo
(82o pci/g) between depths of, 0.3 and 0.9 D (1 and 3 ft). Bothlead (11120 ppD) and vanadlun (432 ppu) concetrtrations wereelevated in this lnteryal, posltlvely identtfying stage 2 filtercake. The o- to 0.3-D (o- to 1-ft) lntenral is concrete. ghe
borehole gaEDa-Iog readlngs ehow that radl,oactlve contaninatJ.on roay
e:<tend to a depth of 2.4 D (8 ft), but thc fLeld log indicates thatthe radloactive contanl,natl.on was Doved to tlrlc depth durlnginstallation ol the Pt/c pipe prLor to ganna logging tlre borehole.
The uetalg relults contltm that radloactivc contaninatlon ln thearea of B29Rl8 does not qrtend to deptbs greater than 1.2 u(4.1 ft) [1.e., the depth of fill iaterlal].
Sauplea collected frou B29R46 (to tlre east of Buildlng tO1 also
contained erevated concentratlons of uranlun-zle (17o pcltgl
between the surface and o.3 E (1 ft) and between 0.3 and 0.6 E(1 and 2 ft) (1oo pcl/g)..---Altlrough the boretrcle was saDpled to a
503_00aa lxuanz,4-14
o
depth of 0.9 m (3 ft), galma-Iog readings indicated that the
radioactive contanination nay extend to 1.2 tr (4 ft).
During the 1988-89 site characterizat,ion, a borehole was
drilled into the soil and tiurber blast lrall east of Building 58 to
determine whether the soil was radioactively contaninat,ed. Only
one borehole was drilled because of the steep slope of the blast
wall and because only representative sanples were necessary to
deteraine whether radioactive contauination is present. The
borehole contained high concentrations of uraniu!-238 (tOO pci/gl,
radiun-226 (30 pci/g), and thoriun-zgo (27 pcLlg) at a depth of
0.9 to 1.8 E (3 to 6 ft).
Because the site characterizatlon sanrpllng was intended as an
initlal screeningr, additional sauples were collected during the
1990-91 investigations. The priroary contauinants in the blast waIl
soil are uraniun-238, radium-226, and tlrorlun-zgoi resurts are
presented in Appendix A. No thoriuu-232 concentratlons rrrere above
guidelines. Uranlum-z39, radium-226, and thoriur-23o Ln excess of
DoE gruidelines uere deteeted in borehores B29HA01 , B2gllAo2,
and B29EA03; strbsurface ga@a loge and s'r'rpIlng results were in
agreenent on tbe deptbs of contamlnatlon. Flgrure 4-5 shows the
approxiuate deptbs of contauinatlon. Surface contaulnation [ground
surface to 15 ct (6 ln.) J was found only ln B29EAO2; subsurface
contauination [deeper t]ran 15 cD (6 ln.)l was found in arr three
boreholes. No contamination was found ln B29HA04 tJrrough B29HAo6.
During tlre RI, only one area of tbe northern end of tlre blast waIl
was forurd to be contaulnated. For ;nrrposea of a consetr/ative
volume estiuate of contaulnated soil, ttre northern end of the blast
wall is congLdered to be contauinated.
The uaxiuuu depth of radioactLve contauinatLon in Area 4 is
2.7 n (9 ft) in B29R36 beneath Building 30 (whlch was constnrcted
to accomodate MED actlvlties)
RCRl-cbaractorigtic uastc. Nong of ths soll sauples tailed
RCRA characteristlcs criterLa [corrosivity, igmitabillty,
reactivity, or EP toxicityJ as defined under RCRA (40 CFR 261).
EPA has replaced the EP toxl.city test ulth the TCLP and incLuded
additional organiE constituents ln ttre Ilst of analytes.
Analytic-al results for both the EP toxlcity characteristics and
Jo3-00a. txuzat9zt 4-15
total volatile and BNAE concentrations in Linde samples are in the
1ow ppb range; therefore, TCLP analysis will not be needed because
the concentrations will not exceed regulatory criteria if
additionally evaluated using TCLP (see Federal Reqister, VoI. 55,
No. 6L, March 29, 1990, p9. 11863).
orgaaics. Seventeen locations were sampled for the presence of
vOcs in the shallow soil (see Figure 2-21. Additionally, samples
from nine of these locatLons were analyzed for BNAEs. Results are
summarized in Table 4-7. The data for VOCs can be broadly grouped
into three categories: sauples that are relatively free of VoCs
other than toluene (829R101, 829R68, B29W9D, 829R30, B29R10,
and 829R88); samples tlrat contain priuarily cblorinated etlrenes and
toluene (829R34, 829R43, 829R16, 829R23, B29R61, and B29I{10D) i and
sauplee ttrat contain toluene and a mi:rture of chlorlnated etbenes
and ethanes (829R51, 829R48, B29R4O, 829R82, and 829R38).
Toluene appears to bc an ublgritous cheuLcal at LLnde; it was
detected in all eoil sauples analyzed for VOCs. I.fith tbe exception
of B29R30, 829R38, and B29R40 [beneath Hrilding lO, whlcb has a
O.3- to O.6-D (1- to z-ft) tblclc concrete floorJ, tbepreeence of
toluene (whlch 1g both blodegrradable and uoblle) in tbe sballow
soil systeu ia not expected to result fron a release oceurrlng ln
tlre 1942 to 1946 tlue perLod. 8be data lndicate tbat ttre highest
toluene concentration ls t1pically in tlre fLrst 0.6 D (2 ft) of the
srrbsurface and that tbe concentratione decrease witlr depttr
(Table 4-7r. If the toluene had been depoaited 50 yeara ago and
had not undergone blodegradation, the uaJorJ,ty would have uigrated
deeper into the solle; ttreref,ore, the deeper samples would have
higher toluene concentratlona. The decrcaso ln concentratlon with
depth le a lnrther indieatlon tlrat the toluene waa depoalted
recently.
The chlorlnated allphatlcs are corunon lndustrial degreasers and
appear to occur at+.I{rde as either ethenes or ethenes uixed with
ethanes. 1rLr2r2-tt{chloroet}rane hras found only under Building 30
and wae detected at tne highest concentration of all the
chlorinated coupounde [19O tlgrlkg in B29R40 and 650 ttglkg in gZgRre
at depttrs fron o to"1'.'2-u-(O to 4 ft)1. The borehole log for
829R38 notes the presence of a black oily substance under the
503_ooa. lv2lulrz,4-L6
o
concrete floor in "his intenral. The chlorinated materials in
these boreholes are nixed with l'{ED-related radioactive waste.
L,L,2,2-Eettachloroethane is not a corn'r'on degreaser; the cornpound
is usuarly euproyed as a feedstock for production of other
chlorinated conpounds (Kirk-Othner 1979) .
l,L12,Z-teEtachloroethane could occur as a contaminant in
trichloroethene or tetrachloroethene. However,
l rL 12,2-teErachroroethane was the only chlorinated conpound
detected in the first intenral saupled; although vety nobile, it
did not appear in the deeper sampre where other chlorinated
aliphatics and toluene rrere detected. BecauseJ*-+ra-Lrlr2r2-#,chloroethane is siuilar to trlchloroethene in nobility,
the two would be e:qrected to be present together if deposited at
the sane time.
Three other boreholes (829R48, B29Rs1, and 829R82) contaln
ethanes, which were detected in tbe o- to 0.5-[ (0- to 2-fl)
intenrar of B29R48 and 829R51 and ln the 0.6- to l.g-D (2- to G-ft)
intenral of 829R82. Trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and/or
netlrylene chloride were detected ln 12 of the 18 sauples analyzed
for vocs. T1pically, tlre revels detected were low (less than
20 ppb), but unIlke the pattern obsenred for toruene, the
concentratj.on gradient Lncreased slttr depth. Thls is oqrected
because these coupounds are Dore noblle in clays than toluene. The
highest concentration reported wae for tetrachloroettrene (42 ppb)
in the 1.8- to 2.4-E (6- to 8-ft) lntenral Ln B29R23.
The exact orlgin of the chlorlnated allphatlce cannot be
accurately detetnined frol tbe data. lfhere does not appear to be
any pattern to ttrel.r dietributlon, although the ehallow soLl at the
Linde facility has apparently becone contanlnated with relatively
low levers (1 to lz ppb) of these uaterLals. However, because of
natural degradatlon of cheuical eoupounds over tl.ue, it ls urllkely
that degrreasere tlrat Day havc been used during trtED operatlone would
still be present in the shallow soil 50 years later. Therefore,
for purposes of the RI/FS, these uaterials a.re considered non-MED
related and a concern to the DOE renedlal action progran only for
planning of reuediif acttqn and waste disposal when the materials
are mixed with MED-contauinated material.
503_006. (X2l2alr2'4-L7
o
t{ith the exception of B29R101, which is under 0.3 Er (1 ft) of
concrete, soil saurples fron all locations saropled for analysis of
BNAEs contained a nr.uber of pNIs (see Tab1e 4-7). The
concentrations of PAlIs found at Linde are above background and
indicative of the surficial release of used crankcase oils from
motor vehicles (especially diesel tnrcks). Most locations sanpled
were in areas currently used by vehicular trafflc. The
concentration gradient of the PAIIs indicates that the less uobile
compounds adsorbed in the first 0.6 u (z ft) of soil and the Dore
nobile coupounds d,iuinished to nondetectable concentrations at
greater depths [i.e., in the 0.6- to 1.9-D (2- to 6-ft) intenral]
(see Table 4-7). The deptbs and concentratlone of these
constituents indicate a release tiue conslderably shorter tban the
So-yr period that hae elapeed since IIED operatlong ceased; tlreir
presence ie Dore likely to be related to nor:uaI, onEolng lndustrial
operatLons at Linde.
f,etalg. Linde is underlai.n by fill tbat Le a couplex ni:<ture
of fly ash, slag, gravel, and crays. Fly asb containe erevated
levels of trace metale and radionuclldea. Slag contaLns elevated
levers of .iron, magnesiuu, calclun, and traee uetals, vhlc,b uay not
be present at elevated leveis in gravel and claya. Eberefore, the
anallt,ical results for soll sanples'wlll depend upon the percentage
of each of the above constltuents in the sarnples.
Because of ttre potential diffleulty ln dJ.stlngrishlnE
MED-rerated roetare frou fly asb/slag-related uetals, tbe data for
each borebole uust be exauined separately, glving particular
attention to lts locatlon at the property and the radlonucllde uix.
AreaE 1 and 2. lfhree go11 sanplee (one each fron B29R1o,
829R16, and 829R68) were collected in tlre nortbwestern sector of
the Linde faciltty and analyzed f,or uetale. Anallt,ical results are
sumnarized Ln labre 4-8. The area is qrrrently used for parking
(Area X) and the radioactlve waete storage plle (Area 2). All
three sanples are descrl,bed as.consistlng of clay and gravel fill
with varying arnounts of fly ash and slag. None of the srnpllnlf
locations are near fomer injection wells, although MED wastes Day
have been placed in' thc.elea.
503_006r o2lzllr2,4 -18
The sample fron the 0- to 0.6-tr (o- to 2-ft) intenral of B29R1o
exhibits a weak but nonetheless characteristic fingerprint of
concentrations of vanadiu:n read, copper, and nickel that exceed
background (Table 4-8). The sauple is conposed entirely of fill
mat,erials and has radiun-225 and thoriun-230 concentrations that
exceed background but less than L pct/g of thorium-232. This
material should be considered MED related (i.e., stage 2 filter
cake). The sample from the o.6- to 1.8-D (2- to G-ft) intenral did
not contaj.n high concentrations of trace uetals but did contain
levels of radj.um-226 and thoriuD-23O that exceed gruidelines. This
finding is probably related to the s'rnpllng intenral collection
method; the radiologicar sanple wae taken in the 0.6- to 1.2-m (z-
to 4-ft) interrral, which includes 0.3 E (1 ft) of fill, whereas the
metals sauple eras couposited with o.9 D (3 ft) of clay. Therefore,
the radionuclides probably originated frou the flIl uaterLal nlxed
witb the sanple; the metals sample ls prinarlly coDposed of clean
clay. The low levers of netals ln the 0.6- to 1.8-E (2- to 6-ft)
intenral indicate that uetals and radionuclidee (which should\'behave sinilarly to several of tlre healry netals) have not uigrated
downward frou the f,iII into the natural clay.
829R16 hae 0.9 D (3 ft) of f111 (clay and grravel with fly ash
and slag) overlyl.ng a brown clay. Bot-h of the radlological samples
were taken in tbe ftll uaterial. lfbe levels of radLonuclides
detected are close to backEround, with a slightly erevated
thorium-z3o concentration (3.4 pcl/g) in trre fLrst srrnFrinll
interrral. The uaterial analyzed for netals in tbie intenral uay
contain a suall auount of stage 1 filter cake (i.e., residue rich
in calclum and Danganese). However, lt also contains elevated
levels of argenic (120 ppu) and uagrnesiuD. AIl of these rnetalE
could be non-MElFrelated because the slag would contal,n htgh levels
of calcium and uagmeeiun, and the fly aeh could account for the
Eanganese and arsenlc levels that exceed background. Additlonally,
the Stage 1 filter cake should contal.n levels of copper that exceed
background (Aerospace 1981) but does not. The evidence tends to
, support the conclusion that this uaterLal is not UED'related. The
)'second sanple for iletals-frou 829R16 was from natural clay at a
depth of p.6 to 1.8 E (2 to 5 ft). The results show soEe evidence
503-005a ly2lztlrzt 4-19
of downward nigra--ion of arsenic, which is relatively inobile, bu-.
concentrati.ons of other netals and radionuclides are close to
background.
subsurface conditions in B29R6g are sinilar to those in
B29R015: 0.9 D (3 ft) of cray, gravel, and srag fill overrying a
brown, noderately plastic clay. The radionuclide concentrations in
the first sanpling interrral [0 to 0.6 D (o to 2 ft) ] are elevated
(see Table 4-8). The netals composition (uean concentrations of
calcium, Danganese, and copper that exceed background) indicates
that soue Stage 1 filter cake is present. In the second saupling
intenral [0.5 to 1.8 u (2 to 6 ft)], calclun concentrations renain
hlgh, but copper and Eanganese (as well ae tbe radionuclides) are
at background levels; tlrese results indlcate ulniual nigration into
the natural clays. Arsenic, which ie not knorn to be a MED-related
waste constLtuent (see SectLons 1.3.2 nllstoryr and 4.2.L nSoil
characteristLcs at r,inder), exceeded baclgrrorrnd in tlre first
intenral (55.2 pPB); arsenic le uobile, and tbe coneentration was
slightry higher in tbe second sa'npling intenrar (82.5 ppD).
However, glven tlre uncertainty ln tbe anallt,lcal uethod, the,-e
values are relative and uay be uuch louer.
Areas 3 and 4. As in tbe nortlrweetern eector of the facility,
three boreholes were sarupled for netala contanlnatlon in the
northeastern sector (829R82, 829R43, and Bz9R1o1). B29RB2 is
underlain by 0.6.n (2 ft) of sandy grravel and slag and 0.6 D (2 ft)
of disturbed clay. Undlsturbed uaterlal beElne at a depth of L.z tr
(4 ft). Anallt,ical resultg for these boreholes are suunarized in
Table 4-9.
The fir"g E:rnPIinE lnterrral [o to O.6 n (O to 2 ft)] contains
thorium-23z above 1.0 pCl/g, no vanadlun or copperi elevated levels
of calciun and nagmesluDi and concentratione of Danganese
(3ro7o ppu), arsenic (2o? ppD), and berylllun (6.3 ppu) that exceed
background. Houever, becauae of the.preaence of thoriun-232, the
absence of vanad. 'a (Staoe 2 fllter cake), the absence of elevated
copper concentraL5ons (stage 1 fllter cake), and the presence of
very high leve1s of nagmesiun and calciul (elag), thle uaterl.al is
not considered MED-tel,ate{,- (Table 4-9) . The second saupling
intenral [0.6 to 1.8 n (2 to 6 ft)] was not analyzed for
50r_oo6a tl:u2clg2t 4-20
r-
o
radionuclides. The second interrral has a different rnineralogrcal
composition (c1ay versus sandy gravel) than the first intenral.
However, 3s with the first saupling intenral, there are no
indicators of MED-related filter cake. Arsenic, nagnesium, and
calcir:m still exceed background, indicating that some downward
migration may have occurred.
The soil profile in B29R43 is very sinilar to that in 829R82,
with a sandy gravel and slag fill to 1.2 m (4 ft), underlain by
undisturbed clay. As in 829R82, the first saupling intenral [0 to
0.6 D (O to 2 ft) I contains elevated levels of calciuu and
magnesiuu and background levels of lead, vanadiun, and coPperi
thorir.rm-23z at concentrations above L p0Llgi and levels of, arsenic
(166 ppu), berylliuo (5.5 ppu), and manganese (21050 pPD) that
exeeed backgrround. The coubinations and concentrations of
constituents found in thle intenral indicate fill of unknown
couposition and slag (see Table 4-9). llhe rnaterLale ln thlg
borehole interral are not l.lED related. The o.5- to 1.8-D (2- to
6-ft) intenral represents, in greneral, a ref,lectlon of the first
intenral with lower concentrations of nost constLtuents (including
rad,ionuclides). The exceptLon is that chrouium, lron, nagmesium,
nickel, sodLun, and zinc concentratLone were sllghtly hlgher than
in the first intenral, wlth only uagmesium exceeding background
leve1s. The second lntenral also doeg not shos any evLdence of
MED-related uaterials.
The soil in B29R101 ie covered by o.3 D (1 ft) of concrete.
The subsurface consists of a clay f,iIl between O.6 and 0.9 D (2 and
3 ft) with undieturbed clay beneath. The flrst saupling intenral
[o to o.3 E (O to 2 ft)] contained above-background levele of
vanadiru, lead, and copgrr and above-grideline levels of
uraniuu-238 (54.0 pCl/g), radium-226 (12.o pCl/g), and thoriun-230
(23.0 pci/g). This saupllng intenral contained MED-related
uaterials (see Table 4-9). In the second sanpllng intenral [0.9 to
2.1 D (3 to 7 ft)I, concentrations of aII netale and radl,onuclides
(except arsenic) decreased to levels at or near background. This
indicates that there has been miniual leaching of heatiryr netals
\/ lvanadiun reuained'slightly elevated at 38.6 ppa) and radionuclides
503-O06a ltzl2alr2l 4-2L
into the su-bsurface soiIs.
area is considered free of
Therefore, the undisturbed clay in thls
MED-related materials.
Area 4' Nine boreholes were sanpled for uetals in and aroundBuilding 30. 829R38, B29R4o, and B29R3o lrere drirled underBuilding 30; B29R4g, B29Rs1, and 829R88 were drilted east ofBuilding 30; and B29R23, B29wo9D, and B29R34 t ere drilled north ofthe building. Anal1ft,ical results are suurlarized in Tables 4-10through 4-L2.
829R38 was advanced to 2.4 D (8 ft). The flrst 0.3 u (1 ft)consisted of a concrete floor. a sanFl€ taken in the 0.3_ to 0.9_m(1- to 3-ft) intenral was stage 2 fllter cake containing elevatedlevers of vanadir:u (437 ppD) , read (1r l.2o ppn) r uranirrrn -23g(930.0 pci/g), radium-226 (150.o pci/g), and thorlun-zgo(820'0 pCi/g). The 1.2- to 2.4-E (4- to 8-ft) inte5ral was alsosanpled for uetals (Table 4-10). ghe reported sanpllng lntenralfor the radionucrides was 1.5 to 2.1 n (5 to z ft). The metarsdata accotrpanying ttris sauple indicate tlrat the sauple was takencloser to the fill/clay interf,ace [tbe radlologlcal sauplecontalned elevated revels of uraniuu-23g (62.0 pci/g), rad,iun-226(9.o pcl/g) r. and thoriuu-230 (33.0 pci/g), whereas the uetalesanple was a natlve uncontanLnated clayl. Reeults for sanprescollected outsLde the buildlng indLcate tbat radlonuclideg andaccoEpanying heavy uetals are not nigrrating into the naturalmaterials- contaaination ln tble boretrole ls related to MEDactivities and qrtende to a deptb of Juet over 1.2 D (4 ft) .
829R40 is ln tJre eouth-central portlon of BulldlnE ro and iscovered by 0.6 D (2 ft) of concrete. rhe flrst sanpling intenral[0'5 to 1.2 I (2 to 4 ft]l Le described as clayey fill. Thc netaleand radioloElcal data lndlcatc that thla laycr containe Anerlcanore, based on lrvels of, vanadlun exceedlng backgrrourd (whlch areelqlected becausc tbo concentrate ras scnt lrol colorado) andbackground levels of other beavy uetale (see Table 4-10). rnaddition, ttre saupre has elevated levers of uraniun-z38(72.o pci/g) and low levels of radiua-226 (1.6 pcl/g). The secondsaupling interrral [1.2 to 2.2 D (t to 7.5 ft) ] does not contaLn
-.
elevated levels of traqe. petals; radLonucllde concentratLons are at
f background levels except for thorir.rm-23z (3.0 pct/g), indlcating
sO3_006. ll:212;rlr2,4-22
the presence of non-lGD-related materials and the absence of
uranium or vanadiun nigratj.on.
B29R30, in the southwest corner of Building 30, is overlain by
0.3 IIr (1 ft) of concrete. Tlro sanpling intenrals were investigated
for radionuclides and netals [0.3 to 0.9 m (1 to 3 ft) and 0.9 to
2.1 l[ (3 lo 7 ft) l. The borehole 10g designates the sanpring
intenrars as containing natural crays. However, the crays in thefirst interrral are described as greenish gray, ind,icating aslightly different uineralogy than the noroal brown clays found atthe property. The analyt,ical data indicate that coppef, antiuony,
and iron concentrations exceed baekground (Table 4-1O); however,
none of the netals or radlonuclides ttrat are generally assocLatedwith MED-related materials were detected, and the elevated values
are probably associated with the different cray uJ.neralogy.
AnalyEicar results for B29R4g, 829R51, and B29Rg8 are
sumnarized in Table 4-11. 829R48, located approxinately 30 u
(10o ft) southeast of Building 30, is near a rallroad track and,
accessible to vehicular traffic. fhe organlcs detected Lndlcate
'contauination by waste oile, which are arso e:<pected to contain
Dore than trace levers of soue hearry uetals. Additionally, the
borehore 1og descrlbes tbe first 0.6-u (2-ft) internral as belng
coDposed of sandy silts wittr pleces of cnrshed srag and fly ash.
The uetale data ulght be lnterpreted aa suppottlng ttre presence of
stage 1 filter calse because of the elevated levers of copper
(109 ppn), Danganese (1r4OO ppn), and calciun (261500 ppD).
However, stage 1 filter cake generally does not contaln tbe high
levels of lead obserred in ttrls sanple (83.4 rrglkEl, and stage 2filter cake would contaLn botlr lead and vanadir:n (Table 4-11). The
high calciun level can be llnked wittr ttre elevated uagmesiun
concentration (t3r50o nglkgl and attributed to slag. Also, the
radLonuclldes found in the flret saupllng intenral include
thorium-232 (4.0 pci/g), wbicb exceeds background. Because waste
oils and fly ash can have elevated levele of lead, Danganese, and
coPPer, and MED ores were poor in thorirrm-232, lt can be concluded
that the uetals and radionucLides found in thls borehole Lntenral
briglnated frou op6ratior-rs_other than MED activltles. The second
sampling intenral [o.5'to 1.8 m (z to 6 ft)J, described as a medium
503_006. lw2cl92'4-23
brown natural clay with greenish-gray nottling, shows slight
elevation over background for nany of the metals seen in the first
sarapling intenral and declining radionuclide concent:ations (see
Table 4-11). The levels of uetals that exceed backg:-ound can be
attribut'-C either to the natural elevation of the uottled clay or
to uoderace leaching of, the metals frorn the less pemeable fill
layer above. The uetals and radionucrides at this sanpling
location are not MBD related.
829R51 is located in a setting sinilar to that of B29R48 and is
about 50 n ('zoo ft) to the northeast. The saupling location is
near a railroad track, is subJect to veblsular traffic, and has a
0.1-D (0.3-ft) thick asphalt layer at the surface. Etro interrrals
tere samFled for radionuclides and uetaie [o to o.6 D (o to 2 ft)
and o.5 to L.8 D (2 to 6 ft) 1. The firEt saryrinE intenral is
described ln tbe borehole log as a gravel and sand ftlI wltb traces
of slag and fly ash. As in 829R48, the flrst saupling lnter:rral ln
829R51 sbowe waste oil contanination accoDpanled by levels .f
copper, lead, arsenic, berylllun, and Eanganeae Urat exceed
backgrorurd (eee Table 4-11). All radlonucll.de concentrations are
at or near background. Regults indlcate tbat the heaqy netals
concentrations f,orurd ln B29R!i1 are caused by uaterlals found in the
fill and recent waste oil splllage ratber tban by UED actlvities
that ceased 50 years ago. AJ.l concentratlons o! heavy uetals and
radionuclidee in the second sanpllng lritenral are withln background
ranges.
829R88, located about {5 u (1SO ft) noltbeast of the
northeaetern corner of hrLlding 30, was g'r"Fled at the 5.1- to
6.3-D (17- to 21-ft) lntenral because it Le overraln by o.45 u
(1.5 ft) of concrete and approxlaately {.5 B (1s.5 ft) of coarse
limestone gravel fill. Nrallt1cal reeulte (lable 4-11) Lndlcate
that concentratlons ol all constLtuents, wltb tlre exception of
arsenic (79.3 ppu) , atre at or below backgrrorurd 1evelE.
Analltlcal results for 829R23, B29l{09D, and B29t€4 are
snmnarized in Table 4-L2. 829R23, just to the northwest of
Buildlng 30, is located near a forner inJectLon well forurd Just
inside the buildin$.'-fbrs_e lntenrals were sanpled [O.3 to 0.6 D
(1 to 2 fF), 0.6 to 1.8 E (2 to 6 ft), and 1.8 to 2.4 E
so3-oo6a ax2l12rlt2,4-24
(5 to I ft)1. The area is overlain by 0.3 Itr (1 ft) of concrete'
The borehole log describes the first 1.8 n (5 ft) as a gravelly
clay fill with slag. The netals concentrations in the first
sanpling intenral resenrhle those in clay with slag, with the
exception of higher than nornal sodiutr (2,360 ppn) accompanied by
elevated radiulu-225 (6.0 pCi/g) (Table 4-L2). A possible
e:<planation of these values is tbat the processing effLuents of
Afriean ores (which rrould contain relatively high levels of radium
coppared with the American ore effluents) were spilled onto the
clay/slag fill near the injection well. The decrease in all
concentrations at the depth of the natural clays in tbe third
sanpling intenral indicates liuited current uigration.
Nonetheless, the first 0.3-u (l-ft) intenral of soil in this area
contains low-level radlonuclides (but not uetals) that could be
related to MED oPerations.
B29WO9D is just northeast of B29R23. The borehole log
describes the first 0.8 ll (2.6 ft) as a silty sand witlr. grave). fill
that includes blebs of gray-black organic Daterial and concrete
rubble. Anal]tlcal resultg for organlcs auggest that these blebs
are waste oi1s. The reuainder of the Eoil is deseriJced as brown
natural c1ays. Three sanpllng internals were saDpled for uetals
[o to 0.6 !0 (0 to 2 ft), 0.6 to 1.2 tD (2 to { f,t), and 1.2 to 1.8 m
(4 to 6 ft) I. The reault8 for the first sampllng intenral suggest
the reunants of a Stage 1 Anerican ore fllter calse aLxed with waste
oil rnetals (see Table 4-L21. the reasonl.ng f,or this conclusion is
as followss (1) The sanple !s enriched in radionuclldee
[uranlrrm-z3l (13.O pCl/g], radiun'226 (7.0 pCl/g), and thorium-23O
(15.0 pCi/g)l; (2, tbc sauple contalna bigh levels of copPer
(g32 pp1), calciug (11OrOOO PPn)r and l1anganese (11410 pp1) as is
characterigtic of the fllter cake; and (3) the sanpls doer not
contain slag or fly asb but is rlctr in several uetalg found Ln
waste oil [i.e., Iead (193 pP!), nickel (34.4 ppD), and zinc
(139 ppn) l. Results from the undisturbed clay layer [0.6 to 1'2 n
(2 to 4 ft) I indicate that all constituents of interest are at or
near background levels with the exception of cal.ciurn, Danganese,
)I 'and magnesiuu, whiih'-terld to be uore uobile than the hearry uetals
503 006a lt:u2E192,4-25
In the third sanpling intenral, Do metal constituents were detectei
at concentrations exceeding background.
B29R34 is located just north of an old injection lrerl. The
borehole 1og describes the first 1.2 rn (4 ft) as a silty cray fill
with slag and fly ash, and a moderate brown undisturbed clay fron
t.2 to 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft). Two intenrals were sampled in this
borehole [O to 0.5 D (0 to 2 ft) and O.6 to 1.8 u (2-6 ft)]; both
contained elevated leve1s of radlonuclides (see Table 4-7.?l.
Neither sauple exlribited a metals pattern characteristic of ore or
filter cake, alttrough the presence of slag was lndicated by the
high calciun and uagrnesiun levels. Anion analyses were also
perforoed on tlre soil sanplesi results lndl.cated higb level,s of
sulfate (980 Pptr) relative to other Linde sauples tested. Sulfate
is erqlected to be a uaJor constl.tuent of tbe effluent waste stream.
An elevated sulfate level ls found in the eecond lnterral and
probably reflects. tlre inf,luence of the clays ln partially
iunoblliztnE aoue of the sulfate present Ln tlre effluent. As haE
been 6een in the case of, the fllter calces, radlonuclldee appear to
sorb quite easJ.ly and do not appear to leach (hence, thelr higher
levels in the shallower soll) . lfhe elevated radionuc[des ln this
borehole are frou MED-related uaterialg.
8utr[arT. Radlonuclidee were detected at l'evele exceeding
gruidelines in four greneral areas. For purposes of the RI, the
areal o<tent and depths have been rougbly delLneated. Fur:ther
delineatlon durlng cleanup will be necessary because tlre areae
depicted in Flgnrres 4-1 t-hrough 4-3 are conBenratlve. Sauplea from
selected boreholes were analyzed for uetale to deteruine whether
hearry uetale associatcd wltb the octractJ.on proceeg had uigrated
frou, or reutlned with, the radlonuclldes. Clear evidence
demonstratet that ttre recoverable radlonucUdes and the hearry
metals have reuained luoblllzed in the near-aurface fill uaterial.
Natural clays tegted gavG no Lndlcatlon of elevated radionuclldes
or hearry metalg. Hencc, congtltuents that uay have ulgrated frou
the MED-related naterials durlng ttre past 50 years have nigrated at
such a low rate tlrat they cannot now be analytLcally differentiated
frou the near-surfdCe'-natural claye.
5O3-OOa. av2l2?lt2'4-26
o
VOCs and BNAE compounds were detected at a variety of locations
across the facility. For the nost part, the BNAEs were PAlis whose
presence in soil can be linked with vehicular traffic and waste
crankcase oils associated with heavy (diesel) tntck traffic.
Because of the distributlon pattern (in open parking areas and
driveways) and depths of tbese PNIs, it can be concluded that they
were released less than 50 years ago and, hence, are not MED
related. The VOCs fall into two broad classes (i.e.., toluene and
chlori.nated aliphatics). Toluene was detected throughout the
facility in the near-surface soils, witb a migrratlon pattern of
high to low, indl.catLng ver? recent deposition wittr liulted depth
penetration. Because biodegradation and volatilization would have
removed D€aE-suEface toluene tbat was released 50 years agor lt is
not considered to be an MElFrelated ctreuLcal. The chlorLnated
aliphatics, or degreasera, on tbe otJrer hand, have a dletrLbution
pattern of l.ow to bigh, indLcatlng an older releage and/or
subsurface source. They are tled to general plant operations and,
because tbey are not particttlarly biodegfadable, can be long-lived.
They could be llnlced wlth UBD activltles and/or normaL LLndc
operatlons eince 1946. Degreasere found in open areaa subJect to
weatlrerinE were probably releaged lore recently and are not MED
related.
Subsurfaa€ BcCroak Ln tbo YlcLatty of old ItrJcotl,oa f,ella at Linde
RadLoaualldcc. Durtng the 1988-89 flrst-phaee actlvitles,
elevated radioactivity uag detected during a scan of a geological
core sanple taken near ttrr soutJrera set of old lnJectlon wells
(nonitoring well B29I{10D). To confLtm tlre existence of
radionuclidee ln t-he deep eubsulface [30 D (10O ft) ], two
additional boreholes werc advanced near B29I{10D and tlre tbree
injection wellg.
The first offset borehole (LIwRorl), wlthin 0.3 D (1 ft) of an
injection well, was drilled to bedrock and cored to 36.3 E (119 ft)
[approxiuatety 9 n (30 ft) into bedrockJ. Durlng drilllng,
adjacent wells reiCted.!9-arfUing water circtrlation. ftlt
material-in the closest injection well subsided 2 u (6 ft) during
50t 006r (r:21u192,4-27
drilling, and gas bubbled out of the water in the sma11 injectionwerr. The bubbles ceased when drilring stopped, which indicatesthat a hydraulic connection exists between the injection wells andLIWRO#I.
A subsurface garrra 1og (Table 4-13) and ganrna scan (Table 4_14)of the core nateriar fron LrwRo#1 indicated elevated gammaradiation at, a depth of approxinately 30 D (1OO ft); therefore, acore sample was collected at this depth and analyzed. forradionuclides. uranir.rn-238 (L76 pci/g), radi.m-226 (1.3 pci/g),and thorium-232 (o-4 pci/g) were detected. The core had a visiblelayer of yellow rnaterial within a suall fracture zone.A second borehole (LrwRor2), approxiuatery 3.3 n (11 ft) fronLrlrRo#l, !f,as drirled to bedrock and cored to 32 n (105 n) . Therel'as no evidence of hydraulic connection. A subsurface gauna rog ofthis borehole did not indicate elevated radLoacttvtty (Table 4-15).Scanning of, core uaterial frou LfWROr2 also indicated 1ow values incouparison with core materiar fron r.rwRorl (Table 4-16); therefore,samples were not collected f,rou LInROr2.
a The radloactlvlty found in r.,I?rRorl ie uost likety part of theV precipitated uateriats ttrat tinde reported as caueing the wells toPlug' The absence of tlrLe naterial 3 u (1o ft) fron the inJectionwell suggests a lluited injectlon zone.
Surf,ace trater aaC Bedhratc at aaC o": &ilrCc
surface water and sediuente nere sanpled for analysis of vocs,uetals, and radionucrldee at a variety of locations at and nearLinde (Figures z-L6 and 2-18). sa4lllng for nonradloroglcalparaneters rra3 conducted in Noveuber 19gg and for radlologlcalparameters ln .ruly 1988- For purlroaes of analyais, grese sernplinglocations have been divided lnto tuo group: offslte (upstreau anddownstrean on TnouLre creek) and onsite. Elrle dlvieion alsoreflects the work done before ttre RI.
offelte- saDpling rocatlon 4 is a contror sanpring pointlocated Just off the Linde property line, upstreau of the creekrsentrance to the proSierty.. -_s-aupling locations 1, 2, and 3 are tothe nortb 9f the property; location 1 is Just off the Linde
5ot_o05. txu2tlrz,4-28
ATTACHMENT 2
Uranium Content Estimates, Material Description,
Analytical Data for the Linde Site, and
Pre I iminary Material Char acteization Report
a a t a ' a i i ! ? ! ! ! !-: ! J'; i l
I I I I l-l I I lot I rCI I I I I I
lllllllllslll-llllll r_.r c!
tett c! ce!! cr!! o, o! o oo r I I CD t C) I I Oo I I Oo I <r I ooC{ I I t Or I N I I r\a\ I lstOl I or I tlO
r.{ r{ Ft F{ Ol o| F{ (\l
@. ! aatt c c o a e c? o crout r r oooooodcrooorooooocoootl I I FOIoiOT{FOiOrr{O(oUTOO.{OlnOOr{GlNr{lO lna\an (\aFF{N roGl
ttttr{ Ft ol Fl .{(\1
a!aa a o ! o!!! or!a oaI I I I (nO.VTOOOF I I OO I t I ltlnI I I I rOOltoolntt I t ?rOi I I llnFt{ ltNGt (\a
ttt
.l F{ .{
a . tra a a a t a o! o!r! araa o alFri I I I lOOr.rrlFOOl lOOl I IOOI I I I titr{cort(o@Ft titol I !ltoFtFt FtFt (\16l F{N
a o t .. !! !I oooooooooooooooooooI Or rr F O O O OOOr Cr(\16 to O!' O €OO.l Ul .o F Ul O F OFI qr!t Oa G| rOla la d .r. d
ti-aaattttNrlNFlN G| Ol t{ .'ldl
tdtlt
e<tro IFtl
t I (n(\lI dtt
26(\a Ilol
ar,oaCAoao.ctocr, ooo ., t oo O trcC E O O r.6' o c oooo Ct o ., ,rE r. O trEEd A a a g.; O a Oarrrlt d f{ AL. Ft a OCCL >r S a €o E AE 66.!0(ota .' E ue o o, Lr.t Qca c ., IE -. C5a .COO^OE aC:Ea ltt O-c, Cl OQC Joaadl.F. ^aEC .aC- | .CaaaCiA-r -)r}t .€r.-aa NCOo c.. qEl!iogrrEQl: .r}rI: .OtE -'f -?aAl, !aaa-^arOaL4rfrO-l .at:E oO-. I }tf4Oa.O.ICn6Itr-OrCCYa.,o ,'.Ct I 34Oayyyyyl Ollx.oaOO.ctrO6 >rOo Z .r.raLOOOOONoCC I r.r.C.raC5 euc l0 aaE.c--NNr,l-roocoooEco- Lr?.dt I-arrcc trtrcor.an l rr€qor.OOr{ t I OCOOOOO{1cr{d.l-{-.Cat>-tr+t t'.r ( < o o o o E.O () cl El O h& F. z & A
4-L29
@
I
rt
I
ca
o
o.|BoN
tq
GIIo
roIIt
!tIN
stIo
ao
BoNE
!caoAEoo
.pl+{
s
+Jooo
t
q,
a
o
!6
CIo}l
otr
oeG
?A
tr(,..1tr6or{o
oEci{
FI
IJ(t
d
oFq1-!t;
O_g
r,oo
o
IFl(3
illlillrtttrllltlli'iltlt-l
ott.A_e . .o.a o o o o ! ! o e ,,r 1 t lr|N I I AOOOO()OO I I \0O tO I I OI I ! F I t t-F9a\.r'tc,rtorr t I inlnl lvt I I gltl<ltl.vlqNa F t' qt
ttatttaaaeteaaraaztI I l: I I tOt I tt't I I I I II I I I I t I !\Ot I trrt I I I I Ir{
b't bobhii ob'r b?-o'r'r looro I oFln6 ! I \OFr I €Fu! I I (DO6olulrrt NUI 6 rOF
'!'!'! -'!'!'!'riiiiibiii:riiiiii! r llnr t t a t I I I t-a a aFa a a i i aol
a c a a ! a! a a a a ao o c, o oo o o oo O 6 NO+O60 a)Fr ur or F ro€ nl rt gr o F € o o or N 3 N c)(\.-t lO@(ororOUtOrFa C, Nd3.{It
t{ ?l
EDA';Attlttlttlt
bx
ol
l..
o I,O t e a .ar, I I lnll{tltlc,
NNO aF{FlrOd Ic{!
ogca,, ?al:r,0Ol' E o ECO OOO r, c: oao o ccc .c o o r..C:l.O tr OOOO O O a >.rot O C.c,€A a a a OO-l-{ d OaJa,> d fa ?l ^O.Cr. O a trCcr. ,r E 6 .Etr.OO C Ea aaGOOX ., .c 6Oa-. O arc r.f.r.OtrO C ., a,{}lE E 4O .€OO^O.c aClEO .rt OEarC, I fI.{ atar-.L-t ^eQE .OiOO-- e {>aC-r-r -lh 4lr-.-a otEO-.He ..O _ C.€c aiLL.CA.t -r>E -46-
!r I E - !{' '-tl -.ar a^-a -^g O ar.a, U Oaal€-E :.NOEO q' -lEOa.lt.IEIta3{C-OrcE-.!.,B "l.iiEi e f 3i;;;;;*gEEf Iigteg
. F{d.r_4=. :EaarEtrCCCor!.OA a rr.t,fOr.. -o_g]l. I (,COOOOO-{{i-{{-{-.-.e a.CrrFrd-E F{ ol((EroAto6.OOOOClhh-ZAA
4-130
\o
I$t
-)&octtrl
o
&(hc{ln
!c
ooEoo
F{'to!t,c
OE
Jjljiijjt:jlrjirlil,t ;,lllllll:rlllltllllrlllllllllllll
A A ! ! O a ! 0 ! 0 a c- t.t-r- ! ! ! c or-r \o-r -t-t iin-t 6-t o-l o | ! lo I I I ooa i - i I I r-@ t -r r o t co I I | \o I I llnN
-t ,1 tl Al ai
!!!o0!!oSaeetcaezI I I OO I r O I I I I I O I I It I I NOr I I Ft I I I I I € I I Id-t ?l N
ilaI\Ollldl
-)tttr)l
!,II
ccoorto.{(\'AA'r I tot! I trtl
trl.c
or
rt{o
o4,{€
c
ooa,r{
&ot{
of.rt
otro
+,a&t,co(,co
C)
atioEOCo gEt t 6 o g
E io O g.cEA a € |! q- ;a F{ O+r+r}r Fl lr .l -i rO o . occ! ,r E ! !I d-a e a .lcaoox .e E o6 e, o ., r.r.r.Aca c +, Is 68 fr eE fr99fi5 iEeE 1EEEE;E t ElgSdd;e.e t!i.g ':59ri 6g Ei, b-' g--i,i Saaa;ai 3 gEB E g3?fii ;it;EE-. 4 .EE-_-__rvt O!rt.o6oO.€tre. g +xEi96 E rg!3ss3ga3.65eEtsE!EE7 6r;EJ.,eJ ioleec ccrE.o.q! 3t!ae!.-'5gg8H I:EEgSsti6AeeEdEEfi
aa!oatze,.!aaaaaaaataata--! I lFl I I I I t I I lc,l lFl I I l. Ii i imt r t r I r r t lntl lrtl I I I I I I.l
11"r ol i ii bbbbbobi i $o1"t't bbr I I \O ! I I I tnFroorttod I I UtFr I I I o\!c{ NOIN,{Oaa\('l \O Gl{tl
rl!FCOUIjbdtod bbbbbbbbboqb'r'r b,bbEEa lo rrrNF{OOOOOlr|OOrtl I\oOTOOO@ O F H N -l Oa o|U|lOr o|rO \gdOr F Ntttaitarf F avf NFf .'tF N tt\O
4-131
\c
IN
oca
&Eo(,
FNto!ta
o";
a
ltlttlcrllltldll
AAAA!!!OttA.^l!t I lolot I tF-lI I I I trototl t lrqa.{
ur@A.e A . ., 3-t e a t e a 2 5 a 3 A Ar I tstrol'lt ! ! !_t-t-r-t-t-t-t-t-t-lttl 6. I rtttraaaaaiii
lrtroN FaaaNFrsroo!r,,r bbbinbi bb,bhibbNrOd uroi.{oor t o,6-oiororF{ Ftdlrt ,{ ff art - .f Ot
e.z a a t D e a a t t 2 a a a t a e Dr I r t6rt t t_l_|-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-!-lI r ! tlrt I t r t a a a a i a a iii
i.aaa aa eaazzerttaea,! I I tFt I -t_l_|-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-r-t-lI I l.lFll I l. t I t I i i a a a a i
@A 2 t A .A tI t I tort II tlt tt
ooitrA_oao93i-q o ooo , oq-. O CEtr E O r.EE' O O OOOO O. r, >r{aE o t aEE.l ^ 6 O9! -{ O orrrr> A e ;
x! o EC! 6!6e Ox E ooE ,t (ro Lr Eqco +, td9 E {I: tOO-O.C: .COlit O€X U Clr, LtaadI-. o.tr.OtrqC-- le E-t-t:l1' F.0...tronaFE orO _ 6t..r.EqJtr lrE.OLrlrEXE rL E ^--.arr0tt1,t.tAcE{qOOa.{O A {.OIOaltEitr-!rr_ .iEE*59? A ;;;;;*gf Igf EE.H 'l EE!80 E ]ltltlNY!iCOOECOP -rNgg-rl-r EEEEEot I -.oaor.p ..!OOr.r. OqeqOdE-.;-.!E>r
4-t32
!
--t a
&EoC)
rt-q
a t SFI td al11
(.{ f't (\,.I FrOO\€to N
otF etNlOar! I INl I
,Aetar tor rI trlt I
Fe . 2eI do I II rtt I
e . taI r{N I II dt I
orI
o|
r.{
o
o+t
ca
c
!o+,
ra
&of.
oL(l
o
o
lt6r{
+Jco(,coU
oaoEt,ooOr.coO -lOE EC., ooo 1EO clr,EL t O1,. O (\t..OO-{ r}4'----l! tL! O-r Oc, oocr-o L a o o.t
-{f.r-a a-ltOOlrr.O:{t{+rH
@
I(\t
(\
Io
lflnt
Jorl6d
J-
le
I
sN
@
I
EtraooeoC'
FEtorr=c
.E
a.scrt4.o
xrao+,6l.oAa
F.
cd
1'gaorra.oolO
| . F{.6lar6oeor.d.,,A}rtll-{rlCahotr{ar,Crr.ra{r{O.hJ
Carf.f.r,looo-.oOEltrrr.Ot,3.1 6aol.thc,,:oOr.t,4.oOO+.lraarro.I,{A'oe.€co.oaaoo.oaod!tl'a!lrllooao4r.Jca(r66r.O+rEe$Art--.!a +,r'cor.troloa!e60000+-- f, iL .|,,
'{UOOOaoi=ooe^rAAor,-o.!.-!g? F P? f 9
4-133
lritilil,ll
AA A Allstl11.{ | I
AAEAol I I Ilol I I ItO
r-t -leeI I Urr+n.1l\o
rt <l,.I r{[e-mail].|
2aetot I I Iort I I I
6J(
Ui1
$ao
o+t
ca
c
€o1)r.
&ora
ora(,
oco
r,.l,
ra+,co(,€og
ocoatr3C,+,8oa,ooLO Ooc l.Faa OEE .{ 0)or, 3CGO OO90 4Er, l. Oatoo I c
E{ -{ ..N ItE .r+_E c{OO-lO?t r-a C I d5 orEt O o!5 .r rCO' -tGlFa 6{. .O f,. f.?f.{Ha,E<
iiiil
.l-col (\{o(l ro\l r-
l-
l?
J"4orl
t,
ro
FIrt
!ca
&Eo(,
l
Ft,lot,€
.)
a
I&tc 4-E
CdrentrlticrE of tletets rd tadimrl.ides in Soit in
Areas t rd 2 ct Lirde
l0
0-z 2-6
(FILL: Ctcy, gravet,st.g, lnd fty rshto 2.7 ft; 0.3 ft (Ctcy bronr$ph.tt) Ed. Pt.tt.)
(FlLt: Ctay (Ctay
ard grlvcl, brolnstre to ood.3 ft) ptast. )
0-2 2-6
(tlLL: Ctay rrdgravet, sort
slag cnd f l,y rsh
An tytc 0.3 fr)(Ctay rutticotor
m.d. ptrt.)
Al,lmirur
Antlrcny
Artcnlc
Scrlun
Eclyttltn
Borcn
Cadllu
Crtclr.t
Chrclul
Cobrtt
Copp.r
I ron
Lcld
I!$Lrlur
Hargarxla
Xotytdmra
lllcht
Potrl3lur
Sctcnlul
Sltwr
Sodlun
Thrtti n
Vmrdltm
Zlrc
Urrnlu-25E
Radlun-Z?6
Thorlur-232
Thoriu-230
14,900
t5.ll
6r.4
243
1.31
38
1.3t
24,m0
45.5
t2.8r
t,060
27,200
t63
7,3r0
57!
25.5r
tE5
1.710
216
2.7
l,260r
E0.8
45.6
634
<9.0
5.0 r 1.0
<1.0
5.9 r 0.C
I 1,700
ro.y'
y.7
100
o.8c
t9.E
0.8c
55,200
17.4
s.f
z2.E
19,400
24.9
15,500
4A
17.1
21.6
1,710
171
t.Er
893r
36.9
30
59.5
<llt.0
7.0 r 2.0
<1.0
12 r 2.0
29,600
lo.5l
120
,7i2
4.9
8i2.7
o.sy'
150,000
12.1
s.?r
t3
16,900
35.9
15,500
2,130
17.5rf
t,5t0
t56
4.1
1,60
17.5r
13.E
z2.f
<.0
t.2 t 0.3
0.t r 0.4
3.4 r 0.J
9,700
13.c
7!.Eu
l.*
a.*t.f
6l,rt00
t6.E
fi.61
20.4
16,900
a.*
13,200
1{n
a.*
3a.a
lrt6d
l!t
3.t
l,t6d
a.*
4.7
?tr.6
<9.0
t.7 t 0.9
<1.0
t.6 r 0.1
7,m0
r2.*
55.2
10t
1l
37.7
lr
63,200
27.6
to.2)
121
z2,l@
4.9
4,Et0
9|7
20.31
30
l,o2or
172
5
trd
30.6
r6.5
129
1 1 ,200
14.1b
87.5
r04
I .2r
29.5
1.21
55,900
29.E
lr.y'
25.9
20,300
27.8
I 5,200
56
g.4r
u.z
1,8O
149
5
l,l7!r
37.2
32.5
142
16.0 r 6.0 xA'
3.1 r 0.8 rA
<1.0 xA
6.3 r 0.9 xA
Ictrl,r .ra rrportd ln Vke;
lsupto dctcctlsr tlolt.
ttlA - mt eaetped.
rdiqrrtldo .r. ln *lte. SqUrf tocrtlqr tre dron ln f lgruro 2-1 cd 2-2.
o
5or_ooa. (u2/2clr2,4-134
Tabte 4-9
Cssrtraticrs of ttct.ts ard Rdisrrtides in Soit in
Arcas 3 ard 4 at Lirdc
2-6
829R10t B29Rl0l
t -3 l-7
(FILL: Sandy (CtcY brosr,
gruYct, rd tight grey
brick to 4 ft) irctusimc)
0-z
(FILL: SltdygrlYat, 50t $rdto 1.9 ft)
(FILL: Ctayto 4 ft,' (FlLt: ciay
Urdirt. ctty 0't ft;
to 6 ft) cotErct.)
(Ctay brout,
no ptlst.,
fissitc)Anat6cr
Attminn
Antimony
Arscnic
Errira
Seryttiul
Boron
Cadllrl
Crlclu
Chrmlu
Cob.tt
Copp.r
I ron
Lcrd
\ xagncllu
l{rlrgrua
llotyUena
Ilckct
Potassltn
Sctcniu
Si tvrr
Sodit.a
Thettiu
Vanadiu
Zirr
Urunira-ZJB
Rediur226
Thorirrn-232
Thoriur2SO
23,900
10.t'
166
2E
5.5
61.4
1.?
168,000
9.5
9.1r
t4.6
5,490
8.2
It,4gt6
2,050
18.2r
7.31
glor
53.4
t.Er
949
ts.*
9.1r
a.3
<1.0
4.0 r 1.0
3.0 r 1.0
2.9 t 0.6
15,7@
12.61
60.9
1n
2.2
43.3
tr
89,300
24.1
lo.5r
r5.9
10,900
21r
20,500
680
2lf
24
'l ,160
87.7
5
1,'lt0
2ll
t6.t
rE.5
<9.0
2.7 t .9
<1.0
2.6 ! l.l
30,8@
13.2
207
276
6.3
94.1
t)
1Ur,0@
r3
to.5)
8.7
5,E9!0
3t.E
36,300
3,070
20.c
12.7
t,310
40.4
2. tr
1,47!
zo.c
lo.5r
39.5
<10.0
2.0 r 1.0
2.0 t t.0
3.t t 0.9
15,000
14r
fi0
r52
t.zr
35t.*
43,600
27
1t.6r
22
25,t00
26.3
12,700
3rt
8.3r
u.t
t,960
tEt
3.2
l, 160r
4t.7
37.6
76.9
llA'
xA
xA
ltA
19, t00
t4.31
150
20J
1.4
30
l.*
16,500
55.3
rr.c
tqt
30,60
42.9
7r0,0
igt
25.Er
xt.7
2,04lt
206
7.2
t,ld
a5.6
50
2t3
'13,300
12.!r
99.9
89.2
lr
53.E
lr
50,900
a
to.2r
25.3
24,6@
25.3
t3,600
47A
20.51
5.5
1,960
t95
5.2
l,o2or
tA
38.6
89.6
54.0 r 10.0 €.0
t2.0 r 2.0 1.5 t 0.7
2.0 t 1.0 1.3 r 0.9
Zl.0 t 2.0 1.6 t 0.5
tttetrtr.rrr rcportrd ln dfg, mdlqrrtlda .rr in Fcllg'
rsarptr d.tcctlor tlrlt.
hl - tot rnrtyrcd.
setlrr9 locrtlsr rrr lhorr ln flgurer 2'1 un 2'2-
5or_ooaa lxuzclrzl 4-135
CdEantrstiqrs
T$te 4-10
of kt ts rd tadicrrtid- in Soit in ArG. 4
(8cru.dt Euitdirrg l0) rt tirde
Anrt6ct
o-a 4-a -i:i-- 4-t.5 t-3 3-z(FILL:
Grcvctly ctryrith btrct oitto 4 tti 0-l frcmcrctr)
. (Fitt: Ctry(Ct!y d.rt high ptlrt.brorn, lil to 3 tt; 0.2Ptlst. ) cotEr.t.)(Clry - bcogrtfl pt.tt.)
(Ctay-
grccnish
erry rEd.pt.3t.,. 0-t
cotEretr)
(Ctcy - darkyet torish
broro, mad.ptest. )
Atuliru
AntlEny
Arrcolc
Earlta
torytllra
Eoron
Gr&lu
Crtclrl
Cttralr.r
cob.tt
CopF.r
Ircn
Lcrd
llr$torlt.o
ll!€rm.a
llotytd.'Ia
Iickat
Pot!$lr.E
Setcnlt.r
Sl tvcr
Sodita
Thrttirr
Venediut
Zlrc
Uruniur23E
Rcdlu-226
Thoriu-232
Ihoeiur2SO
14,2@
r6.*
t0t
t3t
6.3
4.1
6
E2,100
rt.t
68.E
492
15,4@
1,120
9,7p0
1,37!
27,
265
2,5&
7a
2.71
3,240
2s.c
437
30.t
910 t 50t50 r l0
€.0
E20 r 20
9,510
17.,
28.3
74.7
1. tr
2t.31
I .lr
52,&)
t6.a
to.6r
4.2
15,70o
24.6
l(,700
38t
2t.,
15.7
1,4611
tl3
2. lr
t,06d
:n
4.2
32.2
6i2 t 12
9 rl.0
l.( r 0.9
3.0 r 2.0
17,000
38.6
,7.4
86.1
t.5
u.7,
l.3r
1E,20
20.5
r3.*
t7.E
30,1@
It.2
4,110
ln
u.7b
ta.t
lrl3d
2t2
2Jt
tr33d
52.3
{0.3
31.7
72 rt!
1.6 r 0.9
<1.0
5.1 r 0.6
ll,4gg
2.6
l..t
9Et.f
a.5r
1.2
50,m0
t6.9
fl.c
22.9
17.9t
8.J.
t3,t0
aa
8.5r
19.2
1,460
r32
2.a)
l,lld
:1r.9
8.1
55. r
€.0
2.2 I 0.9
3.0 t 1.0
1.0 r 0J
t 1,200
87
?o)
94.3
lr
20r
lr
2,E50
t6
t 1.5
56.5
e6, l0o
35.1
2,94O
6t
20r
22.8
1,00r
20r
zr
1,0@r
t9.7
11.6
E9.L
4.O
1.3 r 0.7
1.2 t 0.6
0.9 r 0.J
12,a00
t2t
2t.3b
t86
l. t5
2t.31
l. tr
,r2A
16. t
to.6r
74.5
13,2@
u.3
4rl?o
172
2t.5f
8.9
lrO6d
2t.ll
2. tf
l,o6d
el.!l
2,.5
n.t
u'
xA
I
TA
5O3-OOa. lt:2l2Etrzl 4-136
Satltl tc.tlar rr. .hflr ln Fi$,lru 2-l ord Z-2.
Ictrtr .re rcpoft.d ln Vte; rrdlcrrrHdee r?. ln F]ltf,.rsqto d.tGcti6 tlolt.
trr - mt rnrtpcd.
IStc 4-lt
Cd.rlrrtratiaE of lctate rd Radicrrtides in Soit in Ar.. 4
(Erst of Euitdire 30) at Lildc
An tytc
0-2
(FILL:
Slnry siltr,ctrg, fty .th)
Sarptim Locotions'atd Dcgths (tt\
2-6 0-2 2-6 17-?1
(FILL: Grrvclr' (CtaY gray/brom
cand, f[y alh, (Ctry rutticol'or:d high ptut. 17 ft,(Ctry brorn .3ph.tt 0-.3 f t ttEd. Pt.3t liE tm. trlYctEd. pt6t.) ctry bqrrth) tor ptt3t.) fitt .bovl)
Atmlna
AntiDorly
Arrcnlc
Berlur
Bcryt t lrl
Eorqr
Ca&lu
Catclrl
Chrolrl
cob.tt
Coppcr
lrqr
Lcrd
llcgnolu
Irngarua
xotytd.trr
lllckel
Potrstltl
Sctenlrr
sitwr
Sodiul
Ihrttft.r
vanrdlu
Zlrc
UrunlrrSt
tadiut-Zb
IhoriurZl2
Ihoelua.2!lO
t6,600
91.5
20.6r
16
z.E
37
tr
76,t00
20.1
lo.lr
109
9,&!0
8:1.(
It,5oo
l14@
20.61
21.6
t,o3ot
20.6)
2.tr
t,o3or
20.61
tE.9
2U
<l t.0
2.1 r 1.0
t.0 r 1.0
2.1 r 0.6
E,870
39.3
1E
1t6
2.4
EE
t .lr
51,600
26.1
21.a
27
14,700
39.E
l5,Eoo
37t
32.7
31.2
1 ,160
zii2
5.a
I ,140)
9:r.t
39.4
75.2
€.0
2.3 r 0.9
1.0 t 0.E
1.4 r 0.t
19,200
to.c
7t.,
35t
I
Il
0.911
75,1O
1t.?
9.1)
42.r
ll,20
6l.a
E,Zl0
t ,170
tt.f
2,.1
etd
r0t
r.c
1,2m
tt.,
20.1
tl.7
<10.0
2.E r t.0
<1.0
1.9 r 0.3
9,060
ll.2l
21,
roil
!.tr
22.f
t.ll
58,@
r2.E
llr
21.4
t6r@
22.1r
15,60
427
2:2.f
21.7
l,1O
r6E
2,2'
t,toor
10.5
t2.,
t3.9
€.0
1.5 r 0.E
<1.0
l.? t 0.(
8,{00
24.7
?9.3
,7
0.95r
r8.c
0.95r
17,469
t0
9.5r
20.1
t6,5@
tE.c
5.18
t7t
rE.c
t6.6
t,240
il2
1.c
fl'
27.3
4.9
a2.3
<4.0
0.6 t 0.{
l.( r 0.E
2.t t 0.5
Ietrtr .r. r.portd ln fr'tc; rrdlsrrtldo trr ln pClle. 3etltr tocrtlo! r1 rlprr ln
Flgurec 2-1 at 2-2.
lsuptr dctcctlqr tlllt.
503_006. (t:2lalrz,4-t37
i
!co
5(,,o
c
cIo
6
t
a
l|co
GIJo
oc
q
EoU'
o
(,o.
c
o
a
ao1'
(,a
o
!a
oI
o5
Cu
E!atdettLCi,Ooi
OeLua ocOeaLt,a!oaarc
acLEE
-q-
C
FN
c;l*-dnJ VF
o.o oao.Flv m
{fl i
oooo
errnlyr\OFVl\,
----
C' C'
aa aa
C'C' N
oo c)
at{ {
oo c
=---
?,:Fcl
alt
C'OC'\O
C, rrr
c)
{rl
G'G'G''t I
IFlrOer Ivl
"^,c,1,.t rO F! Fi I.\IN.\IN Ii:ii I- r-- IC- L L Iat o o ItatE I2cFts I
I-tLrtI!^ IO r! I;j- i i'.:_ c..o_ t iox ?v [e-mail]: I s!H3-E-s:iBBEFervnsl^jlo'a";
:=S I{-"'- E '''E-'"{3-*{: Ei4NF-
ggL I O N N c, Nv E$ I -I_T".
I
I^t
i - : I I '.'-
"-. -L o!* ,\ i- r- .o'o i.,n -.-.C Cr, | .-=. ; I s=sE*BrB==xi:HEgd;gs-Bs'di..rC- | o.->iie I o- t-- d .fd -' -'.-.1. I tr, N inL--- I _v tJ! (. I
I
^lultsl
.3.r: I aaq'qq'q o.oo o b.c .€ Lo.o
g i:; | =.==s'.'ddar;; aI es.;I65:5ii;-;il-Is=-t-
I3tt5l
.3;: I t'.'-jqn o-Nal F -6{ -{ .?{
3 t="; I i=*;g'*-g.= sf p i gi.ist6 *i ixi i
-;.!l:o,\.o
l- F ?
I
I
ul
-E I -;=..a I i: ::s: ti i.l ..'q '-.o
i;E E I i=*$"n-i=.HE_Egieiii*Esia=iEE I d o' t' --- F-aOO I5--E I -_
= F
I
Irlo I - . -- - -- ^ I -G -r--= n-O.e { -0.6 Oi.r6
L, g- I r 9'v.aro -- dr$otiE*3*tt-l-urF-
^t:l
I:tc o I q-j- ,.-oo 6 -a ro -.o€_>r I ... . .-. -;:i =i I f3E!-B-g_=eeEF$EFN3=,|EFNBs!;-Elg i jd-' -'('c, E I^t:l-l- I I r -- ->! : I_: ::i :i,: : '1 i:1:q:i li! I B==x-3-E:=er5E3s3a5i3ns*sifEd I h--E-:-E I i; g : 3- NC", 3I
I
I
I
II
; I !:*ic'iE;s,,gEiil;#ii*
N
o
tO
tt
ra
3a,L
oo
aO:E
r?o-I;9asEsiEer!i€EEts38aszc
sE
E3
aco!aL
Eo(,toC'
4 -138
oEc
=(!
oa
.E
o
(I,c
E
-g+5
Eofoo)>i!E(!
.9E(o
TE
o
ol
!c(E
o(!o
o
-(Ja
a.;
euta
o
!
trf
o:
**o
llluo rurd r$l
EEEt
T=; !i'
-l-
iiilEiE:fr3: 1;l
EEE=EEr E i=
O HiIi HNZ
Hlul }lru lrtrs.--
4-99
o
l=IG
l3t:l1ldt-
t;
$nrr
nt {tE12, nl2t
1A
RIII
2S
3{
nr2l
o
A
r-d-l
-r_ RILRoro
-x- FEr{Ct
Flnst-atrs[ srr?tI€Locrllor rsrrftoocrctn r9tt - xrRot l!t'l
stcotoflrst, snftmLocrilor rsrnor.orr$3Ei l$r0 . ror ttltr
BrJtLoDt
Pnefft 8ororfi
v77V
NS{N
0-0.r
0.3t - f
SCrl.E
?t 130 rtfl
2l {6 l(rEns
Figure 4-2
Area 3 of Radioactive Contamination in Soil at Linde
r29 Rt510!{.ocl
4-100
l=
izi:l'
i=
I o,: a 3 ar,, "?'
I
I
rrso{ I-l
tlnsl-pr{l$ srrPrlrGrocrilo. {srFL:DcT8tl r9tt - xAqor t9!91
stcoo+Hlst s^rPLlilGLocrTlor (sr}PL:o
iloYtr€tR l9t0 - xrr 19il,
f-d-l a,rLort
PnetnTY Sctortt
-.+-- RllLRoO
_x_ ttr.ct
o€Ptx 0a l.Eo-R€rrIEo collrl.trlrilol
Nv.\\t
rTrrrm
0 - 0.r
0.51 - .'
{.0r . y
tr --trnIHI
scrt
r00 ?00 Fttr
l0 60 Ertr3
I Hr0t
| *to.'
I Hr0J
i rror
I Hrcs
I ..osIol121 -
r29 Rt510l].ocx
o
Figure 4-3
Area 4 of Radioactive Contamination in Soil at Undeo
4- 101
oE
=o
-9if
oo(U
=E'ooYB9c.o
O).rEo
U'
.9oco
.Eoo
G,
Exo
o-o-
ci8qEE=XYI hro* :.itt gEqr q=e Ee.s 5E
ETEg raii
BEE
= FE
ir: -:rl>=Eg
E!.!9E(DE-eXAmol
olta8
Er.oltF(E
Gt(\t
4- 102
E
=@(u
(Doo-cE--Et-r.-d
--L-otu
=@rJ) Eio-t.= q)!FI-b.-E (Up
Jl--oo;.-,r rLL(J ^o)jJ>-.--
-LooC'()OGE ro-(!<(r
oo(I,o
6ct
C;
c
EG
6
' otltl
3 s,E
El .. Idtdt3rq t*t-
ll '-
|gNE '1'
i;aa !I
El s:J'Et =!
IslgsIcEoEilsii
-6U6JbJ 6J H
. r{luil :}nu llus
-
I
I
o
4-103
o
NOT
Figure 4-6
Areas of Badioactive contamination in Building 14 at Linde
TO SCAL=
@
REilOVABLE
coitcE}fin^'noils
EXCEEDOIOBACKGROUND(frr/t00ctdl
ALP}IA:
1st Floof
2nd Floor
BETA.GAIIIIA:
lst Floor
2ttd Floor
FANGE AVG.
'<3 - t@€ 8'
<70 -'t60<70 - tto
It
o
<m
76
ffiD
@ilCEITRANONS
ETCEEDIiIGBACKGBOUND
(d9nr/100 cnt)
[PHT,:
1!il Floa
2nd Floor
BETA,€IITIIIA:
lsl Floor
2lnrlt]pp,r
RAT{GE AVG.
<7n - 278.4fr<7n - 1,170
<40 - 1,310<40 90
120
55
26,096
811
..tr r55t.r
4-10{
Table {-5
ltetals Coucentrations ia a Liude Borebole (829R61)
Contaminated vith Fly Asb
Analyter
829R61b0-2 ft
(FiIl: Gravel with clay,slag, and f1y ash; grayish
black)(Clay, brown)
Altrmintrm
Antiuony
Arsenic
BarirrmBerylliun
Boron
Cadniun
Calcium
Chronium
CobaIt
CopperIron
Lead
Magrnesium
Manganese
MolybdenumNickel
Potassium
SeleniumSilver
SodiunThallitru
VanaditrmZinc
t SolidsChlorideNitrateSulfate
Uraniuu-238
Radiun-226
Thorium-232
Thorium-23O
7r390
11.7c
62.6
96.2
1.3
32.3
1.4
85r 100
35.1g. gc
151
14i 50O
L2L
8r 840
702
19.5c
31.8
976c
LO7
3.7g76c
19.5G
22.2
146
85.8
23.34
0. 56
272
<10.02.L t 0.61.4 t O.95.1,1 O.6
12 r 0O0
13.3c
99.9
141
1. lc
23.L
1. 1c
5r 390
24.L
11. la
26.4
22 rOOO27.2
5r 400
502
22.2'
36.5
L, LzO
168
5.4
1r l1oc
24.e
32.4
118
92.5
L7.2
1.6
233
NAd
NA
NA
NA
'Concentrations of uetals and anions are given
radionuclide concentrations are in pci/g.bsarnpling locati.on ls shown in Figrures 2-2 and
'sanple detectloti' Iirtt.dNA-- not analYzed.
in ng/kg;
4-3.a
50r_006. (xuzElrzl 4-L25
Ta-ble 4-5
Radionuclide Concentrationg i-B Soil
Areaa of Radioactive Coftrmtnrtioa at
i-a
Lt.ode
Borehole'SamplingDepth (ft)Uranlum-238(Pci/9)RadLun-225(pcr/s)Thorlun-232 Thoriusr-230(pci/e) (pci/s)
Backgrouad (DeaD)
Area 1
829R01
B29RO5
829RO7
829Rl0
829R12
l{Lnlnun
Maxtmun
HeanStandard Deviatlon
Ar.a 2
829R65
829R66
B29R68
829R69
829R,71
829R73
l{lntnum
Maxinu.rnl{eanStandard DcvLttlon
Arer 3
829R100
829Rl01
829R103
829R104
B29R:,O5
B29R1l2
829R114
50!_ooa. lx2l2tlrz,
0-1rL-2o-1L-2"2-30-1"2-3o-2b2-4"o-1b2-4
0-1bL-20-12-4.o-2"o-2"2-4o-1D2-4o-lbL-2
0-1f2-41-3'3-51 - 1.5'3-4 -'o-lbL-2o-2'2-3'o-lb2-3o-2'2-3
3.1
16.08.08.0
14. O11.0
15. O9.09.016.011.06.O
6.0
16.O11.23.4
8.0
9.O4.040.0
1tl. O16.04.015.016.o7.07.0
a.o40.012.79.7
7.0
7.O
54.0g.o
7.04.08.0t0.0
9.0
31. O15.0
_ 6.0-y.o
7.O
1.1
4.O
3.O4.O
8.OL.7
7.O
1.O5.0?.o4.O2.3
1.0
8.O4.32.2
3.52.50.62.23.1lC.OL.23.22.32.42.3
o.6
14.O3.43.4
2.21.1
12.O1.5'8.O
1.13.32.L1.95.O4.O2.35.52.3
L.2
2.01.0
1.. tt
1.0
2.O2.01.01.01.03.0
2.O
1.03.01.60.6
1.01.90.{1.01.03.0L.20.91.02.51.0
0. tl
3.01.4o.?
2.5o.7
2.O1.32.2t.23.30.90.6t.21.0
2.O2.6t.2
1.4
1.52.44.4
23. O1.3
30. o1.15.9
12. o2.71.5
1.1
307.49.4
7.22.8o.91.36.3
23. O2.8
5.O
3.O6.73.6
o.9
23. O5.75.8
5.01.5
23. 01.5
16. O1.64.28.1
2.O4.25.71.94.21.3
4-L26
Tab1e 4-6
( continued )
oaaa ) of 3
Borehole'
s,opling
Depth (ft)Uraniuo-238(pci/s)Radir.rn-226(Pcr/s)
Thorlrrn-232 Thoriu.st-230
lpcl/ql (pci/g)
Area 3 (cont'd)
829R116
829R128
829R129
829R130
829R132
829R134
829R138
829R140
829R142
829R143
829R144
B29R1rt5
829Rl46
829R151
829Rl52
829R153
829W1lD
_1c
- 2€
- 0.5_1€
-2
- o.5r- 0.55- o.sb- o.5r- o.sb- o.sD
-1o
-1-2_3.
-lf-2-3-1'-2'-3'
- ta
-3-1r
-3-1r
3
1
2.
3
1D
5
o-2r2-4o-1.51-3'o - o.5'2-42-4'4-5
0
2
0
0
1
2
o
0
o
0
o
o
o
1
2
o
1
2
o
1
2
o
1
2
o
1
2
o
1
2
o
1
2
o
1
2
o
4
lso. o
170. O
5. tl
4.0
6. t[
5.9
166.9.16.0
4.79.6
10.014.08.4s.210.ort.9
8.05.55.3
5.6
100.o
21.0
8.3
37.O2.65.1
2.68.3
6.82.68.3
6.88.63.7
2.8
12.O
6.O
2.6
170.0
17. 132.9
13. O
17. O
4.0
8.0
2t[. O
5.O
- _93. o7.0
240.O
22.O
1.3
4.9
1.8
1.49.14.09.11.63.5s.2
6.71.61.63.6
1.11.13.7t.21.2{3.O
17.O
12.0
14.O
2.L1.6
2.30.8
0.72.30.8
0.7
3.70.7
0.9s.o1.6
o.7
240.09.tl33.3
6.O
2.O0.85.53.81.03.7
1.7
5.0
3.O0.90.90.91.00.9
1.C0.9
1.1
0.8
0.7
1.O
1.4
1.0
L.21.4
1.81.{1.0
1.5
1.92.21.0L.21.11.11.31.00.81.3
1.00.80.9t.21.31.0
1.1
0.6
5.0
1. tl
0.8
1.0
2.O1.0
1.21.01.00.91.0
710. O
46.0o.5
2L.O
2.32.66.3
12.0
6.35.5
5.58.2
15. O2.6
1.52.61.1
17. O10.oo.{o.6
110.040.0
29.O6s.0
2.62.3
7.5
L.2L.27.5
L.2
L.2
o.8
25.O
L.2
5.7
1.O
o.4
710. 024.497.1
1.3
1.6
o.?
14.0
18.0
1.7
38. O
2.3
l.tlni.roum
ltaxi-mlre
MeanStandard DeYlrtton
Area 4
829R23
829R24
. 829R25
)B'29927
503_00aa lxzlzalrz,4-L27
Table {-6
( cont inued )
Borehole'sa.nplingDepth (ft)UranLrrn-238(Pcl/s)Fadluo-226
(PcL/st Thorium-232 thorir:gr-23O(pci/g) (pci/g)
Area 4 (cont'd)
829R28
829R29
B29R:t2
829R:14
829R:'5
829R38
829RaO
829R41
829R43
B29R44
829R45
829R46
829Rrt8
829R50
829R52
829R53
829R125
B29r{9D
l{lnLmu
HaxLoum
Ueanstand!,ad Devlatlon
L -2.2 -4o -1.2 -4.o -lb2 -3o -2.2 -4"4 -61.5 - 2. 5.6.5 - 7.5"'t-?c5 -7.2 -3.5 -6L -22 -3"o -2.2 -4o -lb2 -3L -2.2 -3O -1o2 -3"o -2t2 -6o -2.2 -4o -1L -2.o -lDL -2o - 1.5.1.5 - 3.3 -6.o -2.2 -4
20.o
s.o
88.O
32.O
7.O
5.O60.020.o
1tt. O
21.O
30.0
930.o
62.O
?2.Og.o
2.O1s.o
10.o
9.O10.o
9.O
43.Og.o
170.O100.o
11.O
8.O6.0
7.O
7.O
12.O
11.Og.o
9.O
45.O
100.0
13.O
2.O
2.O
930.O{6.8
136.O
10.o
5.O
42.O
1tt.Otl.O
1.6
1'0. O?.oL.73.11.1
150.O
9.O
1.62.21.6
13.O{.o2.72.72.2
11.O
1.3
22.O
6.O
2.42.52.6
1.51.9
6.O
6.O2.4
7.O2t.o30.o
7.O
1.O
o.g1s0.o9.822.4
1.01.0
1.0
1.01.6
1.0
2.O1.03.0
L.2
1. tt
3.01.tt
1.0
3.O
1.O1.0
3.0l.o
0.7
1.4
2.O
1.0l.o
1.3{.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.O
2.O2.0
1.01.0
0.74.0l.t00.7
27.O7.4
88. O
19.06.3
2.O2s.0
10. oL.7
5.4
1.6820.0
33.0
5.11.02.1
16. O2.92.4
6.51.5
19. O1.8
110.O
24.O2.3
1.46.11.84.1
14.O
4.52.22.6
13. O
27.O15.0L.2
o.7
820. O
30. 7
119.5
'Sanpllng locetlone are thosa la llgnrrc 2-1.
h,adioactlvely contaalnat.d to 0.15 a (O.S ft;.
"RadtoactlveLy contaalnatod lotl intcrnel.
5O3_OO6a at:zlalrz'{-128
lr
LINDE SITE PRELIMINARY MATERIAL
GHARACTERIZATIO N REPORT
FUSRAP LTNDE REMEDIAL ACTION
TONAVI'ANDA, NEW YORK
FEBRUARY 2OOO
cournecT NO. DAcA3',l'95'D'0083, TERC,
TASK ORDER NO. 32
lll
IT GORPORAfiOf,
A Membq of The ITfuUP
U.S. ARtttrf CORPS OF ENGINEERS
BUFFALO DISTRICT OFFICE
FORMERLY UNLEED SITES REHEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table
1
2
3
1
5
6
7
8I
10
Vol gtile Organio C ompou nds (VOC) I F][ticel Results
iii-oil.utr. i i no ec*l etaciaUe pruet AnaMical Rcsttlts
TaEct RffiA ch rr€ctedstiGt
foxlCty by Edraction Proccdurc (EP)
EP Hcrtitltl* Analysls
EP Metals Analysis
TotalMetals AnalYsis
Rartlologlo.lAnelvsis (56 Boreholc!)- ^ .
Estimatod VotumeJlvlrss of soil aM Debris
contafne+ln" Adion Lenrels forChcmicals of Conccm
oAc lI-si063, TERC-S
T!.lrolllcr No. el
Folru.ry,200
fr-m-rmrr--tllrrichlrrmzlocrieeci' Lnar Slb. Tqrrwrnoc FLsl'AP
I
a
List of AcronYms
.glkg ,,,,rnlcrcgrams Per kilogram
*g/L.,,, .. ..mlcroqrams P€r lit€r
AA. .. .... ..atomic absorbtionAEC,,......... Atomic Energy CommisslonANL.........., Argonne Natlonal Laboratories
BDL..,..,..... Below Deteciion Lirnit
BME .",.,,,BaseNeutrel gnd Acid Extractable
8N1,,......'..' BechtelNstional, lnc'CFR........... Code of Federal Regulations
crn..,..,.,,..,. centimetersDHF'......'..' Destination Handling Facil'lty -DOE.......... United Slates Department of Enerpy
8P,............ Extractlon Pmcedure
FUSRAP.. .. . "...... ".... Former|y Utilizctl Sltes Remedial Action Program
1T,...,. ,....lTCorporatlonm............... meterMED.........' Manhattan Engineering Olstrict
mg/kg ,,...',.mitllgrams per-kilogram
NRc ,...,,........,............'.UniteO Staies Nuclcar Regulatory Commission
NYSDEC ..............,...:6r.'t State Department ot ghvironmental Conservation
PAHs......... Polyapmatic hydmcarbonspCl/9.......... picocurles PergrrmFpg-......,,,,, personal protedive equignant.
PMCR....,... irretiminaiy MatcrtalchatEctedzstion Report
Ra-226....... Racliurn'226RCRA.,.,,',. Resource Consarvation Rccovcry Acl
RFP........... rcquost for proposal
Rl .............. Remedlallnrrestigaton
ROD ,....,.... Reoord of DecisionSOR.......... Sum of RatlosS.U....,,,,,,.. Standad UnitsSVOC ......,,ScmFVolatlle Oqanic Compounds -TAGM ...'....technicalAdminisrativa Guldancc Document
Th-230... ........Thorium-230Th-232... .,,,,.,,Thor|uffvz3,zU-238.,,,,.,.. Uranium 238UrO2,......... uranium oridcUsAbE...... u, S. ArTrly Corps of EngineersusEpA ......uniteo stites Envimnmcntal Protecilon AgencY
Vocs......... Volatilc Oqanlc Compounds
Td. odar No. &l c rr ' Liilr slb' Ton'wlnoa tr-sMP
Flbrrtry, ffi
geqiibnr i,,*, trfrodstisi
Section 1.1 -Site History
The Manhattan Engineenng Distrid (MED) ancl its lmrnediete successor' the Atomlc Energy Commisston
(AEC), conducted numerous activiues affoss the country during the 19{0s ancl 1950s involving research'
developnent, pmcassing, and pmdudion of uranium and thorium, and slorage of processing residues.
Nearly all of thls wortr involved some participation by pnvete contractors and instltutions' These sites'
contaminated during the early period of the nudcar program, vrcre decontaminatod or stabilized in
accordance wtth survey methods and guidellnes then in existancc. These sltes were subsequantly released
for other uses. Since that time, honever, guidelines have become morc stringent and sit6s are belng
reevaluated end remediated under FUSRAP. The LiMe, Ashland 1, Ashlald 2, and seaway lndustriai Part
sites are all locatad in Tonaranda, Neur york. and togethsr condltute one of the FUSRAP pmlests'
From 1942to 1g46, several bulldlngs atthe Unde sirc (arrentU Prrcir, lnc) locatetl in Tonalanda' New
yort. were used in aclivities for separation of seven cliffarcnt uEnlum ores under a MED cofltr8ct' Four of
thc ores csme from Africa and thr"c came from the Unitcd gtatcs. The Amelicsn oful ulGll reslduals len
from the extraction of vanadium. The vanedium removal prcoe$ also remoraed much of the naturally
occuning radlum fmm the ores. Thus, tha Amcrican ore reslctues rvere low in radium compaf€d to the levels
of uranium and thoflum. The African ores containod uranlum ln secillsr eguifibrium with thorlum and radtum'
Bacause of the relative abundanca of radium ln the resitue from the prccesslng of the Afrioan ores' these
ore residues were kept s€pamta from the domeslic residues to prascruG thc PotentiEl for lder erdraclon of
radium. Thes,e Atrican oll residues uere shipped to the hmcr lrke onlario ordnanca v\hdc where they
wers storett. At the Linde property, oflnc(lhip of BullrllrEs 30, 31, 37 and 38, whlCh rrere built by MED on
land o,vnod by Unton crrbide, was transferrcd to Lindc when the MED c!fitract was tcrmlnated (BNl' 1 993) '
The principal contamlnanB of conoem at the Lindr sitc wcc from the prooessin0 of tYastes and residues
generated from th6 s6parailon of unnium from the ore (Phasa 1) sincc rcsldues generded by other pnases
of the operations (Phrses 2 and 3) were reporte<tly to hs\re been rcoycled' Thc processing astivities resufted
in radioaotirre contamination of pofuons of the pfoperu, the untlcrlying aquifer rnd Fooessing buildings'
Historical suNry! and Rcmcdlrl Invest[*ion (Rl) results indicac that the unde pmpertv has four sources of
MEDrelatett ndioecihrc olntaminalion: in surface ard subsr,rrface soils: re$ctual actloactivity in the uranium
processilrg buildlnos(Bulktings 14,31,30, and 38, (Builttings 30 and 3t hnre alrcady becn demotishecl));
pmcessing efiuents that pGdpitatcd afrcr bctng lnJected Into fractud bcdrock and thc contld'zone aqurfen
anct tn sediments tbund in building stlmpc and tho storm and ssnltsly s€tflEr systcms,
The Linde pmprrty is approxlmltdy 1gs acrcs in size and is hcavlU lnttustrlelized- Most of tha arca rs
lmpervhus to hfiltration sf $oflnwat?r as about 66 acl€s of the properu oonsiss of bqildings, gclet"sll(s and
pwement, Tha cmaining arca consists of compaded gravcl surfact3 that allw some infiltrstlon' Thc
Tasl orlrr No. 32 's
| -
Ltnds silr' Tcruwtnor tr - s tlP
Febr|Iry,2m
r:':e'.:i:..
average yeafly percola:lon rate was celcllated at approximsteiy 3.7 inches and the annual volume of surflc-"
runoff is estimated to bo 240 acre'foot (BNl, 1993)'
Ranovation of the Linde pmperty ov6r th€ Bnsulng years has prompted th6 consolldalion of remaining
contaminated matarials. ln 1977 soilwas removed fmm th6 Bulldlng 90 construotion area and placed in two
windrows along the northem and eastem fences of the property and in the taillngs pile on the nodh€rn
porilon of the site. Betwecn 1g7g ancl 1gE2 the windrows and pile of contaminded material wBre
consolidatod into one uncovercd pile trre$ of Building 90. Tho plte was covered in 1902'
T-l(od'rNo' sil E ' unfi slb' Tqrltrnrtr FUSRAP
Fdnrry,2E0
FffitvqH,tr@,Ta[p$j
Data presented in this prelimlnary Materlal characterization Report (PMCR) has been prevlously released tn
the Rl (BNl, 1993) prepared forthe United States Department of Energy (DOE)' This report summarizes that
data according to chemical and Edlologtcal characterlstlcs for the purpose of selecting an approprlate
Destlnatlon Hanctling Facrtity pHn for materials to be o(cavated at tha Lindo FUSRAP slte'
The investigations focused on contamlnated soils prasent outslcte and beneath buildings historically usad for
MElrelated acltvtues encl other areas on the Linde sitc. This ropoil summarizes the dsts generated by the
Rl ln those speclfle are$i on the Linde site slated for remedial action by thc Record of Decision (RoD)'
specifically. Areas 8, 9' 9A. 10, and 11 (JSACE. 1999)'
The tabtes present the minimum and milimum chemlcel or mdiologic conoeffirations Gported ln the Rl'
Notc that'BDL' mcans'betow deteclion limif'
T8blc I
volatllr Orgmic Gompounds (VOCs) Anaffiical Result3
ffifuns.(trglksl
oecaslr6{oa, TERCgoe ffi
-_trmrnrrYlilmt.--l.ir.tiiffi
i==;::
unoJ srr, Tfitwrnd' FLSFIAP
Taf otd.r No. ea
Frbmry.20O
Table 1
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Analytical Resu tts
co
Concentration Range (Pdltg')
i
I
I
' Irg/kg:@oartsperbllllon)
TaDlr 2
Baserltleut al and AEid Ertnctable (BNAEI
Analyrtical Resutts
2.4,srridilorophenol i os(z-cntorcethoxY)
O^CAS1SS6, TERC'S9 ilW=;;:====1
nttd. stb. Tm'wanor ;-siAP
Tarf Ortrr No. 32
FebfulrY,2m
Table 2
Base/Neutral and Acid Extraclable (BNAE)
AnalYtical Results
Compound
4,6-Dlnitru2-
'Laboratory
l.ta:(acntomcYd oPentacliene
Table 3
TeG.t RCRA Ghrnctoristics
ConosivitY bY PH ($e S.U.'l
'S.U. - Santhrd Unlts
lgnitabilitY (not applacabltl
TrDlr {
Toricity by Enrection Procedure (EPl
eoncentreGon I cPil,qlTd
Tn-ts ls a tAal value ancl does not
mlctogratns per lrter (perts per billion)
Lhdr Slh, TcnaHnda Ft SRAPoacesr-ec+oa. TERC900
T!d(Oti.r No.32
Frbnrry,2S0
Table 5
EP Herbicides AnalYsis
Table 6
EP Me6ls Anelyli!
Tabh 7
Total Metals AnalYsis
millhrams P.r l(logram
T*r odar No. u pl " L'* sltr' Totrranor FU6RAP
FrlruarY,2SO
EP Herbicid
Leachate
Matrmum frncentration
2.+O BDL
2.1.$TP BDL
2.4.5-T BOL
Ail m.tars were anaryzed Dy rnductivety coupred prasma (rcp) atomic emrssron s,ectrophotometry wrth i"e
exception of arsenic, lead, selenlum, and thellium, which were analyzad by atomic absorptlon (AA)'
Table 8
Retltologlcal Analysis (56 boreholesl
DACA31'S{!03, TERC'$9
TdtOrdar No. &2
Fcbnray,2ffi
fr--tnurarurrrucryrdcnalronieoorlLirb SnE, Tanarrnol FUSRAP
E$imates on the smounis of soir to be excavated and shipped offsrte are based on computer models
pr.pared by Argonne Naflonel Laboratories (ANL, lggg) that taka into account borehore sample results from
the Rl and cleanup criteria presented in ths RoD that calculates the sum of ratios (soR) for uranium'
racilum, and thodum averagecr over 10 meter (m) by 10 m grrd ce[s, Esilmsted vorume/mass of soil and
debrls to be shipped ofrsite bas€d on recent data ancl RoD deanup requircments aPPea6 in tho follo /lng
table:
Table 3
Estimatcrt VolumcJllass of Soil and D'bais
rc (cuUic Yards) I lt/tiurs (tontgsiimataO ; Estimeted
I
railsicling.
Contaminathn Level
1
z
3
4
5
Debris mey be sized and loaded to rneet specific criteria as rcqulrcd Dy the bitlder'
convcrsion based on 1.395 tonJcuHc yard ercavatcd solls.
concfctt may bc crushcd to mcct tp"orp .nt o.lteli" as requlre<t by the btldcr' lf concrcte ls crushed
to gravct slze conslde; "iitr.i*! ;qqt,*ffi;;b b" unirormrv oistriouta and near backgrounct levels'
Asphalt may be sepanrfeO frori soil shignents or popcrly stzcOlnd Induded as debris'
Specify if PPE may O" in.fuO6 *tn Oum *fiii&fitrc h a maximum Percentage pof containor or is to
ui snfipco separaiety urder seperate apprwal'
DA.A3l€6{Otg, TERG$o
Tsl orfi7 No. &l
F.fiuary,4tr0
Fffirnlrv tfernl Clr:rdenal'c!: ieptrt'un tt tlib. Tonr*rnos FUSRAP
The rnajor souroa of radionucllde contamlnation ln Linde site soils is from pmcessing of unllcensed pr+1978
uranlum ores by the Manhattan Engineering Distrld (MED) which contslned onlf naturally occumng
radioactivity. Thls lnfomailon is fumished only to assi$ in characierizatlon efforts and not as an assodion of
regulatory stgtus. under the FUSRAP, chomical or nonractioact've contamination at the Llnde stte is the
USACE,s responstbiltty only if it is commingled with MED-reletcd Edloacthrc conteminstion or if it is related
to MED operations at the Linda site.
Sources ol non.MED chemical contamingtion thst may be mixld with MED materlals are: slag and fly ash
used as fill at the Linde sile, coal pile run-ofi, and solr/Gnts uscd ln plrnt operarions. slag and fly ash are
exomptfrom th6 RCRA (40 cFR 261.4O)(4)CD). Radioacrive by-psluct matcrial is excmS frqn solid+vaste
regutations (lo cFR 261.a (a)(a)). polyamnratic hydrocarDons (PAHs) resrlting from prior coal storage at
the Linde sitc crauc 2l aG not regulsted as hazadous wastes by thc uniled s1rt6 Etwironmental
protection Agenoy (usEpA). As idcotificd in the Rt, thG only chemical contamination dGtocttd that is mlxed
with MEDretated matedals thrt coutd possibty be classified as RCRA hazadous tt,'st slatus are some of
ths VOCs appearing in Tablc 1 and 2.
contaminatod media to be excavated and shipped otrsite firom the Lindc sitc wl[ probably not be
characlerized as USEpA hazardous wastc. This detcrmination ls basett on Rl analytical data results'
htstoflcel infomEtion, and planned secution of thc 'trontain.d ln' cdtcrla for Environmentsl Media
Technical Administftltiv€ GuEancc Mcmoranctum 3026 GAGM 3028) prwited by thc statc of New Yott
State Department d Envi ro nmental Consenration (r'IYSDEC)'
TAGM 302g pmvltlcs gulrtdines aml action concentntion lerrels for certain ciemical oontaminants that, il nol
exceeded, allow the environmentSl m6dll in qudion to not bc consklorcrl as '@ntsining' a hezardous
wasto, This clolinition is bascd on thc USEPA'S'contalncct ln' policy for ewircnmental medie' As direded
by TAGM 3028, r .contsined in. denronsration will be portormcd rtufing rcmctllauon adlvliles' rhts
d6mondralion will rcqulrc ppparaflon anct exacutlon of a 1*ork plen' apprwd by the !{YSDEC wttich will
inwlve samplirq and analysis in oder to validatc a 'contained out' dctclmlndon' ResulB of thts
demonstration will be mcde sv€ilrble to the successfttl DHF Udder.
Concentrations of cfiemicrl contaminants pres€nt in Unde site soils and their conc$onding 'Contained-ln"
Aaion Lweh are preented in the folloving tablcl
q.odl
oAc cl€6ffit. TIRC-Sg
TaJr Order Ns. &l
FcDrurry, ffi
mhmry Unfi Slta, Tqrrtnndr FUSMP
Table 10
"Contained{n" Action Levels for Chemicals of Concem
Range at
Lindc 0rykgl
1.1.1-3,2001,1 ,2,2-BDL -ir
t
t
trans-
For purposes of de{ermining the DHF, if there is reason to b6liarc that thc bldde/s slrte environmental
regulatory authority will not accapt NyDEc's hazadous wase 'contained in'determination' it is requirsd by
lT thd this fsd be disctosed in the bkl rcsponse. lf, thrornh exccution of thc t'{\oEc approvctl u,orl( plan'
radioactiw oontaminsted media with hazardous waste compon6nE are ldentified tfiey will be segregated and
ctlsposed uncler a sepante meterial pmfile.
Urtrltt Cnrrrardr,lon Q codt
Chemlcsl
(VoCs)Lerrel (pgfl(gl
As of 8/tUll7
000
1
cis'
trane
./
@ BDL-36
Und. Sn . Torwlnd. FUSRAP
Argonne National Laboratories (ANL), 1999. Linde site soil Excavatlon vdume Estlmates' 22 February
I 999.
Becht8t Nailonal tne (BNl), 1gg3. Remedial trN6sflgailon Reportforthe Tonaranda site' Prepared by
Bechtelorttie u?iirea states Department ot Energy. February 1993,
t{ysoEc, 1g92. Tectrnical Administrative Guidance Document (TAGM) 3028,-'Contalnd ' ln" criteria for
Environmeni;iffiE 30 November, 1gge Last u6ate 4 Augusil' 1997.
UsAcE. 1989, Proposed Plan forthe Linde Site, Tonarvanda, N€w YofK March.
USACE, 1999. Recont of Dcclslon furthe Linde Sile, Tonawanda' New Yorlc Drsfi'
Taak odar No. El m I r ' Lhdo siB Tsrtnm[ FLSaAP
Fcbtult '2@
lf'-ll!rlrt
U-S_Army Gorps
Of Englll€€rSo
Buffalo District
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR THE LINDE SITE
TONAWANDA,NEW YORK
MARCH 2OOO
DECLARATION FOR TEE
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECTSION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Linde Site
Town ofTonawand4 New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial action for the Linde Site in the Town of
Tonawanda, New York. This remedial action was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 United States code 9601 et seq., as
amended (CERCLA), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
as directed by Congress in the Energy and Water Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 1999, PL 105-245
The information supporting the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) decision as the lead
agency on the selected remedy is contained in the Administrative Recorid file located at dre USACE
Public lnformation Center, 1775 Niagara Street, Buffalo,l.IY 14207 and the Tonawanda Public Library,
333 Main Street, Tonawand4l.IY 14150. Comments on the proposed plan provided by the New York
State Deparunent of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) during the public comment period were
evaluated and considered in selecting the final remedy. USACE also considered comments from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. I.IYSDEC has expressed reservations especially regarding the cleanup
level for uranium and the USACE application of l0 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) which was
used for the derivuion of the uranium cleanup level. For this reason NYSDEC has reserved its support
for the proposed plan pending review of the final status survey data once remediation is complete.
ASSESSMENT OF TI{E SITE
Acural or threat€ned releases of hazardous substances from ttris site, if not addressed by implementing the
response acuon selected in ttris ROD, may present an endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment in the future.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
Becksround on Remedv Selection
During the early to mid-1940's, portions of the property formerly owned by Linde Air Products Corp., a
subsidiary of Union Carbide tndustrial Gas (Linde), now owned by Procair, Inc., in the Town of
Tonawand4 New York were used for the separation of uranium ores. The separation processing
activities, conducted under a Manhatan Engineer District (MED) contracq rezulted in elevated
radionuclide levels in portions of the Linde property. Subsequent disposal and relocation of the
processing wastes from the Linde property resulted in elevated levels of radionuclides at three nearby
properties in thc Town of Tonawanda: the Ashland I property; the Seaway property; and the Ashland 2
property. Together, these three (3) properties, with Linde, have been referred to as the Tonawanda Site.
Under its authority to conduct the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), the U S
Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a Remedial lnvestigauon (RI), Baseline Risk Assessment
(BRA), and Feasibility Study (FS) of the Tonawanda Site. In November 1993, DOE issued a Proposed
Plan (PP) for public comment for the Tonawanda Site, describing ttre prefened remedial action altemative
for disposal of remedial waste and cleanup plans for each of the Tonawanda Site properties. The 1993 PP
recommended that remedial wastes from the Tonawanda Site properties be disposed in an engineered on-
site disposal facility to be located at Ashland l, Ashland 2, or Seaway.
Numerous concerns and comments were rarsed by the communin and their representatives regarding the
preferred alternative identified in DOE's t993 PP and the proposed onsite disposal of remedial actron
waste. In 1994, DOE suspended the decision-making process on the 1993 PP and re-evaluated the
altematives that were proposed.
On October 13, 1997, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Ac! PL 105-62, was signed
into law, transferring responsibilitv for the administruion and execution of FUSRAP from DOE to
USACE.
In April 1998, USACE issued a ROD forcleanup of Ashland l, Ashland 2,and Area D of the Seaway
Site properties. Remediation of those propertres, w.ls initiated by USACE in June 1998.
On March 26,1999, after reviewing the history of the Linde Site and conducting an evaluation of Linde
Site information not available rn 1993 and potential remedial altematives, USACE issued a revised PP for
cleanup of the Linde Site. This ROD documents selection of a remedy which is significantly but not
fundamentally different from the remedy proposed in the PP. The changes will not affect the degree of
cleanup provided in the selected remedy and those portions of the site not included in this remedial acuon
will be the subject of public comment in a later CERCLA action.
Remedies for Seaway Areas A, B and C are being addressed in a separate remedial action.
This remedial action does not address any contamination which may be present at the site due to activities
u the site after the period of MED contract work.
Selected Remedv
The remedy selected for the Linde Site includes the residual radioactive material removal and building
and slab removal actions of Alternative 2 as described in the PP issued on March 26, L999 but does not
include Building 14 nor the soils underneath Building 14. USACE has determined that the cleanup
standards found in 40 CFR Parl192, the standards for cleanup of the uranium mill sites designated under
the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) standards for decommissioning of licensed uranium and thorium mills, found in l0 CFR Part 40,
Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) are relevant and appropnate for cleanup of MED-related contamination at the
Linde Site. The major elements of this remedy will involve excavation of the soils with contamrnants of
concern (COCs) (radium, thorium and uranium) above the soil cleanup levels and placement of clean
matenals !o meet the other crite ria of 40 CFR 192, and cleanup of contaminated surfaces in buildings wrth
COCs above the surface cleaning levels.
Compliance with these standards will require USACE to: (l) Remove MED-related soil so that the
concentrations of radium do not exceed background by more than 5 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) in the top
l5 centimeten (cm) of soil or 15 pCi/g in any 15 cm laver below the top layer, averaged over an area of
100 square meten (m'); (Z) Remediarc occupied or habitable buildings so that an annual average radon
decay product concentration (including background) does not exceed 0.02 Working Level (WL) and the
Ievel of gamma radiuion does not exceed the background level by more that 20 microroentgens per hour;
(3) control the releases of radon into the atmosphere resulting from the management of uranium
byproduct mat€rials do not exceed an average release rue of 20 pCi/metel second (m's); (4) removal of
MED-related soils with residual radionuclide concentrations averaged over a 100 square meter area that
exceeds unity for the sum of the ratios of these radionuclide concentrations to the associated
concentration limits, above background, of 554 pCi/g for total uranium (U.oJ, 5 pCilg for Radium-226
(Ra-226) and 14 pCi/g for Thorium-230 (Th-230) for surface cleanups and 3,021 pCilg of U"61, 15 pCi/g
of Ra-226 and -l.t pCiig of Th-230 tbr subsurt'ace cleanups. (-i) In addrtion. consistent *rth the proposed
plan released for public comment in March 1999 prior to promulgation of the amendment to l0 CFR Part
.10, Appendix A, Cntenon 6(6) in June 1999, USACE rvill remediate the Linde Site to insure that no
concentration of total uranium exceeding 600 pCi/g above background will remarn in the site soils; and
(6) removal of MED-related residual radioactive matenals from surfaces necessarv to meet the
benchmark dose for surfaces of 8.8 mrem/y based on the specific location of the surfaces and exposure
scenarios. Appropriate as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) pnnciples will be included in the
detailed site remediatron plan.
USACE had determined that, pursuant to 40 CFR 300.a30(e)(2XiXAX2), a site specific total uranium
cleanup guideline was required to address isolated areas of elevated uranium contarnination at the site
because uranium is not specifically addressed in 40 CFR Part 192 or any other applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirement (ARAR) available at the time the PP was released in March 1999. USACE had
proposed to remove contaminated soils exceeding 600 pCi/g and committed to ensuring that the
remaining soils will not exceed an average of 60 pCilg of total uranium, as measured over a volume of
soil 2,000 m' by 3 m thick. Subsequent to the public comment period, a new ARAR (amendment to l0
CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6), as described above) was promulgated and became effective on
June I l, 1999, making the use of the site specific uranium guideline unnecessary. USACE assessed the
l0 CFR 40, Appendix A, Cntenon 6(6) standards and the Linde radiological assessment (USACE 2000)
and concluded that the critena associated with this ARAR for the Linde Site soils would be to limit the
residual radionuclide concentrations remaining in soils within a 100 square meter area to concentrations
that results in unity or less for the sum of the ratios of these radionuclide concentrations to the associated
concentration limits, above background, of 554 pCi/g for Um,"r, 5 pCi/g for Pa-226 and 14 pCi/g for
Th-230 for surface cleanups and 3,021 pCi/g of U,"o1, 15 pCilg of Ra-226 and 44 pCi/g of Th-230 for the
subsurPace. Remediation of the site in accordance with this ROD will rcsult in a more stringent cleanup
of Utot r at the Linde Site than was originally proposed in the Proposed Plan and provides assurance that
no concentration of total uranium exceeding 600 pCi/g above background will remain in soils at the Lrnde
Site.
Verification of compliance with soil cleanup standards and criteria will be demonstrated using surveys
developed in accordance with the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investiguion Manual
(MARSSIM) and as may be required by the ARARS. Methodology to determine radon and gamma
radiation levels will be developed in accordance with the ARARs and documented in the work plan for
site remediation. The cleanup of contaminated building and strucnrre surfaces will be conducted in
accordance with the 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Cnte rion 6(6) using building/structure-specific
decontamination protocols to be detailed in the work plur for site remediation.
The selected remedy will involve ttre demolition of buildings necessary to remediate the site. These
buildings include Buildings 57,67,73,738,75 and 76 and willalso include the building slabs and
foundations. The slabs that are remaining after the demolition of Buildings 30 and 38 and the tank
saddles north of Building 30 will also be removed. A wall in Building 3l will be removed to access sub-
slab and sub-footing soils exceeding criteria. Soils and surfaces containing MED-related contaminauon
will be remediated in order to meet the ARARs. The final remediation of Building 14 and soils under
Building 14 has been excluded from this ROD, to be addressed separately in the future. The selected
remedy will also include remediation of the adjacent Niagara Mohawk and CSX Corporation (formerll'
Conrail) properties, where radioactive contarnination has already been identified or may be identified as
the remediuion work is implemented and will be limited to following releases that originated from the
Linde Site resulting from MED-related operations. The plan also includes the removal of contaminated
sediments from drainlines and sumps, the removal of contaminated soil from a blast wdl structure located
east of Building 5t, and remediation of a subsurface vault structure located just west of Building 73. Thrs
ROD also does not address the groundwater at the Linde Site. A ROD will be issued in the future that
evaluates the Site groundwater and selects any required remedial action. The setected remedy addresses
the principal threat at the site by eliminating radioactive contamination in soils and on building structrtrcs
that may Pose a threat to the health of persons at the site. This rcmcdy will not resuh in MgD-rrlated
hazardous substances remaining at tho site above tlre health-based levels after completion of the scope
identified above. The Corps will perform all required S-year rcviews.
Thc estimated cost of the sclected remedy is $27,700,000.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remcdy is protcctivc of human health and the environment, complies with Federal an<l State
rcquiremcnts that are legally applicable or relcvant and appropriatc to hazardous substanccs which arc thc
subject of this response action, and is cost+ffective.
None of tho remedial altcmatives identified for the Linde Site provido onsits featment for ths materiats to
be removed. The sclected rcmedy includes offsitc disposal, invohing cootainment at thc final disposal
locatir:n and any treatment, which may be required to meet the standards of dre offsite facility. This
alternative thus would achieve reduction in mobility, although no treatment is planned which will reduce
the toxicity or volume of the disposed materials. The FS cvaluated currently available treatmcnt
technologies for tr€atrncnt during the removal and found none that would be econornically and
technologically feasible at bis time. Thug tho sclectcd alternativc achiwes the be$ possiblc rcsult in
terms of satisfting dre statrtory prcfcrcnce for rcrnedies that anploy heatment that reduccc toxicity,
rnobility, or volume as a principal elernenL
j flrn tL LDDD
Date
Deputy Commanding Ccneral for Civil Works
20 Massachusefis Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 203 14-1000
tv
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR THE
LINDE STTE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION .. .. . ..... ...i
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND D8SC2PTION............. ........Il.l Site Overview................ ............... I1.2 Site and Vicinity Land Use.... ..........................1
1.2.1 Site Description............ .....................1
1.2.2 Vicinity Description ..........................5
1.2.3 Zoning and Future Land Uses ...........51.3 Physical and Environmental Site Characteristics.............. ....................61.3.I Topography and Surface Water Drainage .............6
1.3.2 Geology .........................6
1.3,2.1 RegionalGeology..... ..........6
1.3.2.2 Site Bedrock Geology ..........................6
1.3.2.3 Site Soils ..........................7
1.3.3 Groundwater.................. ....................7
L3.3. t Regional Hydrogeology .............. ..........7
1.3.3.2 Site Hydrogeology ............8
1.3.4 Ecological and Cultural Resources... .....................9
1.3.4.1 Terrestnal Biota.......... ...................... 9
1.3.4.2 Aquatic Biota.......... ...........9
1.3.4.3 Floodplains and Wetlands................. .......................9
1.3.4.4 Endangered and Threatened Species ........................9
I 3.4.5 Archaeological, Cultural, and Histoncal Resources .................... . . .. ........10
SITEHISTORY............. ................. 102.1 Site History Overview ..............102.2 History of the Linde Property..... ..................10
2.2.1 Site Ownership .. .......... ..................10
2.2.2 Uranium Processing at Linde ...........1I2.2.3 Disposal of Liquid Effluent from Uranium Processing and Groundwater at the LindeSite............. .................... 122.3 Site Investigations and Su,rdies .....................122.3.1 DOE Remedial tnvestigation.............. ............. .. t22.3.2 DOE Baseline Risk Assessment ......13
2.3.3 DOE Feasibility Study... .................132.3.4 1993 DOE Proposed P1an............ .......................13
2.3.5 USACE Technical Memorandum: Linde Site Radiological Assessment.................... l3
2.3.6 USACE Addendum to the Feasibiliry Srudy for the Linde Site ................ t4
2.3.7 Proposed Plan forthe Linde Site............. ............14
2.3.8 Recent Removal Actions Conducted at Linde...... ..................14
2.3.8.1 Demolition of Building 38. ... .. .... .................,....15
2.3.8.2 Decontamination of Buildings l4 and 31............... ...................15
2.3.8.3 Demolition of Building 30............... ......................15
3.
Table of Contents (continued)
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMTINITY PARTICIPATION . ....... . 15
SCOPE OF REMEDIAL ACTION.............. . ....... 164.1 CleurupCriteriaandStandards................. .......................16
4.1.1 ARARs .. . t64.l.t.l ARARS - Definitions................. ..........1'l4.2 ARARS for the Linde Site ..........17
4.3 Summary of Remedial Action Objectives and Cleanup Sundards and Guidelines for MED-
Contaminated Media at the Linde Site ............. ................ 18
4.3.1 Soils Cleanup.... .. .................18
4.3.2 Building and Structures Cleanup... .....................19
4.3.3 Groundwater.................. ................... 19
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS . . 19
5.1 Site contamination Overview .......................195.2 Radioactive Contamination in Surface and Subsurface Soils.. ............205.3 Chemical Contamination in Surface and Subsurface Soils .................215.4 Contamination in Surface Water ..................215.5 Contamination in Sediments............. ............215.6 Contamination of Groundwater........ ............225.7 MED-Related Radioactive Contamination in Buildings and Structures ................225.E Radiological Data Eva1uation............... .... ....2?
5.8.1 Background Levels of Radioactivity in Linde Site Soils........... ................22
5.E.2 Summary of Radiological COCs .......................225.9 Potential Chemical COCs......... ...................23
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS ... . ... 236.1 Radiological Health Risk............ ..................236.2 Chemical Health Risk............ ......................246.3 Ecological Risk............ ..............246.4 USACE Radiological Assessment of the Linde Site............. ........... .25
DESCzuPTION OF REMEDI,AL ALTERNATTVES ......... 257.l Remedial Action Alternauves Evaluated in the 1993 FS and PP and Updated Description of
Linde Altematives......... .......... 25
7.1.1 Linde Site Alternuives ....................28
7.1.2 Summary of Current Altemuives .................... 29
E.SUMIVIARY OF COMPARATTVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES8.1 EvaluationCriteria.E.2 AltemativeComparison
5.
7.
29
29
30
u.
t2.
Table of Contents (continued)
10.4 Utilizauon of Permanent Solutrons and Altemative Treatment Technologies or Resource
Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable. .............35
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ...........,..... . 35
REFERENCES...... ... ................... 38
List of Figures
Figure l-l Regional Location of the Town of Tonawanda, New'York and the Ashland l, Ashland 2,
Seaway and Linde Sites........... .................. 2
Figure l-2 Vicinity Locations of Ashland l, Ashland 2, Seaway and Linde Sites..................................3
Figure l-3 Linde Site Locations... .............4
Figure 6-l Location of Assessment Units and Sample Locations... .................26
Figure 6-2 Locations of Samples Exceeding Cleanup Criteria ........................27
List of Attachments
Attachment I USEPA LetterofJanuary 12,2000
Attachment 2 USACE Letter of February 17,2000
Attachment 3 NYSDEC Letter of February 18, 2000
Attachment 4 USACE Letter of February 24,2000
List of Aooendices
Appendix A - Responsiveness Summary
Appendix B - I.IYSDEC Conrspondence, 1999- I.IYSDEC Letterof August 23, 1999- }IYSDEC Letter of November 8, 1999- USACE Responses and Consideration of NYSDEC Letter of August 23, 1999
ACRONY}IS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ALARA As Low as Reasonably AchievableARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
ave. AverageBNI Bechtel National, Inc.BRA Baseline fusk Assessment
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCi CurieCFR Code of Federal Regulationscm centimeterCOC contarninant of concernConrail Consolidated Rail Corporationcy cubic yard(s)DOE Department of Energydpm disintegrations per minuteECIDA Erie County Industrial Development AuthorityEEYCA Engineering Evaluation/Cost AnalysisFBDU Ford Bacon Davis Utah, Inc.ft fooVfeetFS Feasibility Study
FUSRAP Formerly Utitized Sites Remedial Action Programg gramgpm gallons per minuteGPR ground penetraring radarHI Hazard lndexHQ l{.azard QuotientL literlb poundm meter
MARSSIM Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation ManualMED Manhattan Engineer Districtmg milligrarnpR/hr microroentgens per hourNCP National Contingency PlanNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNRC Nuclear Regulaory CommissionNWI Nationd Wetlands lnventory
NYSDEC New York State Deparunent of Environmental ConservationO&M Operations and lvlaintenanceORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratorypci picocuriesPP Proposed Plan
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality ControlRa radiumRCRA Resource Conservuion and Recovery Actzu Remedial InvestigationRME reasonable ma:rimum exposureRn radonROD Record of Decisions second
tv
SAIC
SFMP
SHPO
TEDE
Th
U
UMTRCA
U.S.
U.S.C.
USACE
USEPA
USFWS
WL
yt
Acronym List (continued)
Science App I ications Inte rnational Co rpo rati on
Surplus Facilities Management Program
State Histoncal Preservation Office
Total Effective Dose Equivalent
thorium
uranium
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation ControlAct
United States
United States Code
United States Army Corps of Engineen
United States Environmental Protec[on Agency
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Working Level
yea(s)
DECISION SUMMARY
1. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Linde Site
Town of Tonawanda, New York
1.1 Site Overview
During the early to mid-1940's, portions of the property formerly owned by Linde Air Products Corp., a
subsidiary of Union Carbide Industrial Gas (Linde), now owned by Praxair, [nc., in the Town of
Tonawand4 New York, were used for the separation of uranium ores. These processing activities,
conducted under a MED contract, resulted in radioactive contamination of portions of the property and
buildings. Subsequent disposal and relocation of processing wastes from the Linde property resulted in
radioactive contamination of three nearby properties in the Town of Tonawanda: the Ashland I propertv,
the Seaway property, and the Ashland 2 property. Together these three properties, with Linde, have been
referred to as the Tonawanda Site (Figures t-l and l-2). This ROD addresses the Linde Site.
USACE is the lead agency for purposes of selecting and implementing the remedial action pursuant to
authority established in CERCLA and Public Law 105-245. The Linde Site is not listed on the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) National Priority List. For purpos€s of FUSRAP,
the Linde Site remedial actions will address only h""ardous substances that were released during the
period of MED contr:rct work and related to activities in support of MED and not any earlier or later
releases of hazardous substances that may have occurred, except to the extent they may be commingled
with the MED-relued hazardous substances.
1.2 Site and Vicinity Land Use
1.2.1 Site Description
The Linde Site is now owned by Praxair and comprises about 135 acres located at East Park Drive and
Woodward Avenue in the Town of Tonawanda. The site is bounded on the north and south by other
industry and small businesses, on the east by the CSX Corporation (CSX) [formerly Consolidated Rail
Corporation (Conrail)] railroad tracks and Niagara Mohawk property and easements, and on the west, by
a park owned by Prorair which is open to the public. The regional and vicinity locations of the Linde Site
are shown in Figures l-l and l-2, respectively.
The property contains office buildings, fabrication facilities, warehouse storage areas, material laydown
aleas, and parking lots (Figure l-3). Access to the property is controlled by Praxair. Approximately
1,400 employees work at the Praxair facilities.
The property is underlain by a series of utility tunnels that interconnect some of the main buildings and by
an extensive network of storm and sanitary sewers. (Section I .3 . I describes stormwat€r drainage u
Linde.)
The Linde property is generally flat. In assessing stormwater runoff, the RI report (BNI 1993) estunates
that approximately half of the Linde plant area is covered with impervious surfaces such as roofs, paved
areas and sidewalks; and the other half is covered with a packed gravel surface that allows infiltration of
precipitation. Several railroad spurs extend onto the property from ttre CSX property east of the site. A
frr,r rhort/ b< Fi7u" /'/' f,td'asn'f 7r'hf
or lutn aFP€.l ?n fttc sc ra4' fi rncss4c aF/%
*Aah 6.f5t "tVla.< ,/16 e2, 4rror przusstJr
4 FaTc' 7ftah>n arzht* B tbo tuf/4.1
I
L
l
-]n0im-
N
A2
Eitl{tn4v)
.El-rF
om
T?E-,iz--rnJH<^H? t\2go<E,'z<oiE<
3Ho*l
E
=g
GI
6T
Iu6
a
={
(lr
.-.n4b'-'
-e
"'.,..Bt.,_K
SHERITIAN ORM l*1I
Jrnl!
IElrl-
l3
E; ;"fl:|1-FJn [.n
PAflNG AREI
o
-@
t-\'t-
-
I FCFIn
SCf,t T FIEI0 200 {0t----+----t0 60 12t
SDTIE N EIMS
trl
{-x-
ntIME
FEIICE
FICEMY ryIXTr
iltmr0
UN"ffiffit{
EE
ru b rcttrar!]r
FICUNE I-3
uuDB s[It locArroils
soil and timber blast rvall is located east of Building 58. A subsurface stora-se vault. shou'n on a l9-t6
drawing of the Linde property, is believed to be located about 15 feet west of Building 73, based on a
ground penetrating radar (GPR) investigation during the Rl. Radioactive waste may be contained in this
structure. Details of radioactive materials detected at Linde during the Rl and subsequent investigations
are described in Section 5 of this ROD.
1.2.2 VicinityDescription
Land uses in proximity to the Linde property include the CSX property, commercial and residential areas,
and Kenmore Sisters of Mercy Hospital to the east, small businesses, light industries, and residential areas
to the north, business and industrial areas to the south, and a low densiry residential area and Holmes
Elementary School to the west. Sheridan Parh owned by the Town of Tonawanda's Parks and Recreation
Department, is located one-fourth mile to the northwest of the Linde property. Two Mile Creek flows
through this property. Recreational uses include an l8-hole pubiic golf course, picnicking, and
playgrounds. Sensitive uses within one mile of the Linde property include five schools, two communiry
buildings, and a senior citizens' center. The Linde property is fenced and has a buffer zone ofgrass and
trees around the main buildings (DOE 1993b).
1.2.3 Zoning and Future Land Uses
The Linde Site is currently used for commercial and industrial purposes, and industrial facilities have
been present at the site for more than 60 years. As described above, the site is surrounded by industries
and small business on three sides and by a park" which is owned by Praxair, on the side.
The Town of Tonawanda has adopted a zoning ordinance that regulates land uses. Zoning districts were
established to permit varying degrees of land uses. There are three residential zoning districts, two
commercial districts, and an industriai district. The Town of Tonawanda also has two other districts:
performance standards and waterfront.
Most of the Linde property is owned by Praxair. A small parcel (4.7 acres), located within the Linde
property, is owned by the Erie County Indusuial Development Agency (ECIDA). The ECIDA purchased
the property as an incentive for Linde to expand The ECIDA is exempt from paying property taxes on
the parcel and the parcel is used by Linde as a logistics center (DOE 1993b).
The Linde property is located in a Performance Standards Zoning District. The purpose of the
Performance Standards District is to encourage and allow the most appropriate use of the land available
now its well as approaching future commercial and industrial uses unhampered by restrictive categoriang,
thus extending the desirabiliry of flexible zoning, subject to change with changing conditions.
Restrictions in this district permit an institution for human care or treatment or a dwelling unit only if the
development abus a residential zoning district. Other restricted uses include junkyards, waste transfer or
disposal, land mining and stockyards. Any proposed uses must follow the acquisition of a Performance
Standards use pennit. Performance Standards uses are not permitted that exceed New York State
regulations or other standards listed in the zoning codes book, such as standards for noise, odor emission,
dust emission, and vibrations, as measured at the individual property line.
Tnning in the Linde property viciniry includes a business district to the north, a lowdensity residential
area to the west, and the Performance Standard District to the south and east.
Current zoning for the site as a Performance Standard area is to encourage and allow the most appropriate
use of the land available now as well as approaching furure commercial and industrial uses unhampered
by restricnve categonzing. Because the west boundar-v of the site abuts a residential zone. construCtitrn oi
an instirution for human health care or treatment or a dwelling unit are not strictly prohibited under the
Performance Standard zoning caregory. However, given the past and current use of the Linde Site for
industrial and commercial uses t for more than 60 years, including the ownership of part of the property
by ECIDA to promote indusrrial use, USACE has concluded that the reasonably anticipated future land
use of the property will be for indusriaVcommercial purposes (USACE 1999b) (USACE 2000).
1.3 Physical and Environmental Site Characteristics
1.3.1 Topography and Surface Water Drainage
The Linde Site is relativeiy flat and is situated on a broad lowland east of Two Mile Creek, a ributary of
the Niagara River. Two Mile Creek begins south of Linde in a natural channel. Near the southern
boundary of the Linde Site flow in Two Mile Creek is directed into twin subsurface 9 feet (ft) x 7 ft box
conduits which traverse the Linde Site, underground. Stormwater runoff from Linde is collected in the
facility's stonnwater sewer system and is discharged to the two conduits. The twin conduits carry Two
Mile Creek flows northerly, ultimately discharging ttrough two large flow control gates located on the
downstream face of the concrete dam that impounds Sheridan Park Lake. The control gates are Pressure
operated, releasing storm flow from the conduits, when necessary. Downstream of the Sheridan Park
Dam, the narural channel of the Two Mile creek conveys flow in a generally northerly direction to the
Niagara River, approximately 2tA miles north of the Lin& Site (see Figure 1-2).
1.3.2 Geologr
The Linde Site is located within the Erie-Ontario Lowland Physiographic Unit of New York (BNl 1993).
The Erie-Ontario Lowland has significant relief characterized by two major escarpments-the Niagara
and the Onondaga. The elevation of the ground surface is approximately 600 ft above mean sea level at
the Linde Site (BNI 1993).
13.2.1 RegiondGeologSr
Mapping of regional bedrock geology indicates that the site area is situated on clayey glacial till.
Underlying this glacial till is the Camillus Shale of the Salina Group. This Upper Silurian formation is
approximately 400 ft thick in the area and consists predominantly of gray, red, and green thin-bedded
shale and massive mudstone. lnterbedded with the shale and mudstone are relatively thin beds of
gypsutrt, dolomite, and limestone. The Camillus Shale dips southward at approximately 0.8Vo.The
formation contains broad, low folds wittr amplirudes of a few feet and frequencies of a few hundred feet.
The fold axes are generally oriented from east to west.
13.22 Site Bedrock Geologr
Boring logs for eight (8) monitoring wells constructed at Linde during the RI show bedrock encountered
at depths ranging from approximately 82 to 96 ft (BNI 1993).
The bedrock encountered (shales of the Salina Group) is generally described as a gray shale and mudstone
with abundant thin layers and irregularly shaped masses of gypsum. In some intervals, as thick as l0 ft.,
gypsum constitutes as much as half of the rock. The thickest individual gypsum layer found was 1 ft.
Generally, gypsum is present in only small amounts, as joint and fracture fillings.
AII boreholes rvith si_snitlcant core recover;- showed mL)derate to extensit,e fiacturing in the upper 6 to I-5
feet of bedrock. Cores were noted to be only slightly tiactured in most places below this upper zone.
Joints were primarily perpendicular to the core axes and paraiiel to bedding planes. Joint surfaces were
mostly planar to gently undulated and slightly rough. Partial to full gypsum crystal development
characterized many joints and a few joints were coated with mud. Jointing was found to be common at
the contact between gypsum and shale. Core descriptions by field geoiogists indicate that solution
fearures are relatively common in the bedrock, especially in the gypsum.
13.23 Site Soils
Based on numerous soil borings, the Rl report indicates that the natural soils at Linde appear to be
covered by a fill layer ranging in thickness from 0 to l7 ft. As noted in boring logs, the fill contains
substantiai quantities of slag and fly ash that was apparently brought on-site from local sources for
grading purposes during the construction of the Linde facility (BNI 1993).
Undisturbed soils that underlie the site ,ue composed primarily of clay and sandy clay. These soils have
low permeabilities precluding significant infiluation of precipitation.
f33 Groundwater
133.f RegionalHydrogeologSr
lnformation on regional hydrogeology available in the Rl report (BNI, 1993), indicates that the
unconsolidated materials contain the most productive water-bearing zones in the Niagara Region. These
materials have a wide range of hydrogeologic properties, caused by variations in thickness, distribution
and lithology. In areas where relatively thick sequences of coarse-grained glaciofluvial deposits are
present, well yields as much as 700 gallons per minute (gpm) are reported.
The soluble limestone and dolomites of the Salina Group and the overlying Onondaga Formation are
considered to be a single aquifer. Groundwater within this aquifer is controlled by secondary porosity
features (i.e., fractures, joints, and bedding plane openings). These discontinuities have been enlarged by
the solutioning of gypsum by groundwater. Wells completed in this aquifer can yield as much as 300
gpm, but generally yield less then 100 gpm. Groundwater obtained from this aquifer is generally potable
except where groundwater has been degraded by upward movement of mineralized water from the
underlying shales of the Salina Group.
The Camillus Shale (shales of the Salina Group) is the most productive bedrock aquifer in the region.
Water in this formation is obtained primarily from solution cavities that have formed as the gypsum
contained in ttre rock dissolved. Yields from individual wells of greater than 1,000 gpm from the
Camillus Shale are not unusual in the Buffalo-Tonawanda area.
Groundwater in the shales of the Salina Group generally exists under artesian conditions. Records of
wells drilled at and near the Unde Site indicate that water rises to a depth approximately 40 ft below the
surface of the land in wells completed in the shale. Average hydraulic conductivities measured at these
wells are in excess of I x l0'l ftls (3 x l0'2 centimeters/second [cm/s]). These relatively high hydraulic
conductivities can be attributed almost entirely to the gypsum solution cavities.
Although the shales of the Salina Group constirute the most productive bedrock aquifer in the region (wetl
yields as much as 1,200 gpm), the shales also contain the poorest quality water. Groundwater from these
shales have high concentrations of dissolved solids, calcium, magnesiunq sulfate and chloride. In the
vicinity of the Linde Site. waters drawn tiom rvells completed in the shale typicaily ha\,e total dissol',ed
solids contents rangrng from 2.000 to 6,000 milligrams/liter (mg/L). suifate contents of 1,000 tol.500
mglL, and chloride contents of 1,500 to 2,000 mg/L. These high levels of total dissolved solids and
saliniry (derived from the evaporates) preclude use of this water for potable consumption without
extensive, costly treatment. lts use is restricted to certain industries that can tolerate the high salinity and
total dissolved solids.
Underlying the Salina Group are the dolomites of the Lockport Formation. Like the Salina Group, the
dolomites have secondary porosity developed in open bedding, joints, fracture zones, and solution
widened discontinuities. Reported well yields for the Lockport Formation (as much as 110 gpm) are
lower than the Salina Group. Because the l-ockport Formation contains a gypsiferous zone, the
groundwater typically contains high concentrations of sulfate rendering it to be non-potable.
13.3.2 Site llydrogeology
At the Linde Site, the most productive water-bearing zone is comprised of the coarse-grained basal zone
of the unconsolidated deposits and the fractured and jointed upper part of the Salina Group bedrock. This
zone is collectiveiy referred to as the contact-zone aquifer. Because bedrock does not occur at uniform
depths throughout the area and the favorable water-bearing characteristics of the bedrock portion may not
always correspond to the areas of coarsest-grained overburden, differences in the water-bearing properties
of tlrc contact zone aquifer may occur within short distances.
lnformation on the contact-zone aquifer is based on data from a total of 19 deep boreholeVwells across
the Tonawanda properties (i.e., 11 at Ashland, I & 2 and 8 at Linde). Data from the 19 deep
boreholeVwells indicate that groundwater in the contact-zone aquifer is under confined conditions. At
location B32W02D water rose more than 55 ft above the top of the contact zone. At the Linde Site,
groundwater rose 40-50 ft above the contact zone.
Recharge to the contact-zone aquifer probably occurs at several locations. For example, carbonate rocks
that constitute an aquifer to the south are exposed (or are minimally covered by unconsolidated material)
3.5 to 4.5 miles southeast of Linde. AIso, coarse-grained alluvial deposits along Ellicott Creeh
approximately 6 miles east of Linde, may be hydraulicaily connected to the contact zone aquifer.
Piezometric surface maps for the contact-zone aquifer at the Tonawanda properties indicate fairly flat
hydraulic gradients throughout the Tonawanda properties (i.e., gradients ranging from 0.0004 to 0.0005
ft/ft at Ashland I and the southeast portion of Ashland 2).
At Linde, the piezometric surface appears to slope gently to the southwest. Projections of piezometric
contours suggest that the low heads probably existed in the industrial area along Sheridan Drive from the
Niagara River to Kenmore Avenue. Several high capacity industrial wells are located in this area
including wells owned by Goodyear Tire and Rubber (also referenced as Dunlop Tire and Rubber in the
RI), E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (also referenced as E.l. DuPont and Co. in the RI), and Linde
Air Froducts Corp.; a subsidiary of Union Carbide lndustrial Gas (Linde), now owned by Praxair, Inc. lt
is reported that well yields for the industrial wells ranged from 90 to 3,000 gpm (or 0.1 to 4.3 million
gallons per day).
Estimates of average linear groundwater velocity for the contact-zone aquifer provided in the RI report
are based on piezomeric data along with estimates of hydraulic conductivity. The estimated groundwater
flow velocity was reported to range from 5.5 feet/year (ftlyr) to 82 ftlyr.
1.3.4 Ecological and Cultural Resources
13.4.1 TerrestrialBiota
The Linde property supports several nearby mafure eastern cottonwood, American sycamore, white ash,
northern red oak, and shagbark hickory trees that were planted during landscaping activities. Urban
lawns with plantings of shnrbs were also established and are given periodic maintenance. Original
vegetation was destroyed and natural plant succession has been disrupted during the industrial
development and use of the Linde facility and surrounding area. Years of continuous industrial activity
have left only marginal areas for narural plant communities. The properry provides minimal urban
wildlife habitats, supporting only the cosmopolitan species of birds and small mammals (DOE 1993b).
L3.4.2 Aquatic Biota
The pond, located in the northwest corner of the Linde property, is connected to Sheridan Park Lake by a
culvert underneath Sheridan Drive. Sheridan Park Lake is stocked annually by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) with about 2,000 adult calico bass (BNl 1993).
An aquatic biota survey conducted of Sheridan Lake by NYSDEC in 1980 indicated the presence of warm
water fish such as goldfish and perch.
Sections of Two Mile Creek's channel below Sheridan Park Lake are cleared of sediments annually by
park staff. Increased water turbidity and disrurbance of benthic and possibly of fish communities by
physical removal are likely to result from this activity.
13.43 Floodplains and Wetlands
No portion of the Linde property is within the 100-year flood zone of Two Mile Creek since it is
coniained in twin box culvert conduits aiong the western boundary of the property (DOE 1993b).
A review of National Wetland lnventory (NWl) maps (Tonawanda West and Buffalo Northwest
quadrangles) identified no floodplains or wetlands onsite at Linde. Surface nrnoff from the site drains
into two offsite floodplain and wetland areas to the north and west. West of Linde, a marshy strip lying
along the twin conduits situated in the stream bed that nrns parallel to the western boundary and empties
into Two Mile Creek is mapped as a palustrine emergent floodplain and wetland with persistent narrow-
Ieafed vegetation and temporary water regime. On the northeast corner of Linde, a palustrine forested
floodplain and wetland with broad-leaved deciduous vegetation and a temporary water regime was
identified on NWI maps. Also, information in the Soil Survey of Eie County, New York indicates areas
of Linde that meet the criteria for hydric soils (DOE 1993b).
13.4.4 Endengercd and Threatened Species
Except for occasional transient individuals, no federally-listed or proposed endangered or threatened
species under jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have been sighted in
the project impact area. The most likely listed species to appear on or near the sites are the osprey, bald
eagle, and peregrine falcon. No listed or suspected critical habitats occur on the Linde Site (DOE l993at.
1.3.4.5 Archaeological, Cultural,and Historical Resources
A review of New York State records on archaeologrcal, culrural. and historical resources indicates that
none of these resources is close to the pdect area. Specifically, State Historical Preservation Office
(SHPO) records do not indicate any known archaeological sites within a mile of the project area. ln
addition, SHPO records indicate that there are no culrural or historic sites near the project area listed on or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (DOE 1993b).
2. SITE HISTORY
2.1 Site History Overview
As described in the foregoing sections, during the early to mid-1940's, Linde Center was contracted by
MED to separate uranium from pitchblende uranium ore and domestic ore concentrates. These processing
activities resulted in elevated levels of radionuclides in portions of the property and buildings.
Subsequent disposal and relocation of processing wastes from Linde resulted in elevated levels of
radionuclides at three nearby properties in the Town of Tonawanda: the Ashland I property, the Seaway
property, and the Ashland 2 property.
The history of the Linde Site is summarized below. (Refer to Figure 1-3 for locations.)
2.2 tlistory of the Linde Prroperty
2.2,1 Site Ownership
Tax mapping property information of the Town of Tonawanda indicates ownership of property at the
Linde Site location by Union Carbide, Linde Division, in 1936. While portions of the land at the site
were previously owned by the Town of Tonawanda, Excelsior Steel Ball Company, Metropolitan
Commercial Corporation, and the Pullman Trolley Land Company, the land was not used by any of these
owners (FBDU 1981). [t is likely that at some time in the past, the land was farmed (FBDU 1981).
Commercial industrial p(rcesses were being conducted at the Linde Site by the Linde Air Products
Division of Union Carbide prior to MED operations in the 1940's. Union Carbide operations continued at
the Linde Site after the MED-related activities ceased. In the 1990's Praxair acquired the property and
continued to perform commercial industrial processes focusing primarily on research and development.
A radiological survey report prepared for the Linde Site by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in
1978 reports that tre "site was used for the separation of uranium dioxide from uranium ores and for the
conversion of uranium dioxide to uranium tetrafluoride during the period of 1940-1948" (ORNL 1978).
The 1978 ORNL r€port also states that the Linde Air Products Division was under contract to MED to
perform uranium scparations from 1940 through approximately 1948 (ORNL 1978).
As described in the RI report, five (5) Linde buildings were involved in MED activities: Building 14
(built by Union Carbide in the mid-1930's) and Buildings 30, 31,37, and 38 (built by MED on land
owned by Union Carbide) (BNI 1993). Ownership of Buildings 30, 31, 37, and 38 was transferred to
Linde when the MED contract was terminated (BNl 1993). As discussed in the RI report, there were
three phases to the processing conducted at Linde - Phase l: uranium separation from the ore; Phase 2:
conversion of riuranium octoxide (UlOr) to uranium dioxide; and Phase 3: conversion of uranium
dioxide to uranium tetrafluoride. The RI report states that the contaminants of concern at the Linde Site
l0
were primarily associated with the waste strcams and residues of the Phase I operation and that anv
residues from the Phase 2 and 3 operations were reprocessed. which is discussed in more detarl in Section
2.2.2. All phases of operation have been reported to have occurred dunng the 1942 to 1946 period. A
review of historical and recent documents indicates that the operations may have extended to the year
1948, particularly the Phase 2 and 3 operations (DOE 1997). Regardless of the actual duration of
operations, the primary activity over most, if not all of the period during which MED-related activities
occurred at the Linde Site was the separation of uranium from the ore; and the principal contaminants of
concern were from the processing of wastes and residues from that operation since the residues from the
other two phases were reported to have been recycled (Aerospace l98l).
2.2.2 Uranium Processing at Linde
As described in the RI report, Linde was selected for a MED contract because of the company's
experience in the ceramics business, which involved processing uranium to produce salts used to color
ceramic glazes. Under the MED contract, uranium ores from seven different sources were processed in
Linde: four African ores (three low-grade pitchblendes and torbernite) and three domestic ores (carnotite
from Colorado) (BNI 1993).
The domestic ore tailings sent to Linde resulted from commercial processing, conducted primarily in the
Western United States, to remove vanadium. The vanadium removal prrcess resulted in disruption of the
uranium decay chain and the removal of radium. For this reason, uranium supplied to Linde had low
concentrations of radium compared with the natural uranium (U) and Thorium-230 (Th-230)
concentrations.
The African ores shipped to Linds as unprocessed mining ores contained uranium in equilibrium with ail
of the daughter products in its decay chain (e.g., Th-230 and radium-226 [Ra-226]). The other
consrituents of the ores were similar to those of the domestic ores. Laboratory and pilot plant studies
were conducted at Linde from 1942 to 1943 and uranium processing began at Linde in 19+3 (BNt 1993).
From mid-1943 to mid-1946, a total of about 28,000 tons of ore was processed at Linde (Aerospace
1981).
A ttree-phase process was used to separate uranium from the uranium ores and tailings. Phase I
(conducted in Building 30) consisted of separating UsOs from the feedstock materials by a series of
process steps consisting of acid digestion, precipitation, and filtration. The filtrate (liquid remaining from
the processing operations) from this step was discarded as liquid waste into the injection wells, storm
sewers, or sanitary sewers, and the filter cake was discarded as solid waste and was ultimately taken to
Ashland 1. The UrOafrom Phase I was processed into uranium dioxide (UOJ in Phase 2 (Building 30).
ln Phase 3 (Buildings 31 and 38), the uranium dioxide was converted to uranium tetrafluoride (UFr).
Residues fromPhases 2and3 werc reprocessed (Aerospace 1981).
The principal solid waste resulting from Phase I was a solid, gelatinous filter cake consisting of
impurities remaining after filtration of the uranium carbonate solutions. Phase I also produced insoluble
precipitates of the dissolved constituents, which were combined with the tailings. The precipitated
species included large quantities of silicon dioxide, iron hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, calcium
carbonate, aluminum hydroxide, lead sulfate, Iead vanadate, barium sulfate, barium carbonate,
magnesium hydroxide, magnesium carbonate, and iron complexes of vanadium and phosphorus
(Aerospace 1981).
Between 1943 and 1946, apgoximately 8,0(X) tons of filter cake from the Phase I processing of domestic
ores were taken from the temporary tailings pile at Linde and uansported to the former Haist Property'
ll
now known as Ashland l. These residues contained approximately 0.5-l percent uraniumoxide [86.100
pounds (lbs) of nafural uraniuml. which corresponds to 26.5 curies (Ci) of narural uranium. Because the
residues from the African ore were relativeiy high in radium content compared with processed domestic
ore residues, the African ore supplier required that the African ore residues be stored separately so that the
radium could be extracted. Between 1943 and 1946, approximately 18,600 metric tons (20,500 tons) of
residues were shipped to the former Lake Ontario Ordnance Works in L,ewiston, New York, where they
could be isolated and stored in a secure area (Aerospace l98l). The production progress reports also
showed that approximately 140 metric tons (154 tons) of African ore residues were shipped to Middlesex,
New Jersey (Aerospace l98l).
2.2.3 Disposal of Liquid Effluent from Uranium Processing and Grcundwater at the Linde Site
The 1993 R[ report for the Tonawanda Site (BNI 1993) indicated that approximately 55 million gallons of
waste effluent containing dissolved uranium oxide was injected into the subsurface at Linde through
seven (7) wells over a period of three years beginning in 1944. The RI report further indicated that
precipitates were formed in the bedrock formation where injection occurred. The RI report concluded
that the subsurface radioactive contamination probably occurs in the subsurface at Linde as minor
percentages of uranyl sulfates and carbonates precipitated in the shale under the Linde Site where they are
presumed to be immobile (BNI 1993). This ROD does not address the groundwater at the Linde Site. A
ROD will be issued in the future that evaluates the Site groundwater and selects any required remedial
action.
23 Site lnvestigations and Studies
Extensive investigations and studies of the Linde Site and Linde Site conditions were conducted and were
relied upon in the preparation of the RI report, BRA, and FS for the Linde Site, which werc issued by
DOE in 1993. USACE reviewed these DOE documents, conducted additional studies of the Linde Site,
and issued the results of these studies in 1999. The following briefly identifies the key investigations and
studies of the Linde Site that are available in the administrative record files.
The principal MED-related radiological COCs identified in the investigations conducted at the Linde Site
are total uranium, radium and thorium. Additional details of site contamination are presented in Secrions
5 and 6.
2.3.1 DOE Remedial Investigation
A two-phase remedial investigation of the Tonawanda Site, including Linde, was conducted by DOE from
1988 to 1992. The remedial investigation incorporated the findings of earlier site investigations
including, but not limited to, a radiological survey of the site rn 1976 by ORNL (ORNL 1978) and an
evaluation of 1943 to 1946liquid effluent discharge from the Linde plant (Aerospace 1981). The 1993
DOE RI report lists ttrese and other references relied upon by DOE in prcparing the report.
The 1993 DOE RI report (BNI 1993) describes the investigations conducted at the Linde Site and the
findings of investigations and studies to characterize site conditions, determine the naturc and extent of
contamination, and characterize the fate and transport of contamination in site media.
t2
2.3,2 DOE Baseline Risk Assessment
Using the results of the investigations and srudies reported in the Rl report, DOE conducted a baseline
risk assessment and reported the findings in the BRA issued by DOE in 1993 (DOE 1993a). The BRA
describes the potential risks to human health and the environment posed by the presence of MED-related
contamination. No significant risks from chemical contamination were identified. The BRA found that
radiological contamination could pose risks to human health if exposures to contamination in some Linde
Site areas is not controlled or remediated.
2.3.3 DOE Feasibility Study
Based on the findings of the RI report and BRA, DOE conducted an FS to identify and evaluate remedial
alternatives for the Tonawanda Site properties, including Linde. Cleanup objectives for the site were
those that DOE uses under DOE Orders, which are not applicable to USACE. Included among the
alternatives evaluated was an alternative envisioning the excavation of MED-contaminated soil from the
Linde Site, and the other three Tonawanda Sites (Ashland l, Ashland 2 and Seaway) and containment of
all the Tonawanda Site contaminated soils in an engineered cell on Ashland 1, Ashland 2 or Seaway.
Other alternatives included complete excavation with off-site disposal and partial excavation leaving
inaccessible MED-contaminated soils in place. The details of the FS are available in the FS report (DOE
1993b) issued by DOE in 1993.
2.3.4 1993 DOE Proposed Plan
In November 1993, DOE issued its PP for the Linde Site (DOE 1993c). As described in Part I of this
ROD, the remedial alternative recommended in the 1993 PP recommended containment of all MED-
contaminated soils from the Tonawanda Site at an engineered cell to be constructed at Ashland 1,
Ashland 2, or Seaway. Due to public concern over this proposed cell, DOE suspended further actions in
order to re-evaluate remedial alternatives for the Tonawanda Sites, including Linde.
2.3.5 USACE Technical Memorandum: Linde Site Radiological Assessment
In early 1999, USACE, having no specific ARAR standards that addressed residual concentrations of
uranium in soils, prepared a document entitled Technical Memorandum: Linde Site Radiological
Assessment (USACE 2000). The USACE assessment (USACE 2000) considered the radiological risk
associated with the presence of uranium in the Linde Site soils and also the risks associated with uranium
due to its chemical toxicity. As described in the assessment report (USACE 2000), a uranium cleanup
level for the Linde Site soils based on limiting radiological risls was determined to be more restrictive
than the cleanup level based on the chemical toxicity of uranium. USACE found that the total residual
uranium concentration could range from approximately 7 to 7a0 d;lg for an intended future of industnal
Iand use, which results in potential maximum radiological risks ranging from 10-6 to lOa, respectively.
An evaluation of the radiologicd assessment report (USACE 2000) concludes that the risks associated
with the residual radium and thorium concentrations after remediation to the 40 CFR Part 192 standards
are approximatety 10-5 for the assessment areas. Therefore, USACE chose a uranium cleanup guideline
of 600 pCi/g for total uraniurL which is based on limiting potential radiological risks due to uranium in
the Linde Site soils to less than lOa. USACE evaluated using 600 pCi/g for total uranium as a cleanup
guideline for these isolated spots throughout the site to estimate what the residual uranium concentrations
would be after removing isolated spots exceeding this guideline. USACE found trat the average residual
uranium source term concentrations in the various assessment units (USACE 2000) would be below 60
pctle.
l3
Since that evaluatron, new regulations amending 10 CFR 40. Appendix A. Critenon 6(6) were
promulgated by the NRC and became effective on June I l. 1999. These regulations were evaluated and
determined to be relevant and appropriate for the Linde Site since they addressed residual uranium and
other radionuclides present at uranium mill sites, simriar to the Linde Site. USACE then used the
information contained in this radiological assessment (USACE 2000) to determine what the surface and
subsurface cleanup benchmark doses would be for the average member of the critical goup
(commerciaVindustrial worker scenario) and the associated concentration limits for each of the
radionuclides to be used in computing the sum of the ratios for each radionuclide of concern present to the
concentration limit which is limited to unity or less. The results of the evaluation found that the surface
and subsurface cleanup benchmark doses for a commerciaUindustrial worker scenario were 8.8 mrem/y
and 4.1 mrem/y, respectively. The various radionuclide concentration limits, above background, within a
100 square meter area for the surface cleanup benchmark dose were 554 pCilg of U..ur, 5 pCtlg of Ra-226
and l4 pCVg of Th-230. The various radionuclide concentration limis, above background, within a 100
square meter area for the subsurface cleanup benchmark dose were 3,021 pCilgof U.,or, 15 pCi/g of
Ra-226 and 44 pCi/g of Th-230.
2.3.6 USACE Addendum to the Feasibility Study for the Linde Site
In March 1999, USACE issued its Addendum to the Feasibility Study for the Linde Site (USACE 1999b).
The Addendum to the FS focuses on the Linde Site and summarizes findings and assessments not
available at the time the 1993 DOE FS (DOE 1993b) was prepared. Key findings of the 1993 DOE
documents pertaining to the Linde Site and findings of the recent USACE Linde documents are included.
The starus of building demolition and decontamination at Linde is updated, and updated information on
radiological contamination is summarized. The alternatives considered for the Linde Site are described
and evaluated, including risks and costs.
23.7 Proposed Plan for the Linde Site
In March 1999, USACE also issued its Proposed Plan (PP) for the Linde Site (USACE 1999c). The PP
summarizes findings of Linde Site investigations and studies, identifies the cleanup criteria for Linde Site
remediation, describes the remedial action alternatives identified and evaluated by USACE, describes the
findings of the evaluation, and proposes a plan for remediation, referred to as Alternative No. 4, which
involves the excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils, decontamination of buildings, and rhe
imposition of institutional controls in Building 14 of the Linde Site, where a minor amount of
contamination would be left after remediation is completed. The details of the alternatives considered for
Linde Site remediation are described in Section 7 of this ROD. An explanation of the significant
differences between the PP and this ROD is provided in Section I I of this ROD.
The remedy selected for the Linde Site includes the residual radioactive material removal and building
and slab removal actions of Alternative 2 as described in the March 1999 PP but does not include
Building 14 nor the soils beneath Building 14.
2.3,E Recent Removal Actions Conducted at Linde
From 1995 to the present, several removal actions have been undertaken at the Linde Site. These actions
are sumrurized in the following secrion.
l4
2.3.8.1 Demolition of Building 38
ln January 1996, DOE issued an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EUCA) for Praxair Interim
Actions (DOE 1996a). This ERCA addressed demolition of Building 38 and the cleanup of radioactively
contaminated soil that was located next to Building 90 at Linde. Demolition of Building 38 and the off-
site disposal of contaminated debris from Building 38 and the contaminated soil near Building 90 has
been completed consistent with the preferred alternative described in the EUCA.
2.3.8.2 Decontamination of Buildings 14 and 3l
The January 1996 DOE EE/CA (DOE 1996a) also stated DOE's intent to decontaminate Buildings 14, 31,
and 30 at the Linde Site. A categorical exclusion was prepared by DOE under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to address the decontamination at Buildings 14 and 3l (DOE 1996a).
Decontamination work at Buildings 14 and 3l has been completed.
A report entitled Post Remedial Action Repon for Building 14 at the Linde Site, Tonawanda, New York
(USACE 1998c), provides details of efforts initiated under DOE to decontaminate Building 14 interior
surfaces and subsurface soils beneath slabs inside the building where MED-related activities occurred.
These decontamination efforts were completed by USACE in 1998. The decontamination criteria for the
soils and surfaces used during this effort were established by DOE. The decontamination efforts were
completed by USACE as part of the transfer of the FUSRAP from DOE to USACE and Congress'
mandate for USACE to honor DOE's past commitments. A few currently inaccessible areas were
identified where removal to the criteria established by DOE was not possible.
The report (USACE 1998c) indicates that risks from residuai materials remaining in currently
inaccessible areas would be acceptable under current circumstances and building uses and controls.
A document entitled FUSMP Technical Memorandum: Delineation and Remedial Action Performed in
Building 3/ at the Praxair Site (BNI 1997a) describes the decontamination performed in Building 31. The
decontamination work was performed by DOE using criteria established by DOE. An ORNL report
entitled Results of the Independent Radiological Verification Survey of Remediation at Building 31,
Former Linde Uranium Refinery (ORNL 1998) indicates the decontamination in accordance with DOE
criteria was successful. The report notes that there is still radioactive contamination under part of the
Building 3l siab. Removal of the Building 3l slab and the contamination beneath the slab is included in
the remedy selected for implementation at the Linde Site.
2.3.E.3 Demolition of Building 30
In November 1996, DOE issued an EE/CA addressing the demolition of Building 30 at Linde and the off-
site disposal of the resuiting contaminated building rubble (DOE 1996b). USACE issued a
responsiveness summary and Action Memorandum selecting the preferred alternative as the appropriate
course of action in February of 1998. The demolition of Building 30 was completed in accordance with
the Action Memorandum in September 1998.
3. TTIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Pnblic input was encouraged to ensure that the remedy selected for the Linde Site meets the needs of the
local community in addition to being an effective solution to the problem. The adminisrative rccord file
l5
contains all of the documentation used to support thc pre t'crred aiternative and is available at the
following locarions:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Public Information Center
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo, NY 14207-3199
Tonawanda hblic Library
333 Main Street
Tonawanda, NY 14150
Letters announcing the release of the Proposed Plan were mailed on March 26 to 858 members of the
community on the site mailing list. Advertisements announcing the release were placed in The Buffalo
News on March 28, the Niagara Gazette on March 28, the Tonawanda News on March 31, The Record
Advertiser on March 3 I , and The Ken-Ton Bee on March 3 l. A news release was also issued to the same
newspapers.
USACE's PP for the Linde Site was issued on March 26, 1999 (USACE 1999c), the comment period
started on March 28, 1999, and USACE granted extensions to the comment period through June 11, 1999.
Public meetings were held on April 27 and June 3, 1999 to provide information about the remedial
alternatives and the opportunity to submit comments on the PP. Responses to public comments are
presented in the Responsiveness Summary, which is provided as an appendix in this document. The
Responsiveness Summary, combined with the FS and revised PP, will constitute the final FS and PP for
the Linde Site.
Discussions regarding the significant changes between the PP and this ROD are presented in Section I l.
As indicated in Section I l, a new public comment perid is not required for the changes. The work
excluded from this remedial action will be addressed in separate CERCLA documentation that will be
presented to the public for comment at a later time. Also, the additional ARAR will not substantially
affect the protectiveness of the remedy or subsequent uses of the site.
4. SCOPE OF REMEDIAL ACTION
The remedial action involves cleanup of MED-related radiological contaminated media and MED-related
radiological contaminated structural surface areas in accordance with ARARs selected for the site.
4.1 Cleanup Criteria and Standards
The cleanup criteria and standards to be used in remediation of the Linde Site are described in the
following sections.
4.1.1 ARARS
Agencies responsible for remedial actions under CERCLA must ensure that selected remedies meet
ARARs. The following sections define ARARs and describe the ARAR adopted by USACE for cleanup
of the Linde Site.
t6
4.1.1.1 ARARs - Definitions
Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive
environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal environmental
or state environmental or facility siting laws that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, remedial action, location or other circumstance at a CERCLA site. An applicable
requirement directly and fully addresses an element of the remedial action.
Relevant and appropriate requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other
substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria or limitations promulgated under federal
environmental or state environmental or facility siting laws that while not "applicable" to a hazardous
substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location or other circumstance at a CERCLA site,
address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use
is suited to the particular site.
OnIy those state standards that are promulgated, are identified by the state in a timely rranner, and are
more stringent than federal requirements may be applicable or relevant and appropriate. USACE has
determined that the following are the cleanup ARARs for the remedial activities at the Linde Site.
4.2 ARARS for the Linde Site
The standards found in 40 CFR Part l92,re not considered applicable because the regulation is only
applicable to specific sites designated under UMTRCA. However, USACE has determined that 40 CFR
Part 192 is relevant and appropriate to the cleanup of the Linde Site. This determination was made based
on the similarity of the ore processing activities to extract uranium and resulting radionuclides found in
the waste after processing at uranium mill sites where the regulation is applicable.
Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 192 addresses cleanup of land and buildings contaminated with residual
radioactive material from inactive uranium processing sites, and sets standards for residual concentrations
of Ra-226 in soil. lt requires that radium concentrations shall not exceed background by more than 5
pCi/g p the top 15 cm of soil or 15 pCi/g in any 15 cm layer below the top layer, averaged over an area of
100 m'.
Subpart B also provides standards for any occupied or habitable building associated with the soils beneath
or surrounding the building, not the equipment or surfaces within the building. These standards require
that the remedial action shall be and reasonable effort shall be made to:
. achieve an annual average (or equivalent) radon decay product concentration (including
backgrornd) not to exceed 0.02 Working Level (WL). In any case, the radon decay product
concentration (including background) shall not exceed 0.03 WL, and. the level of gamma radiation shall not exceed the background level by morc than 20 microroentgens
per hour.
These 40 CFR Part 192, Subpart B requirements are considered relevant and appropriate to the cleanup of
the Linde Site and buildings.
New regulations amending 10 CFR 40, Appendix a, Criterion 6(6) were promulgated and became
effective on June I l, 1999. These regulations were evaluated and determined to not be applicable to the
Linde Site. However, they were found to be relevant and appropriate for the Lin& Site since they
t7
addressed residual uranium and other radionuclides present at uranium mrll sites, similar to the Linde
Site. l0 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) requires that residual radioactive materials remainrng after
remediarion will not resuit in a total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), considering all radionuclides
present (e.g., radiunr, thorium, and uranium) to the average member of the critical group exceeding a
benchmark dose established based on cleanup to the radium standards of 5 pCi/g in the top 15 centirneters
and 15 pCi/g in subsequent 15 centimeter layers below the top layer and must be as low as reasonably
achievable (ALARA). This benchmark dose is then used to establish allowable soil and surface
concentration levels for the various radionuclides present other than radium.
Using the information contained in the radiological assessment (USACE 2000), USACE computed the
benchmark doses for the cleanup of surfaces and subsurfaces. The results of the evaluation found that the
surface and subsurface cleanup benchmark doses for a commerciaUindustrial worker scenario were 8.8
mrem/y and 4.1 mrem/y, respectively. The various radionuclide concentration limits, above background,
within a 100 square meter area for the surface cleanup benchmark dose were 55a pCi/g of Uro.,r, 5 pCVg
of Ra-226 and 14 pCi/g of Th-230. The various radionuclide concentration limits, above background,
within a 100 square meter area for the subsurface cleanup benchmark dose were 3,021 pCilg of U,..r, l5
pCilg of Ra-226 and 44 pCi/g of Th-230. These criteria would apply to the soils being remediated at
Linde. The surface criteria will be developed for specific buildings or surfaces based on likely exposure
scenarios and meeting the surface cleanup benchmark dose of 8.8 mrem/y. These specific surface critena
as well as appropriate ALARA principles will be included in their respective remediation work plans.
4.3 Summary of Remedial Action Objectives and Cleanup Standards and Guidelines for MED-
Contaminated Media at the Linde Site
The general remedial action objectives for cleanup of the Linde Site are the CERCLA threshold criteria:
. the remedy must be protective of public health and the environment; and. the remedy must attain ARARs.
ln meeting these general remedial action objectives, USACE has determined that the standards of 40 CFR
Part 192 and l0 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) are relevant and appropriate for Linde Site cleanup.
The cleanup criteria at the Linde Site will be the following: (l) the removal of soils exceeding the 40
CFR 192 standards for radium, which includes consideration of thorium, when averaged over 100 square
meters; (2) removal of soils with residual radionuclide concentrations within a 100 square meter area that
results in exceeding unity for the sum of the ratios of these radionuclide concentrations to the associated
concentration limits, above background, of 554 pCi/g for U,o,r, 5 pCi/g for Ra-226 and 14 pCi/g for
Th-230forsurfacecleanupsand3,02l pCUgof U,'u, 15 pCi/gof Ra-226and44 pCVgof Th-230for
subsurface cleanups, and (3) removal of residual radioactive materials from surfaces necessary to meet
the benchnrark dose for surfaces of 8.8 mrem/y based on the specific location of the surfaces and
exposure scenarios. In addition to the above requirements of the ARAR, USACE will remediate the
Linde site to insure that no concentration of total uranium exceeding 600 pCi/g above background will
remain in the site soils. Application of the ARAR standards for MED-contaminated media at the Linde
Site will be conducted as described. generally, below.
4.3.1 Soils Cleanup
Soils at the Linde Site exceeding the standards found in 40 CFR Part 192 will be excavated and disposed
off-site as detailed in Section 7. In addition, in order to comply with l0 CFR Part 40, Appendix A,
Criterion 6(6), soils within any 100 square meter :rea will be removed when necessary to reduce to less
l8
than unity the sum of the ratios of the residual radionuclide concentrations to the associated concentration
limis, above background, of 55a pCi/g fbr U,*ur, 5 pCi/g tbr Ra-226 and l4 pCilg for Th-230 for surface
cleanups and 3,021 pCi/g of U,,u, 15 pCilg of Ra-226 and 44 pCilg of Th-230 for subsurface cleanups to
comply with 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6). In addition to the above requirements of the
ARAR, USACE will remediate the Linde site to insure that no concentration of total uranium exceeding
600 pCi/g above background will remain in the site soils. In order to gain access to MED<ontaminated
soils located under buildings or buildings slabs, demolition of building slabs will be required.
Appropriate ALARA principles will be included in the detailed site remediation plan. Soils beneath
Building 14 will be addressed separately from this ROD. MED-contaminated sediments in drainlines at
Linde, as detailed in the RI, will also be remediated to the standards of 40 CFR Part 192 as well as the
new standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6). Verification of compliance with soil
cleanup standards and criteria will be demonstrated using surveys developed in accordance with the
Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) and as may be required by
the ARARs.
4,3,2 Building and Structures Cleanup
The cleanup of contaminated building and stmcrure surface areas will be conducted in accordance with
the l0 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) using building/stnrcture specific decontamination
protocols to be detailed in the work plan for site remediation. Residual radioactive materials will be
removed from surfaces necessary to meet the benchmark dose for surfaces of 8.8 mrem/y based on the
specific location of the surfaces and exposure scenarios and appropriate ALARA principles. Building 14
MED-related radiological contamination will be addressed separately from this ROD.
4.3.3 Groundwater
This ROD does not ad&ess the groundwater at the Linde Site. A ROD will be issued in the future that
evaluates the Site groundwater and selects any required remedial action.
5. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 Site contamination Overview
The 1993 DOE Rl report (BNI 1993) describes elevated levels of radionuclides at the Linde Site resulting
from the separation of uranium ores at the property during the mid-1940's under a MED contract. The
MED-related contamination at Linde resulted, for the most part, from three activities associated with
uraniurn processing: the handling of uranium ores, the temporary storage and handling of solid residues
before they were shipped offsite for disposal, and the disposal of liquid waste from the uranium
processing operations. The 1993 PP (DOE 1993c) identified three sources of radioactive contamination
at Linde: the uranium processing buildings, surface and subsurface soils, and sediments in sumps and
storm and sanitary sewers. The primary radioactive contaminants in the soils and sediments are U-238,
Ra-226, Th-230, and their respective radioactive decay products (DOE 1993c).
The following sections provide additional details of the MED-related contamination as reported in the
1993 zu and FS reports. In the 1993 DOE reports, radiological contamination is defined in terms of DOE
criteria. DOE's criteria are described in Section 2.6.1 of the Addendum to tlp Feasibility Study (USACE
1999b).
l9
Since the RI report was prepared in 1993 Buildings 38 and 30 have been demolished and Buildings l4
and 31 have been decontaminated. The findings of pre-remediation investigations undertaken as part of
these activities and an update of current contamination conditions following building demolition and
decontamination at the Linde Site are included in the descriptions of current contamination at the Linde
Site where appropriate.
5.2 Radioactive Contamination in Surface and Subsurface Soils
The Rl (BNI 1993) indicates that U-238, Ra-226, and Th-230 are the primary MED-related radionuclides
of concern in the surface and subsurface soils at Linde. The 1993 RI identified contamination in four (4)
areas of the Site as follows:
Arca I contains primarily superficial radioactive contamination located in the northwest corner of the
main parking lot area at Linde. The RI report indicates the contamination does not extend deeper than 4
ft.
Area2 contains primarily superficial contamination located along the northern boundary of Linde and the
northeastern corner of the main parking area. A temporary storage pile for tlrc consolidation of
radioactively contaminated soils and windrow materials is located in this area. Contamination does not
extend deeper than 1.2 m (4 ft). (This material has now been removed from the Linde Site.)
Area 3 is located aiong the fence line in the northeastern corner of the property. Evidence of radioactive
contamination in this area extends off the property and encompasses a railroad spur formerly used to haul
uranium ore into Linde. Sampling results show that the radioactive contamination is present to a depth of
4 ft in the area west of the railroad tracks and to a depth of 2.0 ft east of the tracks.
Area 4 includes the areas of Buildings 30, 3l, 38, 58, and a blast wall ouside Building 58. Sampling
results show that the soil beneath Building 30 is radioactively contaminated to a depth of 2.4 m (8 ft).
As described in Section 2.3.9, several remedial actions have been conducted at Linde since the 1993 Rl
and FS reports were prepared. These remedial actions included the demolition of Buildings 38 and 30
and the decontamination of Buildings 3l and 14.
A subsurface investigation at Buildings 3l and 57 was conducted in 1996. Results of the investigation
indicate the presence of radioactive contamination in soils at locations not reported in the 1993 DOE
documents, including contamination under Building 57.
As described in Section 2.3.9.2, decontamination of Building 14 was completed in 1998, including
removal of radiorctively contaminated soils from beneath floor slabs (USACE 1998c). A small,
inaccessible volume of radioactively contaminated soils were left under stnrctural support members. As
described in Section 4.3.1, Building 14 and the soils under the building will be addressed separately from
the action under this ROD.
The information available in the 1993 DOE documents, along with the findings of subsequent surveys
and investigations, were used by USACE to develop an updated database for MED-related radioactively
contaminated soils at Linde. The updated database and the 511516001ffi(ave.) criteria described in Section
4.3 were used to estimate the volume of MED-related radioactively contaminated soils as reported in the
Addendum to the Feasibility Study for the Linde Site (USACE 1999b) and the PP (USACE 199c).
20
As detailed in the USACE Technical Memorandum: Lirule Site Radiological Assessment (USACE 2000),
the 95 percent upper confidence limit (ULus) values for radiological contamination in site soil used in the
assessment of risls ranged from 0.88 pCilg to 4l.7 pCrlg for Ra-226, from 2.5 pCi/g to 82.4 pCtlg for Th-
230, and from 30 pCilg to 197 pCrlg for U-238. Results of analyses of individual soil samples ranged
from background to in excess of 1,800 pCilg for total uranium, from background to in excess of 200
pCilg for Ra-226, and from background to in excess of 800 pCi/g for Th-230. Additional details of the
location of and the assessment of radiological contaminarion in site soils is presented in Section 6.4
5.3 Chemical Contamination in Surface and Subsurface Soils
The non-radioactive MED-related contaminants in the surface and subsurface soils at Linde were
determined to be metal precipitates expected to be found in MED filter cake. The 1993 RI evaluated the
possible existence of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste and concluded
that Linde soils would not contain hazardous waste. Additionally, the BRA concluded that chemical
contaminants found on the Linde Site do not pose a health threat (DOE 1993a).
The remedial action to be conducted at Linde witl not address any releases of hazardous substances that
may have occurred due to operations conducted at Linde prior to or after MED operations, except to the
extent that substances are commingled with the MED era radioactive contamination. Sampling will be
conducted of all materials to be disposed during the remedial action to ensure proper disposal of the
materid (i.e., demonstrate compliance with disposal faciliry waste acceptance criteria). Should any
hazardous materials be found that are not commingled with MED-related radiological materials, the site
ownert Praxair, will be notified for them to take the appropriate actions for that material as well as any
remaining similar materials at the site. Details of the sampling will be included in the work plans for the
project.
5.4 Contamination in Surface Water
The Rl report reported no surface water contamination frorn MED-related activities in surface waters
onsite or directly downstream from the Linde property.
5.5 Contamination in Sediments
Results of Rl sampling of sediments downstream of Linde indicated no radionuclide concentrations above
background (DOE 1993b).
Radioactive contamination was detected in sediments found in sumps inside Building 30 as well as in the
sanitary and stortrr sewers. The sediments in the Building 30 sumps were found to contain concentrations
of U-238, Ra-226, and Th-230, above background levels. Samples taken in the sanitary and storm sewers
at various locations indicated U-238, Ra-226, and Th-230 contamination. The contamination may have
resulted from process liquid collection systems used during operations or during the construction of the
concrete floor. Contamination detected in the sanitary and storm sewers resulted from the disposal of
production effIuents into these systems. Contaminated sediments were found in sumps and drains during
the decontamination of Building 14 (USACE 1998c). The Rl concludes that the exact extent of
contamination in the drain system will need to be determined during the remedial action.
2t
5.6 Contamination of Groundwater
As discussed in Section 2.2.3, USACE has decided to address the starus of groundwater at the Linde Site
under a separate CERCLA action as a separate operable unit.
5,7 MED-Related Radioactive Contamination in Buildings and Structures
The 1993 DOE zu report (BNI 1993) described the primary types of radioactive contamination in Linde
buildings as fixed beta-gamma emitting radionuclides and dust contaminated with U-238, Th-230, and
Ra-226. The RI report identifred radioactive contamination exceeding DOE guidelines in parts of
Building 14, 30, 3l and 38. The presence of a subsurface vault just west of Buitding 73 was also
identified as a structure that may contain radioactive waste.
As described in Section 2.3.9, Buildings 38 and 30 have been demolished and Buildings 14 and 31 have
been decontaminated.
5.8 Radiological Data Evaluation
The goal of the data evaluation was to identify a set of radiological contaminants of concern (COCs) that
are likely site-related and then select those COCs that are valid to use in the quantitative risk
characterization. Radiological sample analyses for the R[ were performed in accordance with approved
protocols. The detailed analytical results are contained in appendices to the RI report (BNI 1993). Data
quality objectives and Quality Assurance/Quality Conrol (QA/QC) procedures are discussed in Appendix
D to the RI (BNI 1993). Similar procedures were used in the evaluation of data developed subsequent to
the RI.
s.E.f Background [.evels of Radioactivity in Linde Site Soils
The standards contained in the ARARs are typically stated in terms of concentrations or levels in excess
of site background. The 1993 BRA (DOE 1993a) adopted background levels for radioactiviry in soils for
all of the Tonawanda Sites based on mean concentrations reported for soils in an undisturbed area of
Ashland 2. Background levels of radionuclides in soils used by DOE and USACE, in subsequent
assessments, are:
. Ra-226, 1.1 pCi/g. Th-230, 1.4 pCi/g. U-238,3.1pCVg
Based on the relative abundance of the uranium isotopes, the background values for total uranium was
calcuiated to be 6.1 pCi/g.
5,E.2 Summary of Radiological COCs
The final list of radiological COCs for soil includes Ra-226, Th-230, U-238 and their associated decay
products (DOE 1993a). Although not considered MED-related, the Th-232 and U-235 series were
included in the risk assessment conducted by DOE. No elevated levels of radionuclides were detected in
surface waters or sediments downstream of the Linde Site (DOE 193b). Th-230 and U-238 were
22
identrfied as radiologrcal COCs in sediments tound on the Linde Site in sumps and sanitary and storm
sewers (DOE 1993b).
5.9 Potential Chemical COCs
The chemical data evaluated are those reported in the RI report for the Tonawanda Site (BNI 1993).
Chemicals in the Rl database were evaluated in accordance with EPA data validation guidance in Risk
Assessment Guidarce for Superfund, Volume / (EPA 1989). Background samples for soil were used to
identify naturallyoccurring levels of chemicals and ambient concentrations.
As detailed in the BRA, risks resulting from nonradioactive chemical constituents were found to be
within the USEPA acceptable risk range. Therefore, there are no chemical COCs for human health
concerns.
6. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The 1993 BRA (DOE 1993a) was prepared to evaluate the risk to human heaith and the environment from
the radioactive and chemical constituents at the site. In accordance with EPA guidance, the primary
heaith risks investigated were cancer and other chemical-related illnesses, as well as the ecological risks.
This assessment evaluated the potential risks that could develop in the absence of cleanup and assumes
that no controls (e.g., fencing, maintenance, protective clothing, etc.) are, or will be, in place. The
purpose of the BRA was to determine the need for cleanup and provide a baseline against which the
remedial action alternatives were compared. The complete report is in the administrative record file and a
brief summary of the radiological and chemical health risks, as well as the ecological risks, is provided
herein.
The BRA identified the means by which people and the environment may be exposed to constituents
present at the Tonawanda Site. Mathematical models were used to predict the possible effects on human
health and the environment from exposure to radionuclides and chemicals for both present and future uses
at the site. Under Section 300.400(eX2XiXAX2) of the NCP, "accephble exposure levels are generally
concentration levels that represent an excess upper bound life-time cancer risk to an individual of between
10-a and 10-6 using information on the relationihip between dose and response." The 10'6 risk level shall
be used as the point of departure for determining remediation goals for alternatives when ARARs are not
available or not sufficiently protective because of the presence of multiple pathways of exposure."
The modeled risk estimates in the BRA werc then compared to ttre NCP's risk criteria. The findings of
these comparisons of USACE's updated risk characterization for the site are described below.
6.1 Radiotogicel Health Risk
The 1993 BRA provides risk estimates for average (mean) exposure conditions under hypothetical
scenarios for current and projected future Iand use. These estimated rislcs were calculated using the
average radionuclide concentrations present at the properties. The results predicted that, for the current
land uses, no one would be exposed to unacceptable risks. For assumed funrre land uses, the mean
radiological rish as was repofted in the original 1993 PP, was predicted to be within the NCP's range of
acceptabiliry at Linde.
23
USEPA's guidance for risk characterization requires that modeling to estimate nsks also include what is
called a Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) scenario. RME calculations assume that a worker at the
site for a longer period of time than the average worker (30 years for the RME worker and,22 years for
the average worker), would be exposed to higher concentrations of dust than the average worker, would
inhale more air than the average worker, would spend more time each day outside than the average
worker, and would ingest more soil each day than the average worker. Using these higher RME exposure
assumptions, the BRA reported that RME radiological risks to workers at some Linde Sile areas slightly
exceed the NCP's target risk range under current conditions. The BRA assumed that furure use of the
Linde Site will be commerciaVindustrial.
As briefly described in Section I, USACE prepared a Technical Memorandum (USACE 2000) evaluating
radiological risks at the Linde Site assuming no action is taken and also assessing risks after cleanup.
The USACE assessment of radiological risks at the Linde Site used updated information on the location
of radiologically contaminated soils. The Linde Site currently is used for commercial and industriai
purposes, and industrial facilities have been present at the site for more than 60 years. Given the past and
current use of the Linde Site for industrial and commercial uses over more than 60 years, including the
ownership of part of the property by ECIDA to promote indusrial use and the zoning restrictions on the
property, USACE has concluded that the reasonably anticipated future land use of the property wili be for
commerciaVindustrial purposes (USACE 1999b) (USACE 2000). The USACE assessment considered
the most likely future land use of the Linde Site to be its current commerciaVindustrial use.
The results of the USACE assessment show curent risks to commerciaVindustrial workers at the site to
be higher than the NCP's target risk range for several areas of the Linde Site. Additional details of the
USACE assessment are presented in Section 6.4.
6.2 Chemical Health Risk
The 1993 BRA also evaluated cancer and chemical toxicity risks. The risk of developing an incremental
increase of cancer over a 70-year lifetime from chemical carcinogens at the site was evaluated for both
average (mean) exposure and for RME. The evaluation showed no chemical risls at Linde exceeding the
NCP's target risk range.
Potentials for chemical noncarcinogenic health effects were also evaluated in the BRA. These potential
effects are expressed as chemical-specific hazard quotients (HQs). HQs were tabulated for chemicals of
concern. HQs were summed for each pathway to provide a total hazard index (HI) for the pathway. The
calculated HIs for all exposure pathways for all scenarios evaluated at the Tonawanda Site properties.
including Linde, are much less than 1, thus indicating that no unacceptable effects would be expected.
6.3 Ecologicd Risk
The Ecological Risk Assessment included in the 1993 BRA follows USEPA's general procedures for
ecological assessments in the Superfund program. The characterization of habitats and biota at risk are
semiqualitative, and screening of contaminants and assessment of potential impacts to biota are based on
measured environmental concentrations of the constiruents and toxicological effects reported in the
literature.
The Linde Site is located in a highly modified urban, industrial area and provides urban wildlife habitat
supporting only cosmopolitan species of birds and small mammals. No critical habitats for threatened or
24
endangered species are present on the Site. No threatened or endangered species exist on the Linde Site
and ecological risks are minimal. USACE has concluded that no significant impact has occurred to
ecological resources from previous releases ofhazardous substances at the Linde Site.
6.4 USACE Radiological Assessrnent of the Linde Site
An assessment of the Linde Site was conducted by USACE to estimate potential exposures and associated
risks fromradionuclides at the Linde Site (USACE 2000). As described in Section 4.1.1, the assessment
was initially conducted in early 1999 to develop a site-specific cleanup guideline for uranium since there
was no uranium ARAR available at that time. Since then, new regulations arnending 10 CFR 40,
Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) were promulgated and became effective on June 11, 1999. These regulations
were evaluated and determined to be relevant and appropriate for the Linde Site since they addressed
residual uranium and other radionuclides prcsent at uranium mill sites, similar to the Linde Site.
The Linde Site assessment assumed that the most likely future land use at Linde will be continued
commerciaVindustrial. The basis for concluding that the most likely use of the site in the future is
commerciaVindustrial is presented in Section 1.2.3 of this ROD. The assessment also assumed that
construction or utility workers will be involved in on-site activities in the remediated area for limited
periods of time. Radiation doses and associated risks were evaluated using radiologrcal contamination
data from the site and the RESRAD Code (Yu et al. 1993).
The assessment included an evaluation to determine current risks, assuming no radiological materials
have been removed from the Building 14 area and future risks at the Linde Site, as discussed in Section
2.3.5.
For purposes of the assessment, the Linde Site was divided into twelve (12) assessment units. The
location of the assessment units and sample locations for the radiological data used in the assessment are
shown in Figure 6-1.
Figure 6-2 shows the locations of samples exceeding the site cleanup criteria. As shown in Figure 6-2,
criteria are only exceeded in assessment units 7 through 11. As shown in the assessment report, the no
action alternative presents risks outside of the acceptable CERCLA risk range of 10-a to l0-5. The risks
associated with the residual uranium after cleanup to the standards of the ARARs are acceptable (USACE
2000).
7. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
7.1 Remedld Action Alternatives Evaluated in the f993 FS and PP and Updated Description of
Linde Ntqmatives
Detailed descriptions of the remedial alternatives considered for the Tonawanda site in 1993, including
the Linde Site, can be found in the FS (DOE 1993b), which is available in the administrative record. A
total of 6 alternatives were considered in the FS. The following section describes the 1993 alternatives
and updates the descriptions of alternatives considered by USACE in the 1999 PP for the Unde Site.
25
I
t
U)Hz,i) u7
EEE Eiuii;2e E
oE E<
-aE-<
H
i
E
I
nlllilu
lilii
:;i:i
ii.'i
Ir ^o
{;--'!
iiuti
'L--:-.ia_
I
I
1
I
Uffir%. nEtl4
"L1
llr,
E
0
It
a
_-.-4\<=-f-'
i-.t?--?
t+ EI' f
i.----l
o
o
o
it+
EHdE E
*Ei E= uii
=a = '
xFI
!ffifrEr
II
!
"bt
tr
E
h
Es
=
at
n?
r-r\--------
--#
\se d =#=82 = =E=o.= + qE
=, Ei (Je':i3 a
=,E,ETEi i*,EEiiiie
::::;:::::
r ll Iii.
6zE{(5trIrl
Ir _o
7.1.1 Linde Site Alternatives
Alternative l: No Action. The no-action alternative is required under CERCLA regulations to provide a
baseline for comparison with other alternatives. Under this alternative, no action is taken to implement
remedial activities. Periodic monitoring of the Site as appropriate would be continued. This alternative
was evaluated in the 1993 FS and is the baseline for comparison with other alternatives for the Linde Site.
Alternative 2: Complete Excavation and Decontamination with Offdte Disposal. This alternative
was evaluated in the 1993 FS. Complete excavation of MED-contaminated soils containing radionuclides
above guidelines and offsite disposal and decontamination of the surfaces of structures exceeding
guidelines would remove the source of elevated levels of radionuclides from the Linde Site. Section 4
addresses the cleanup standards and guidelines selected by USACE for Linde.
Alternative 3: Complete Excavation with Onsite Dispmal. This alternative is similar to Alternative 2
regarding excavation of soils, however, all excavated soils would be placed in an on-site engineered
disposal cell to be located on Ashland l, Ashland 2 or Seaway. Institutional controls would be imposed
to control access to the onsite engineered disposal cell and the cell would be designed to minimize furure
exposures or releases to the environment. After consideration of comments received from the public and
State on the 1993 PP, USACE eliminated this alternative from further consideration.
Alternative 4: Partial Excavation with Offsite Dispmal. In the 1993 FS, this alternative inciuded ttre
excavation of accessible contaminated soils, institutional controls and containment for "access-restricted"
soils, demolition of Buildings 14, 3l and 38, decontamination of Building 30 and offsite disposai. Soils
covered by buildings or structures were determined to be access-restricted. Under this alternative, the
soils were to be left in place until the buildings or structures were abandoned and demolished.
Given the demolition of Buildings 38 and 30 and the decontamination of Building 14, including removal
of all but a limited volume of contaminated soil beneath Building 14 that is considered inaccessible due to
stmctural considerations, only a limited quantity of contaminated soil is currently considered inaccessible
at the Linde Site. Accordingly, Alternative 4 was redefined as Excavation, Decontamination and
Institutional Controls. Under this alternative, surfaces and soil with contamination exceeding cleanup
guidelines would either be decontaminated or removed from the site at all locations except the limited
quantity that may exist at Building 14. Institutional Controls would be placed on the use of Building 14
to preclude future exposure to MED-related radionuclides that could exceed acceptable risk levels. The
controls could include measures such as deed restrictions, prohibiting intrusion into building areas or
subsurface areas without imposing restrictive conditions, restricting use of areas, employee training,
posting warnings and similar measures.
Alternative 5: Partial Excavation With On-Site Disposal. Alternative 5 was the same as Alternative 4
in the 1993 FS and PP, except contaminated soils removed from Linde would be disposed in an on-site
engineered disposal cell to be located at Ashland I, Ashland 2, or Seaway. After consideration of
comments received from the public and State on the 1993 PP, USACE eliminated this alternative from
further consideration.
Alternative 6: Containment with Institutional Controls. Containment for the Linde Site would
involve capping of areas exceeding guidelines for radiological contamination. After consideration of
comments received from the public and State on the 1993 PP, USACE eliminated this alternative from
further consideration.
28
7.1,2 Summary of Current Alternatives
As described above, the remedial alternatives considered by USACE in the 1999 PP for the Linde Site
are:
. Alternative I - No Action.. Alternative 2 - Complete Excavation and Decontamination with Off-Site Disposal.. Alternative 4 - Excavation, Decontamination and Instirutional Controls
However, since USACE has decided to exclude from the scope of this ROD the remedial actions
associated with Building 14 and the goundwater system, Alternatives 2 and 4 are essentially the same
with respect to the remedial actions to be taken for the soils and various contaminated surfaces.
Therefore, there are only two alternatives for the scope addressed by this ROD: (1) No Action and (2)
Complete Excavation and Decontamination with Off-Site Disposal. These two alternatives are analyzed
in Section 8.
E. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The two alternatives that are appropriate for the scope of actions to be covered by this ROD are (l) No
Action and (2) Complete Excavation and Decontamination with Off-Site Disposal as discussed in Section
7.1.2. These two alternatives were evaluated using the CERCLA criteria to determine the more favorable
actions for the cleanup of the Linde Site. These criteria are described below. The criteria were
established to ensure that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment, meets regulatory
requirements, is cost effective, and utilizes pennanent solutions and treatment to the maximum extent
practicable. The results of the detailed evaluation of the two alternatives addressing the Linde Site soils
and various contaminated surfaces, excluding Building 14 and groundwater systenL are summarized in
the following sections. The evaluation criteria are described in Section 8.1, followed by a summary of the
comparative analysis in Section 8.2.
8.1 EvaluationCriteria
The following two criteria are threshold criteria and must be met.
, Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment - addresses whether an alternative
provides adequate protection and describes how risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls, or instiotional controls.
, Compliance with Federal and State Environmental Regulaions - addresses if a remedy wouid meet
all of the federal and state ARARS.
The following criteria are considered balancing criteria and are used to weigh major tradeoffs among
alternatives being evaluated.
, lnng-Term Effectiveness and Permanence - addresses the remaining risk and the ability of an
alternative to protect human health and the environment over time, once cleanup goals have been
met.
29
E.2
Short-Term Effectiveness and Environmental Impacts - addresses the impacts to the communirv and
site workers during cleanup including the amount of time it takes to complete the action.
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment - addresses the anticipated
performance of treatment that permanently and significantly reduces toxicity, mobiliry, or volume of
waste.
, Implementability - addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of an alternative, including
the availability of materials and services required for cleanup.
c Cost - compares the differences in cost, including capital, operation, and maintenance costs.
The following are considered modifying criteria and are generally taken into account after public
conunent is received on the PP.
State Acceptance - evaluates whether the State agrees with, opposes, or has no comment on the
preferred alternative.
Community Acceptarrce - addresses the issues and concerns the public may have regarding each of
the alternatives as expressed in comments.
Alternative Comparison
The purpose of the following analysis is to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives,
when compared with each other, based on the evaluation criteria. This information was used to select a
preferred alternative.
The alternatives considered in the evaluation, Alternatives I and 2 would involve the following:
. Alternative l, No Action. This alternative would involve no remediation of the Linde Site.
Periodic monitoring would be required.
. Alternative2, Complete Excavation and Decontamination with Offsite Disposal. This
alternative would involve the demolition of buildings necessary to remediate the site. These
buildings include Buildings 57,67,13,738,75, and 76 and would also include the building slabs
and foundations. The slabs that iue now remaining after the demolition of Buildings 30 and 38 and
the tank saddles north of Building 30 would also be removed. A wall in Building 3l would be
removed to access sub-slab and sub-footing soil exceeding criteria. Contaminated sediments in
&ainlines and contaminated soils in the blast wall stnrcture east of Building 58 would be removed.
The subsurface vault west of Building 73 would be investigated and removed if found to be
contaminated. MED-related soils would be removed in order to comply with the cleanup criteria.
Surface cleanup criteria will be developed for specific buildings or surfaces based on likely
exposure scenarios and meeting the surface cleanup benchmark dose of 8.8 mrem/y. These specific
surface criteria will be included in their respective work plans.
The results of the evaluation are summarized in the following sections.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environmenr. Alternative 2, providing complete excavation
of soils containing radionuclides and decontamination of surfaces to comply with the cleanup criteria,
30
provides the greatest degree of protection to human health and the environment, because the matenals
contalning radionuclides above the criteria are removed from the site and are pennanently isolated in a
disposal facility. A degree of risk to workers is involved with implementing this alternative, because the
associated work involves intrusive activities for handling and moving materials containing radionuclides
above guidelines. These risks can be minimized by using safety procedures and equipment. Alternative I
provides no increased protection over the current site conditions and would not be protective of human
health if current restrictions on exposure to areas containing contamination were to be discontinued.
Compliance with ARARs. Alternative 2 meets the ARARs because all soil containing MED-related
radionuclides that does not meet the cleanup criteria would be excavated and permanently isolated in an
off-site disposal cell or facility and all surface contamination would be remediated or eliminated by
demolition and isolated in an off-site disposal cell or facility. Appropriate ALARA principles and
practices to be used in the field for removal of soils and surfaces exceeding the criteria are included in the
detaiied remediation work plan, which is developed prior to any remediation efforts being initiated. One
ALARA practice used by USACE is the actual over-excavation of materials as materials exceeding
criteria are removed thus resulting in residual concentrations being much lower than the criteria. The
remaining levels of residual radioactive materials after remediation to the cleanup standards will also
result in compliance with the ARAR standards regarding radon and indoor garuna radiation levels above
background. The estimated indoor radon concentrations were found to be below the standard of 0.2 WLs
(USACE 2000). The maximum gamma radiation level inside building structures covercd by the scope of
this ROD was measured to be 15 prftr including background (ORNL 1978) before any soil remediation,
which is already below the 20 prltr standard. Any soil remediation should reduce this maximum gamma
radiation level even further. Alternative l, however, is noncompliant with the ARARs because all of the
waste on the Linde Site containing radionuclides above the cleanup criteria, remains on-site with no
additional protection provided.
Long-term Effectiveness ard Permanence. A primary measure of the long-term effectiveness of an
alternative is the magniode of residual risk to human health after remediation. The adequacy and
reliability of engineering and/or institutional controls used to manage residual materials that remain onsite
must also be considered.
Alternative 2 provides the highest degree of long-term effectiveness and permanence because all soils
containing radionuclides above the cleanup criteria are excavated and removed from the site and all
surface contamination would be remediated or eliminated by demolition and isolated in an off-site
disposal cell or facility.
For Alternative 2, tlre risk calculated for an industriaVcommercial worker at the Site, is within acceptable
Ievels.
Alternative l, no action, has low long-term effectiveness because the post-implementation remedial risks
equal those now at the site.
Short-term Effectivercss and Environmental Impacts. Short+erm effectiveness is measured with respect
to protection of communiry and workers as well as short-term environmental impacts during remedial
actions and time until remedial action objectives are achieved. An increase in the complexity of an
alternative typically results in a decrease in short-term effectiveness because of increased handling and
processing and, alternatives involving offsite disposal of wastes would result in a decrease in short+erm
effectiveness because of the increased time required and transportation-related risks.
3l
Altematrve [, no action. is the most effective in protecting the community and workers and controlling
impacts during implementation since no actions that could create impacts are undertaken. Alternuive I
requrres the shortest time to implement. The short-term effectrveness of Alternative 2 ranks lower in
terms of this criterion because it is more complex and will require a longer time to implement.
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment. Neither of the altematives provides
treaunent on site for the matenals to be removed. Alternative 2, which provides for offsite disposal, will
include containment at the final disposal location and any treaunent which is required to meet the
standards of the offsite facitity. This alternative thus will achieve reduction in mobility, although no
treaunent is planned which will reduce the toxicity or volume of the disposed materials. The no action
altemative, would provide no removal of materials. The 1993 Feasibility Study (DOE 1993b) evaluated
currently available treatrnent technologies for treatrnent in the course of removal and found none axe
economically and technologically feasible at this time.
Implementability. ln regard to implementabilit-v, the altematives were evaluated with respect to the
following:
. ability to construct and operate the technology,. reliability of the technology,. easie of undertaking additional remedial actions,. ability to monitor effectiveness,. ability to obtain approvals and coordinate with regulatory agencies,. availability of offsite disposal services and capacity, and. availability of necessary equipment and specialists.
The degree of difficulty in implementing an alternative increases with the complexity of the remediatron
activity. The design, engineering, and administrative requirements of Altemative l, no action, are
essentially negligible. Alternative 2 is more complex than Altemative I but is technically and
administratively feasible. Materials and services for Alternative 2 are readily available.
Cost The estimated costs for the Linde Site altematives in 1999 dollars are:
. Altemative l, No Action: 5900,000. Altemative 2, Complete Excavation and Decontamination and Off-Site Disposal: $27,700,000
Public Acceptance. At the public meeting conducted on June 3, 1999, support for the selected remedy
was voiced by the public. The details of comments at the two public meetings conducted for the project,
written comments and USACE's responses to comments, are included in Appendix A of this ROD.
State Acceptance. Correspondence from NYSDEC conceming this ROD received in 1999 is included in
Appendix B, along with USACE responses and considerations of issues raised in these letters.
Correspondence from NYSDEC received in February 2000 is included as Attachment 3 with a USACE
response letter included as Atachment 4. Additionally, USEPA has provided comments on the preferred
alternative (see Atachment l). Attachment 2 is a response letter to USEPA.
32
9. TEE SELECTED REMEDY
USACE has selected a remedy that includes the soils, buildings, and slabs removal actions descnbed in
the PP as Alternative 2 excluding Building l4 and soils beneath Building 14. The final remedy for
Building l4 and any soils remaining under Building l4 that may exceed the removal criteria and
groundwater will be addressed separately from this ROD. The selected remedy is believed to provide the
best balance among the considered alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteri4 will protect human
health and the environment, will comply with ARARS, and is considered cost effective. This remedy
requires the removal of MED-related residual radioactive materials so that the standards of the ARARS
are met. That will involve the removd of residual radioactrve materials so that; (l) the concentrations of
radium in remaining soil do not exceed background by more than 5 pCi/g in the top 15 cm of soil or 15
pCi/g in any l5 cm layer below the top layer as averaged over 100m2; (2) the residual radionuclide
concentrations remainrng in soils within a 100 square meter area that results in unity or less for the sum of
the ratios of these radionuclide concentrations to the associated concentration limis, above background,
of 554 pCi/g for Ur..,, 5 pCi/g for R^-226 and 14 pCi/g for Th-230 for surface cleanups and 3,021 pCilg
of U661, 15 pCi/g of Ra-226 and 44 pCi/g of Th-230 for subsurface cleanups; and (3) the remaining
residual radioactive materials on strucure surfaces meet the benchmark dose for surfaces of 8.8 mrem/y
based on the specific location of the surfaces and exposure scenarios. In addition, in order to meet the
commitments made to the community u the public meetings, USACE will remediate the Linde site to
insure that no concentration of total uranium exceeding 600 pCi/g above background will remain in the
site soils.
The selected remedy will involve ttre demolition of buildings necessar-v to remediate the site. These
buildings include Buildings 57,67,73,73B,75 and 76 and will also include the building slabs and
foundations. The slabs that are remaining after the demolition of Buildings 30 and 3E and the tank
saddles north of Building 30 will also be removed. A wall in Building 3l will be removed to access sub-
slab and sub-footing soils exceeding criteria. The selected remedy will also include remediation of the
adjacent Niagara Mohawk and CSX Corporation (formerly Connil) properties, where radioactive
contamination has already been idenufied or may be identified as the remediation work is implemented
and will be limited to following releases that originated from the Linde Site resulting from MED-related
operations. The plan also includes the removal of contaminated sediments from drainlines and sumps, the
removal of contaminated soil from a blast wall structure located east of Building 58, and remediation of a
subsurface vault stnrcture located just west of Building 73.
It also provides the best balance among ttre considered alternatives with respect to the evaluation cntena.
ln addinon, rmplementation of this remedy can be accomplished in compliance with all applicable laws
relating to the protection of the public health and the environment. This remedy will not result in MED-
related hazardous substances remaining at the site above the health-based levels after completion of the
scope identified above. The Corps will perform all required S-year reviews.
10. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory requirements of Section 12l of CERCLA as follows:
. the remedy must be protective of human health and the environment,. the remedy must atrain ARARS or define critena for invoking a warver;. the remedy must be cost effective; and
33
. the remedy must use permanent solutions and alternative treatment technolo-eies to the maximum
extent practicable.
The manner in which the selected remedy satisfies each of these requirements is discussed in the
following sections.
f0.1 Protection of Human Health and Environment
Upon completion, the selected remedy for the Linde Site will be fully protective of human health and the
environment and meet cleanup criteria based on ARARs. During remedial activities, engineering controls
during construction will be put in place as required and environmental monitoring and surveillance
activities will be maintained to ensure protectiveness, so that no member of the publie will receive
radiation doses above guidelines from exposure to residual radioactive contaminants.
There are no short-term threats associated with the selected remedy that cannot be readily controlled and
mitigated. ln addition, no adverse cross-media impacts are expected from the remedy.
10.2 Attainment of ARARs
USACE has determined that standards of CI CFR Part 192 and the standards of l0 CFR Part 40,
Appendix A, Criterion 6(6)are relevant and appropriate for Linde Site cleanup. USACE assessed the l0
CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) standards and the Linde radiological assessment (USACE 2000) and
concluded that the criteria associated with this ARAR for the Linde Site would be to (1) Iimit the residual
radionuclide concentrations remaining in soils averaged within a 100 square meter area to concentrations
that results in unity or less for the sum of the ratios of these radionuclide concentrations to the associated
concentration limits, above background, of 554 pCi/g for U,,rr, 5 pCi/g for Ra-226 and 14 pCVg for Th-
230 for surface cleanups and 3,021 pCi/g of U,,,r, 15 pCi/g of Ra-226 and 44 pCi/g of Th-230 for
subsurface cleanups, and (2) limit remaining residual radioactive materials on structure surfaces to levels
necessary to meet the benchmark dose for surfaces of 8.8 mrem/y based on the specific location of the
surfaces and exposure scenarios.
This remedy requires the removal of MED-related residual radioactive materials so that the standards of
the ARARs are met. That will involve the removal of residual radioactive materials so that; (1) the
concentrations of radium in remaining soil do not exceed background by more than 5 pCi/g in the top l5
cm of soil or 15 pCilg in any 15 cm layer below the top layer as averaged over 100m' , and (2) the
residual radionucli& concentrations remaining in soils averaged within a 100 square meter area that
results in unity or less for the sum of the ratios of these radionuclide concentrations to the associated
concentration limits, above background, of 554 pCi/g for U,*r, 5 pCilg for Ra-226 and 14 pCi/g for
Th-230 for surface cleanups and 3,021 pCi/g of U,*r, 15 pCiig of Ra-226 and 44 pCi/g of Th-230 for
subsurface cleanups, and (5) the remaining residual radioactive materials on structure surfaces meet the
benchmark dose for surfaces of 8.8 mrem/y based on the specific location of the surfaces and exposure
scenarios. [n addition to meeting this ARAR, USACE will remediate the Linde site to insure that no
concentration of total uranium exceeding 600 pcilg above background will remain in the site soils.
Verification of compliance with soil cleanup standards and criteria will be demonstrated using surveys
developed in accordance with the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site lnvestigation Manual
(MARSSIM) and as may be required by the ARARs. Methodology to determine radon and gamma
radiation levels wilI be developed in accordance with the ARARs and documented in the work plan for
site remediation. The cleanup of contaminated building and strucrure surface areas will be conducted in
34
accordance with the l0 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Cnterion 6(6), using building/sructure-specific
decontamination protocols to be detailed in the work pian for site remediation.
10.3 Cost Effectiveness
Cost is evaluated by comparing the costs between alternatives that meet the threshold criteria of
protectiveness and compliance with ARARs, and then determining the alternative that provides the best
balance ofthe five balancing criteria, including cost.
The selected remedy is effective because risks are reduced to acceptable levels. lncreased short-term
risks to workers, the public, and the environment may occur during implementation of the remedy, but
these risks will be minimized by appropriate mitigative measures. Total cost in 1999 dollars for the
selected remedy is estimated at $27,700,000. ln consideration of these factors, the selected remedy
provides the best overall effectiveness of all alternatives evaluated relative to its cost.
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or Resource
Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy for the Linde Site provides a permanent solution to contamination that currently
exists on this property.
None of the practicable alternatives identified for the Linde Site provides onsite treatment for the
materials to be removed. Alternatives 2 and 4 provide for offsite disposal, which may include some
treatment as possibly required of the disposal facilities. These alternatives, thus, would achieve reduction
in mobility (through containment), although no treatment which will reduce the toxicity or volume of the
disposed rnaterials may be required. The FS evaluated available treatment technologies for treatment in
the course of removal and found none were economically and technologically feasible. Thus, the selected
alternative achieves the best possible result in terms of satisfying the starutory preference for remedies
that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
11. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The PP provided for involvement with the community through a document review process and a public
cornment period. Public meetings were advertised and held on ApnL22,1999 and June 3, 1999. The
public comrnent period was extended and comments that were received during the Tlday public
comment perid are addressed in Appendix A of this ROD.
After a review of the comments on the proposed plan, USACE determined that it was appropriate to make
several changcs to &e preferred alternative before selecting a remedy. The changes involved the total
uranium cleanup guideline and deferring a final decision on Building 14 and groundwater remediation.
Each of these changes, which constirute a significant (pre-ROD) change from the preferred alternative
presented in the PP, has been incorporated into this ROD and the selected remedy and are discussed
below. The identification of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) as an ARAR for the Linde Site
is also a pre-ROD change. None of these changes result in reducing the protectiveness of the remedy
described in the Proposed Plan.
Based on the following evaluations, there were not significant changes justifying a new public comment
period. The changes either had no significant effect on the remedy or they could have been reasonably
35
anricipared. The new 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) only provides a method of calculating the
cleanup levels for a portion of the site contamination but will result in a cleanup level that is not
significantly different from that included in the PP and will not change the expected land use assumed and
discussed in the PP. tn addition, the exclusion of the groundwater and Building 14 from this ROD will
result in them being addressed in later CERCLA documentation that will be presented to the public for
corlmenr. As discussed in the following paragraphs, the NRC benchmark dose will result in a soil
cleanup level for all radioactive contaminants that is as protective as that applicable to radiunL which was
included in the PP.
Total Uranium Cleanun Guideline
The comments received from the public indicated a concern for the application of the total uranium
guideline for soils as it was originally expressed in the proposed plan. [n order to address those concerns,
USACE has further described and defined the guideline. Subsequent to the public input, new regulations
amending 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) were promulgated and became effective on June I l,
1999. These regulations were evaluated and determined to be relevant and appropriate for the Linde Site
since they addressed residual uranium and other radionuclides present at uranium mill sites, similar to the
Linde Site. USACE assessed the l0 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) standards and the Linde
radiotogical assessment (USACE 2000) and concluded that the criteria associated with this ARAR for the
Linde Site soils would be to limit the residual radionuclide concentrations remaining in soils averaged
within a 100 square meter area to concentrations that results in unity or less for the sum of the ratios of
these radionuclide concentrations to the associated concentration limits, above background, of 554 pCi/g
for Um..r, 5 pCilg for Ra-226 and 14 pCilg for Th-230 for surface cleanups and 3,021 pCi/g of Uo,"r, 15
pCi/g of Ra -226 and 44 pCilg of Th-230 for subsurface. Compliance with this regulation will result in a
more stringent cleanup of U,..ur at the Linde Site than was originally proposed in the Proposed Plan. In
addition, in order to meet the commitments made to the community at the public meetings, USACE will
remediate the Linde site to insure that no concentration of total uranium exceeding 600 pCi/g above
background will remain in the site soils.
l0 CFR 40. Aooendix A. Criterion 6(O
New regr.rlations amending 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) were promulgated and became
effective on June 11, 1999. This new amendment addresses areas contaminated with other radionuclides
in addition to radiunu which is addressed by ttre 5 pcilg and 15 pCi/g radium standards included in the
first paragraph of Criterion 6(6) as well as 4O CFR 192, Subpart B. 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion
6(6) requires that radioactive contamination, considering all radionuclides including radiurL remaining
after remediation, will not result in a total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) to the average member of the
critical group exceeding the benchmark dose after cleanup to the 40 CFR Part 192 standards of soils
contaminated with radium only. The criterion also states if more than one residual radionuclide is present
in the same l00-square-meter area, the sum of the ratios for each radionuclide of concentration present to
the concentration limit will not exceed "1" (unity).
USACE evaluated the new standard. the draft NRC guidance included in the Federal Register (Vol. 6a,
N0. 69, dated April 12,1999, pp. 1769G17695), and the Linde Radiological Assessment (USACE 2000).
Based on the current understanding by USACE of the new standard and associated guidance, USACE was
able to use the data and information contained in the Linde Radiotogical Assessment (USACE 2000) to
establish the benchmark doses and associated radionuclide concentration Iimits for surface cleanups as
well as subsurface cleanups. The results in the Linde Radiological Assessment were based on RESRAD
runs modeling the conditions at the Linde Site. The document also included what the allowable
concentrations would be for various radionuclides to meet dose objectives both with and without cover
materials for the most likely scenario at the site, the industriaUcommercial scenario. These results are
contained in Table 3-3 of the Linde Radiological Assessment. Using those results, USACE was able to
36
derive the benchmark dose for surface cleanup by dividing the 10 mrem/y (no cover) by the 5.7 pCi/g of
Ra-226 associated with that dose and then multipiying the resuit by 5 pCi/g of Ra-226, which results in a
benchmark dose of 8.8 mrem/y for surface cleanups. Table 3-3 data was then used to derive the allowable
concentrations for the radionuclides, total uranium and Th-230. The same methodology was used in
deriving the same information for subsurface cleanups. The data used were the results in Table 3-3 based
on a cover depth of 6 inches. The resulting benchmark dose for subsurface cleanups was calculated to be
4.1 mrem/y. The following tabulates the results of the assessment and what the radionuclide limits are for
surface and subsurface cleanups:
Allowable Residual Concentration Limit for
Indicated Benchmark Dme
(PCi/g)
Radionuclide
Ra-226
Surface: E.E mrem/w
5.0
Subsurface: 4.1 mrem/vr
15
Th-230 t4 44
U+otal 554 3,021
During remediation, the acrual radionuclide concentrations within a 100 square meter area will be divided
by its corresponding concentration limit from the table above. These ratios are then added and must be
equal to or less than "1" (unity). If the sum of these ratios exceeds unity, additional soil removal is
necessary.
The allowable residual radionuclide concentrations on structure surfaces would be computed for specific
strucrures and the associated exposure scenarios and would be based on meeting the benchmark dose of
8.8 mrem/y for surface cleanups.
Buildins 14
The two action alternatives presented in the PP for remediating the Linde Site (Alternatives 2 and 4)
differed only in the way Building 14 (and soils remaining under the building slabs and fmtings that
contain contaminans exceeding the cleanup guidelines) would be addressed during the remediation
process. The preferred alternative presented in the PP, Alternative 4, proposed that the building would
remain on the site and that instirutional controls would be implemented to protect workers in the building,
and future site users from inadvertent exposures to residual contaminants remaining within and under the
building. Alternative 2 included the demolition and disposal of the building and residual contaminated
soils currently remaining under the building.
Comments received during the public comment period, including the public meetings, indicated that the
community is concerned a-bout leaving residual contamination on the site, even if instirutional controls
would prevent exposure to the contaminants.
USACE has dccided that additional assessment of the possible remedies for Building 14 (and residual
soils under the building) is warranted. Therefore, the building and soils under the building are being
excluded from this ROD and will be addressed separately in accordance with CERCLA, allowing for the
initiation of remedial actions to proceed on the remainder of the site.
Groundwaterftre;Enat nt, FS and PP for the Linde (Tonawanda) site(s), proposed that noaction.was warranted to
address on-site groundwater. USACE further investigated existing available information lefating to the
groundwater at the Linde Site and presented findings in a document entitled "Synopsis of Historical
Information on Linde Effluent lnjection Wells" (USACE 1999a). The result of that assessment was also a
37
('
I
conclusion that no remediation of the groundwater is warranted. This conclusion was re-stated in the
1999 Linde PP (USACE 1999c).
Corffnents received during the comment period expressed concerns about the sufficiency of the samples
relied upon in coming to the conclusion that no remediation of the groundwater is warranted. A ROD
will be issued in the furure that evaluates the Site groundwater and selects any required remedial action .
12. REFERENCES
Aerospace 1981. Evaluation of the 1943-1946 Liquid Effluent Discharge from the Linde Air Products
Company Ceramics Plant. Aerospace Corporation, Germantown, MD. December.
ANL (Argonne National Laboratory) 1999. Unde Site, Draft - Soil Excavation Estimates. January.
BNI (Bechtel National lncorporated) 1993. Remedial Investigationfor the Tonawanda Site.
DOryOR2l949-300, Oak Ridge, TN.
BNI (Bechtel National Incorporated). 1997a. FUSMP Technical Memorandum: Delineation and
Remedial Action Performed in Building 3l at the Praxair Sdte. April
BNI (Bechtel National Incorporated) 1997b. FUSMP Technical Bulletin: Results of the Investigarion of
the Subsurface Beneath the Concrete Slab at Building 3l and Sunounding Areas (Including the Area
Beneath Building 57) at the Linde Site, Tonawanda, New lork December
Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc. (FBDU) 1981. Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Evaluation
of the Remedial Action Alternatives for the Unde Air Products Site, Tonawanda, New /ork Decernber.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 1982. Regulatory Guide 1.86, Section 4, Decontamination for
Release for Unrestricted Use.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 1978. Radiological Suntey of the Former Linde Uranium
Refinery, Tonawanda, New York. May.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 1998. Verification Statemerufor Building 3l at the Former
Linde Site, Tonawanda, New York Draft February.
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 1999. Cost Estimate for Addendum to thc
Feasibility Studyfor the Litde Sire. March.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1997 . Proposed Plan for Ashland I and Ashland 2 Sites,
Tonawanda, New Yorh November.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1998a. Record of Decisionfor the Ashland I (includine Seawav
Area D) and Ashland2 Sites, Tonawando" New York Apil.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1998b. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EACA) and
Responsiveness Summary for Building 30 at Praxair. February.
38
I
c.
t
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1998c Post-Remedral Auion Reporrfor Building ll ar rhe
Linde Srte. Draft November.
U.S. Arm.r- Corps of Engineen (USACE) 1999a. Technical Memorandum: Synopsis of Historical
Information on Linde Effluent Injecnon Wells. March.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1999b. Addendum to rhe Feasibility Studyfor the Linde Site,
Tonovanda, New York. March.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1999c. Proposed Planfor the Linde Site, Tonawanda, New
York. March.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2000. Technical Memorandum: Linde Site Radiologtcal
Assessment, Rev. l. Febnrary.
U.S. Departnent of Energy (DOE) 1990. Order 5100.5. Radiarion Protection of the Public and the
Environmenr. February.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1993a. Baseline Risk Assessmentfor the Tonawanda Site. DOE/OR-
21950-003. August.
U.S. Departnent of Energy (DOE) 1993b. Feasibility Studyfor the Tonawanda Site. DOE/OR/2|950-
234, Oak Ridge, Tl( November.
U.S. Departnent of Energy (DOE) 1993c. Proposed Planfor the Tonawanda Site, Tonawanda, New
Ior&. November.
U.S.DepartmentofEnergy(DOE)1996a. EngineeringEvaluation/CostAnalysis(EUCA)forPraxair
Interim Actions. January.
U.S. Departnrent of Energy (DOE) 1996b. Engineering Evaluation/Cosr Analysis (EUCA) for Building
30 at Praxair. November.
U.S. Deparunent of Energy (DOE) 1997. Linkng Legacies. Connecting the Cold War Nuclear Weapons
Production Processes to Their Environment Consequences. January.
USEPA 1989. &s* Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I. U.S. Environnpnal Protection
Agency, EPA/540/ 1-89/001.
Yu, C., A.J. Zielen, J.J. Cheng, Y.C. Yuan, L.G. Jones, D.J. LePoire, Y.Y. W*g, C.O. Loureiro, E.
Gnanapragasam, E. Faillace, A. Wallo IlI, W.A. Williams, and H. Peterson (1993). Manuolfor
Implementing Residual Radioactive Material Guidelines Using RESMD, Version 5.0, ANUMD/LD-2.
Argonne: Argonne National Laboratory
39
o
ATTACHMENT 3
IUSAruDEQ Hazardous Waste Protocol
V:$::.r (), l.:iv;(1trcv60a
Diar.ne R. \ielsrn. i'h'O'f.\dur vt CIrilor
Dcnnis R- Dcrrns
:)r? !illr
Decumber 7,
Stute of Utalt
t)lV;S:O\ ()F 5()L;:).{\D H\zI
2i8 Ncrrtll 1460 Wcsr
PO Uox la4tt0
Selt Lnic C1q. Utih t4l I.1-4t80
(Bol) 5lE-5170
(t0l) >3t-6715 Fu
(t0t)j16-44l4TDD
wlrlv dcq.statc-ut-us Web
r999
M. Lindsay Ford
Parsons, Behle and Latimer
One Utah Center
20i Soutb Main Street
Suite I80o
Post Office Box 45898
Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0898
fl&: Protocol for Detcrmining Whethcr Alternete Feed Metcriels arc Listed Hezerdous
Wastcs
Dear Mr. Ford:
On Novemh22,1999, we received the final protocol to be usod by International Uraniun:
Corporation (IUSA) in determining whethcr alternate feed materials proposed for processrng at
the White Mesa MilI are listed hazardous wastcs. We appreciatc the effort that went into
preparing this proccdue and feet that it will be a useful guide for IUSA in its alternate fced
detenninations.
As was discussd please be advised that it is IUSA's responsibility to eruure that the alternate
feed materids used arc not listcd hazetdous wastes and tbat the r.rsc of this protocol caruror bc
used as a defensc if listed hazardous waste is somehow proccssed at the Whitc Mesa Mill.
Thank you again for yow corporation. If you havc any questions, please contact Don Verbrca rt
s38-6170.
Sinccrely,
Utah Solid and Hazardou Waste Control Board
Bill Sinclair, Utah Division of Radiation Control
F. \SI{W\HW8\DVERSlClr\wArhitrncu. n8d
C/:ia 'r'Ltr Ccng
tCl SuaLi \(sin Saeet
Suitc ltClo
l'o-\: Ofi;tt Bor 4t891
sllr '*r.lc ciry, utrir
8r I iJ{rErf,
fcicphonc 801 512.:2la
lhqlrmilt E0l 516.6t I I
Parsons
Behie &
Latinicr
.'\ I'r0r.cssi0,rlL
LAil CotrourtJi
November 22,1999
Don Verbica
Utatr Divisiou of Solid & Hazardous Wastc
288 ltorth 1460 West
Sdt Lake City, Utah
Re:Protocol for Determining Whethcr Alternetc Feed Mrtcrials ere
Listed Eezardous West6
Dear Doru
I arn pleased to preseot the firrel protocol to bc uscd by International Uraium
(USA) Corporation ("IUSA') in determining whether alternate feed matcrials proposed for
processing at thc White Mesa Mill are listed hazardous wastes. Also attached is a red-lined
versioo of the protoool refleoting final chauges urade to thc documcnt based on our last
discussion with you as well as sorne minor editorial changcs from our final rcad-tbrcr'gh of
the documeut We appreciato the thougbtfrrl input of you and Scott Aaderson in
developing this protocol \trIe understand the Division concun that materials determined
uot to be listed wastes pusuaat to this protocol are not tistd hazardous wast6.
Wc also rccomize theprotocol does not addrcss thc situation where, after a material
has been dctermined not to be a listcd hazardou waste undcr the protocol, neur unrefirtable
information comes to light that indicates the material is a listcd hazardous waste. Should
such an eventuality arise, we undcrstand an appropnatc rcsponse, if aoy, would need to be
worked out on a case-by<ase basis.
l0l 107. r
Don Vcr:ic:a
Litair Division of Solid & l{aza-rdtrus Waste
\ovenrber 22,1999
Pagc Two
Thaxk you again for you cooperation on this maner. Please call me if you have
any questions.
Very tnrly youfii,
(with copy of final protocol only)
Diarne Nielson
Fred Nclson
Brent Bradford
Don Ostler
Lorc,n Morton
Bitl Sinclair
David Frydenluod
David Bird
Tony Thompson
ParsonsBehlc&tatimer
M. LindsayFdrd
10t r 07. I
t
/di
,E
I
I
Ja'\ J- iE ri: 5 --: I
==i?rl!ej)!.t':'! r X!i1ni?8:;
ri;iEE i$jiIeg!i
ziiel
h'; -i),i,Lii 3€
" ..? =f>-.i6l;,18ti-t i;r -l'r$
.- '.-4 ?.: : = ..'---!!::-:;'--I.-:- .=2- ---j:::- -'t'91s r:?;--1
:=q_Ei'?i::-i.i:.:;lr:i:E;:ii.aerii?Bsiiiiisii
':li,;=':d 2-'_)z-':<:ir(9. :-=,fl-; r i;rir= i iI;rz :x:E;H !l!=7!* i:x-afi6 iBg iq t;pi=e X*{ ir ?;arXI :o-- e.E :ie3;F ts;,'. +J lit^i, qlE 5; i=aggi tEA Ecifn =:= t
=q9. -+ =
-t
o
-U
oo
a_
o
Uo+q
3
<.(c
o)o
o
(Doo-
7:o+
Eq.
(Jt
o
,J1'
o()-
EoNo
o_oCUI
(h+o
:
IE
E
ttT9a<7i-qoEo'o:Ol5i;talolrlolaeaE*1
I
iEtolu
m
ata
6rr3rgHBr!$U2-o<ao-H f,
e
I
i
a
rI
o-o
t,i
9.t
i:i!ui
+^{?i rrl:{[=rlila s.
3;$aig$'l
&
lai
$
f!trI
8=
adItili
i1I!t:cEq9
(.t
a
cgI
EII
2o
o
Ed
5Ig
oat
€
Y
o-
sltioq
o
9.:
d
=Ex=:a=
8E6oo
o)
=t:i;'J
:r\o
*:,:a
o</
C
a.2
d:".o
:o
a
o-'
so{
ec
I
elg
oo
tl'rA
eoIilt
0.
I
a'I
!6g
e
&io
3
agq3
EE?iHA6io rt
5!
o
g
o.
f;.I
so?)
I
aite
a.
gi::ci;i ltr
=iilE Br*ffo
riq
iEteed
1.
PRo'rocol FoR D rrun tttrl'vc WnrrHER
r\tTERr.A,TE FEED M,rrtRt,rLS ARI LrSrgn HrzrnoOUS WrSteS'
NovnrtsrR 15, 1999
SOURCE INVESTTGATION.
Perform a good faith investigation (a "Source tnvestigatiod' or "S[")2 rcgarrting whether
any listed hazardous wastesi are located at the site from which alte nte feed material'
('Matenal') ongnates (the "Site"1. This investigation will be conducted in conformance
with EPA guidmcei and the extent of information rcquired wilt va5y with the
circgmstances of each case. Following are examples of investigations that would be
considercd satisfactory under EPA guidancc and this Protocol for some sclccted
sinrations:
o Where the Material is or has becn gcneratcd from a known proccss under the
coutrol of the generator (a) an affidavit, cettificatc, profile record or similar
documcut &om the Generator or Sitc Managc, to that effccg togcther with (b)
a Material Safcty Data Shcct ('MSDS') for thc Matcrial, llmittd profile
sr6pling, or a material composition &termined by the generator/oPerator
bascd on a proctss material balancc.
I ttris Protocol rcflests the procedures that will be follorrcd by Lrtcrnational Uranium (USA)
Corporation ("ruSA') for dctcrmining whcthcr alternatc feed materials proposcd for processing at thc
White Mcsa Mill are (or conain) listed hazardous wast6. It is bascd oo cufitlrt UAh md EPA rules and
EPA guidatrce uuder thc Rcsourcc Coossrrration and Recovery Act ('RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. $$ 6901 et seq'
'I1is Protocol will be ctrangcd as neecssary to rcflcct any pcrtincot changes to RCRA rulcs or EPA
guidancc.
2 This investigation will, be pcrformed by IUSA, by thc cntity rcsPonsible for tle sitc from rhich the
Marcnal ongtrttcs (the "Gcocratd'). or by a combinstim of thc t'wo-
3 Attacbmcot I to this Protocol providcs a sunrmary of the diffcncnt classificatioos of RCRA lrsted
hazardous was$s.
4 Alternatc fecd maarisls that are primary or intcrmcdiatc products of the getrerator of the matcrial (e.9,
"gr€ctt" or tlac,k" salts) arc uot RCR.pr "sccondary materials" or "solid wastes," as dc'fiaed h 40 CFR
261, and arc not covcrcd by tbis Protocol.
5 f,pA guidarrcc idcotifics thc followiug sorrccs of sitc- urd wa.st'specific infcnration that mav,
dependirig on thc cirormstanccs, be considered in such rn invcstigation: hazrrdous waste manifests'
vouchcts, bills of lading, sales end inventory rccords, matcriol s8fcty dsta shccB, storage records,
sampling and uralysii reports, accidcrrt rcpo(s, sitc inrrestiption reports' interuierys wrlh
*rpLy.lVfor-33 eruployees and formcr owners/opcrators, sprll rtPorts, inspcction rcports end iogs,
permits, and enforcemeut orders. See e.g.. 6l Fed. Reg. I ES05 (April 29, t996).
z.lt76. l
pROTOLOL F()R DETER.!ll.\tIG Wngrnr,n dt.rtR\{TE t'EED }r^rERl{LS.{RE LI-STED H,\2,\R!OL'S \VASTES
. \Vhere specific infornratior] exists about the generation Process 3nd
rnanageru€nt of thc Matenal: (a) a. affidavit, ceroficate, profile record or
similar document from the Geuerator or Site Manager, to that effect, together
with (b) an MSDS for the Matcnal, limited proEle sampling data or a
prcexisting investigation perfornred at the Sitc pursuant to CERCLA, RCRA
or other state or fcdcral eovironmental laws or programs.
o Where poterrtially tisted processes ars ho'"vl to have beeu conduct€d at a Site,
an investigation considering the following sources of information: site
invcstigation reports prepared under CERCLA, RCRA or other state or federal
environmental laws or programs (eg., an RI/FS, ROD, RFUCMS, hazardous
waste inspcction report); interrriews with persous possessing knowlcdge about
the Matenal and/or Site; and review of publicly availeblc documents
conceming procoss activities or the history of waste geueration and
managcoeot at tbe Site-
o lf matcrial from thc s.lrnE source is bcing or has beeo acccptcd for direct
disposal as t te.(2) byproduct matcrial in as NRC-regulatcd facility in the
State of Utah with tbe conseD,t or acquiesccuce of the Statc of Utab, thc Source
lnvestig*ion perfomred by such facility-
Proceed to Step 2.
2. SPECIFICINTORTYIATTONORAGREEMENT/DETER}IINATTONBY
RCRA REGIILATORY AUTHORITY THAT MATERIAL IS NOT A
LISTED EAZARDOUS WASTE?
a Detcrrnine u/hcthcr spccific information from the Source Invcstigatioo exists about thc
generation and managcmcnt of the Materid to support a couclusion that the Matcrial is
not (and docs not contain) any listed hazardors w:Nte. For exauple, if spccific
information exists that thc Material was not generated by a lised wastc source and that
the Matcrial has aot boen mixcd with any listed wastes, the Matcrial would not be a listed
hazardous waste.
b. Alteraatively, determinc whether the appropriatc state or lidcral authority with RCRA
jurisdictiou over thc Site agrees in writing wrth the gencrator's detcnnination that the
Material is not a listed hazx166* waste, has madc a'tontaincd+ut'' detcrminuiga6 wrth
rcspect to thc Matcrial or has concluded thc Matcrid or Site is uot subjcct to RCRA-
6 Epn explains thc "contained<ut" (also rcferred to as "containcd-in") principlc es follows:
In practice, EPA bas epplicd thc containcd-rn pnnciplc tro rcfer to 8 pttoccss whcro e site'
specific dctcrmination is madc that concctrtratrons of hazardous constihrcoB ia any given
(footrotc contrrrucd on next prgc)
t.tt76 t
3.
PROTO( ()I, F()R DETERMI\I\G \\'IIETIIER ALTER.Y.{TE F[ED }L\TERI-{[S ARE LTSTED HTZAruOIS \YASTES
If yes to etlher questtor., proceed to Step 3
lf no to both que.stions, Proceed to Step 6
PROVIDE INI.'ORMATTON TO N"RC AI{D UTA.H.
a Lf specific information exists to support a conclusion that the Material is not, and does
not contairq any listed hazard.ous waste, ruSA will provide a dcscription of the Source
lnvestigation to NRC and/or the State of Utah Departmert of Envirorunental Qualiry,
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (the "State"), together with an affidavit
explaining why the Material is not a listcd hazardou waste.
b. Alternarively, if the rypropriatc regulatory authority with RCRA jurisdiction ovcr the
Site agrees io writing with the generator's determinatioo thtt thc Vtatcrial is not a [isted
hazardous waste, makcs a contrincd-out detcm,ination or dctcrmines thc Matcrial or Site
is not subject to RCRA ruSA will providc documeutation of thc rcgulatory authority's
d,ctcrmination to NRC and tbe Statc. ruSA may rely on such detcrrnination provided
that the State agraes thp conclusiors of the regulatory authority wefie reasonable and madc
ingood faith-
Proceed to Stq 4.
DOES STATE OF IITAS AGREE THAT ALL PREVIOUS STEPS HAVE
BEEN PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WTTE TEIS PROTOCOL?
Determiue whether the Statc agrces that this Protocol has been properly followed
(including that proper dccisions were rnade at each decision Point). The Sute shall
review the information provided by [USA iD St€p 3 or 16 with reasonable spced and
advise IUSA if it belicvcs IUSA has not prorperly followed this Protocol in dstgrmining
(footuote coatrnued &om prcvros prge)
volume of covironsrsaal urcdia are low cnough !o dctcrmine tbat thc media docs not
"cortliu" hazardous wrstc. T)pically, thesc so-called'conlrined-tn" [or "contsined-
oufl dctcrminatioas do not Ecen that no lrazardous constihrents are present ia
mviroomcntel mcdia 6.g 5impt)/ that thc concciltrations of trazardouS cotlstihrents
prescnt do nO3 wtrrtrt m.DrgcEcnt of the mCdia 6 haerrdotts saStC. ...
EPA has no! to datc, rssrcd dcftnrtivc gurdancc to establish thc conocntrations at which
containcd-in dctetrninatims may be made- As n*ed abovg decisions 6at modia do not
or no longcr coutein hazrrdots w.stc are qryrcelly mr& on a case-by'cese basis
considcnng thc risks poscd by tbc contao:narcd mcdia"
63 Fed. Rcs.28519, 2862t-X2 (!(ay 25, t998) (Phese IV LDR.preamblc).
4.
241876 r
pRol'o(',or- FoR DE TERYISI\G \v'uE',rllER AL rr:R\.{ l E FE,EU }I.rrent.{r^s ARf Lls-l'Eu FLlzaHDelLs \V{-i I LS
that the Material is aot tisted b.azardous wastc, specifuing the particular areas oi
dcfi,cieacy.
If this Protocol has not been properiy foilowed by IUSA in ruakiug its determination that
the Matenal is not a listed hazardous wasto, then IUSA shall redo its analysis in
accordancc with this Protocol and, ifjustified, resubmit the information described in Step
3 or 16 explaining why thc Matcrial is nor a listcd haavd6s5 waste. The State shalt
notiff IUSA with rcasonablc specd if the State still believes this Protocol has not been
followed.
Ifyo,proceed to Step 5-
If no, proced to Etep I.
5. IT,IATERIAL IS NOT A LISTED EAZARDOUS WASTE.
The Material is not a listcd hazardous waste and no firrther sampling or evduatron is
neccssary in thc following circmstanccs:
. Wherc the Matcrial is dctcrmined not to bc a listcd hazardous waste
based on specific iuformation about thc gcncrdion/managcment of the
Material QB thc appropriate RcRArcgulatory authotity with
jruisdiction over the Site agrees with the geoerator's determination that
the Marcrial is uot a listcd HW, oakes a coutained-out determination,
or concludcs thc Material or Site is not subject to RCRA (r"d thc Satc
agrccs thc couclusions of the regulatory authority \rrcre rqunnable and
made in good frith) (Step 2); or
a WherE the Matcrial is deterrnincd not to be a listed hrzrrdops waste (iu
Steps 6 tbrough 11, 13 or 15) and Confumation/Acc€ptatrce Sunpling
arc dctcrmined not to be ueccssary (under SteP lA.
6. IS IUATERTAL A PROCESS WASTE ICTOWN TO BE A LISTEI)
TIAZARDOUS WASTE ORTO BE MIXED WITH A LISTED
EAZARDOUS WASTE?
Bescd on the Sourcc lnvestigation, detcrminc whcther thc Matcrial is a pmcess waste
known to bc a listcd hazardous waste or to be mixed with a listed hazardous waste. [f the
Matcrial is a proccss wastc aod is from a listed hazardous waste souroa, it is a listed
hazardols wastc. Similarly, if thc Marcrial is a proccss waste and has beesr mixed with a
listed hezardous wastc, it is a listcd hazardous waste under the RCRA "mixturc rule " If
2{1t76. I
7.
PRUToCoL F()R DETER]III.\I\G \A,HETHER ALTER\ATE IiEED }I..\TERI.\I.5.{RE LISTTO H.\Z,\RDQLs \T'{STES
the Material is ur Euvironnlcutal Mediunr,' it cannot be a listed hazardous waste by direc:
Iisting or under rhe RCRA "mjxture rule."i If the Material is a process waste but is not
knowu to be trom a listed source or to be mixed with a listed waste, or tf the Material is
a1 Envrronnrental Medir::n, proceed to Steps 7 through t I to dctcrmine whether it is a
listed hazardous waste.
Ifyes, proceed to Step 12.
If no, proceed to Step 7.
DOES MATERHL CONTAIN ANTY POTENTIALLY LISTED
IIAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS?
Based ou thc Source Investigatiou (and, if applicablc, Confirmation aod Acccptauce
Sarnpting), determine whcther tbe Material contains any hazardous constituents listed irl
the then most recent version of 40 CFR 261, Appendix VII (which identifies hezard6s5
constituents for which F- and K-listed wastes were listed) or 40 CFR 261.33(e) or ($ (the
P and U listed wastes) (collectively "Poteutially Listed Hazardorx Constitucnts'). lf the
Materid coutains such constitu€ots, a source evaluation is ncccssary (purruant to Stcps 8
through 1l). If the lvlaterial docs gq! contain any Potcotidly Listcd Hezardous
Constituents, it is not a listed hazardotrsrwasle. Thc ldauial also is not a listed
hazardous westc it whcre applicablc, Conlirmation and Acccptancc Sampling resuls do
not reveal thc presence of any "new" Potentially Listed Hazardous Constinrcats (r.e.,
constinrcats othetr than thosc that have already bccn ideotificd by the Sourcc Invcstigation
(or previous Confirmation/Acceptance Sarnpling) aud &termined oot to originate &om a
listcd souroe).
If yes, proceed to Step 8.
If no, proced to Step 16.
IDENTII"T POTENTIALLY LISTED WASTES.
Identify potcntidly listed trazardou wastcs ("Poteutially Listcd Wastcs") based on
Potcntially Listcd Hazardous Constinrcuts dctccted in &c Muerial, re., wastes whjch are
listed for any of thc Potcotially Listed Hazardous Constinrents &tccted in the Matcnal, as
7 Thc tc.rn "Enviroflmartsl Mcdra'mcans sorls, ground or snrfacc wetcr and scdimcnts.
8 Th" "rnixturc rule" aprplics only to mixturcs of hsrcd hazardours qrastcs rnd other "solid wastcs-" .Sae
40 CFR $ 261.3(aX2)(iv). Thc mixu.rc rulc docs, not agply to mixtwcs of listcd wastcs and
Environrnsutal Mcdia, becausc Enviroumrntal Media alc not "solid w.stes" under RCRA Sce 63 Fcd.
Rcg. 28556,28621(May 26, t99E).
8.
241E7(r.l
PROTOCOL FOR I)ETER.\{rlr\C \vt{ETllER ALTE&\.\rE ['[ED ][,trent..tt-s ARE L$1'tu H.{ZARDOLS \\'.r-irr.r
identifred in the then most current versiott of 40 CFR 261 Appendix VII or 40 CFR
261.33(c) or (0.' With respect to Potcutially Listed Hazardous Constitueats identified
through Confirmation and./or Acceptance Sampling, a sourcc cvaluatiou (pursuant to
Steps 8 tbrough I t) is uecessary only for "new" Poteutially Listed Hazardous
Constitueuts (1.e., constituents other than those that have already been identiEed by the
Soruce lnvestigation (or previous Confimration/Acceptance Sarnpting) and dctermhed
not to originate from a listed souce).
Proced to Step 9
9. WERE A.T\TY OF TTIE POTENTI"ALLY LISTED WASTES KNOWI\ TO BE
GENERATED OR N{ANAGED AT SITE?
Based on informatioa from the Souce lnvestigation, determine whcthcr uy of the
Potentrally Listed V/astcs identiEcd in Step 8 are known to have becn gcncrated or
s1e',aged at thc Sitc. This dcternrinaion involves ideoti&ing whalrer auy of the specrfic
or non-speciEc sources idenlified iu the K- or F-lists has ever becu conductcd or locarcd
at the Site, whether ary wastc froor srwh proc€ssc bas been menagcd at the Site, aud
whether auy of the P- or U-listed comrncrcid chemical products has wer bea used
spillcd or managcd thcrc. tn particular, this detcminatiou should be based on the
following EPA critcrie
Solvent Listiuru LF00l-Ffl)5)
Undcr EPA guidacc, "to determine if solve,nt constitucnts cootaminating a waste
are RCRA sperrt solvent F00t-F005 wastcs, the [site maoagcr] mrrst krtow if
o The solvents arc spent utd cannot be ratsed witlout reclatnation or
c,[saning.
o The solvcuB were used esclusively for tluir solvent properties.
a The sotveats arc speut mixtwes and blands that @ntained, beforc tue,
a total of IA percent or more (by volwne) of the solvents listcd in
F001, F002, F004, andF005.
If the solvents 66rrrains( in &e [wastcs] are RCRA listed wastcs, t]e
[wastes] are RCR.Fr, hazardous waste. Whcn the [sitc oanagerJ does not
havc guidancc inforuration oD thc use of thc solvqrts and thcir
charactcristics before use, the [wastes] cannot be classified 3s s66trining a
9 For examplc if thc Matcrial contains teuzchlorocthyleng thc following would bc Potcutially Lrsted
Wastes: F001, F002. F024, K019, K020, K150. Ki5l or UZl0. ,lee 40 CFR 261 Ap. VII
241t76 l
PRorO(.oL FoR DETERMT\r\(; \i'HF.THEK ALIER\.{TE FEF.D M.,rrrRl.tus.ARE LIsTED Hrz-.rnoo( 5 W,rsrrs
hsted spent solvent.":c The person perforuulg the Source lnvestigation
will malie a good faith effort to obuin rnfomration on any solvent use at
the Site. If solvents were used at the Site, general industry standards for
solvent use in effect at the hme of use wrll be considered in deteruriaing
whether those solvents contained I0 percent or morc of thc solvents listcd
in F001, F002, F004 or F005.
K-Listed wastes and F-Listed wastes other Thm F001-F005
Under EPA guidance, to deteruine whethcr K wastes e"d F wastes other than
F00t-F005 arc RCRA listed wastes, the gcncfirtor "must know tbe generatiorr
proccss information (about eacb wastc conained in the RCRA wastc) describcd in
the tisting- For cxamplc, for [wastes] to bc ideutified as couaining K@l wastes
that are descrrbed as 'bottom scdimdlt sludge &om thc tcahent of wastewaters
ftom wood prescrring processes that use cr@sotc aod/or peutachlorophenol,' the
[site managcrl must lsrow thc manufacturhg process that gencratcd thc wastes
(teaurcnt of wastcwaters from wood prescrving process), fecdstocks rscd in thc
process (creosote and peutachlorophenol), and thc process ideutifcation of the
wastes (bottom sedimcnt sludge)."rr
P- and U-Listcd Wrstcs
EPA guidance pmvides that "P a.ud U wastes covcr only uurued aad unmixed
comnercial chenricd products, particularly spilled or oFspec products. Not
every waste containing a P or U chemical is a hazardous waste. To determine
whether a [waste] contains a P or U wastc, the [site managcr] mtrst have direct
evideocc of pmduct use. In particular, the [site rnanagcr] should ascertai4 if
possiblq whether thc chemicds are:
Drscardcd (as dcscribed in 40 CFR 261.2(aX2)).
Eithcr off-spec commercial products or a comrncrcially soh grade.
Not uscd (soil conamhated with spillcd unuscd wastcs is a P or U
westc).
l0 Managpmcnt of lnvcstigation-Derived Wastes Druing Sitc tnspcctions, EPA/54UG-91/0[}9, May t99l
(cmphasis addcd).
I I Managcment of tnvcstigation-Dcrivcd Wastes Drubg Site Inspcctions, EPA/Sz|{VG-91/009, May 199 i
(emphuis addcd).
a
o
a
241S76. I
I'ROTOCOL i'OK DETERMI:iI\G WIIETIII K AT,TER:ATF [.TED MITTNI^LS ARE LTSTED HAZ'{RDOI 5 W IJ TT'S
r The sole active iugredient in a [ormulatlotl.'':2
If Potentidly Listed Wastes *.rg lulown to be Seuerated or managed at the Site, further
evaluation is nccessarJ to d'etermine whetber these wastes were disposed of or
commingled with the Material (Steps 10 and possibly t t). If Potentially Listed Wastcs
were nor loown to be geoerated, or managed at the Site, then inforuration conceming the
sourcc of potentially Listed Hazardous Constituents in thc Material will be considered
'\rnavailable or inconcluslve" and, under EPA guidance," the Materid will be assumed
not to bc a listed hezardous waste-
12 tvlaaagemest of Investigetion-Derivcd lt/asrcs During Site Inspcctionq EPA/5aO/C-9I/009' May
1991.
13 fBl\ guidancc consisteotly provr&s that, wh6e inforutiou coaccmiag thc origin of a wastc ts
unrvailabtc or inconclusivc, thc wastc Eray be rssumed aot to be a listcd trazardous wzstc. See e'g',
Memorandum Aom Timothy Ficlds (Astitrg Assistaot Adniaistatc fm Solid Wastc & Emergency
Responsc) !o RCRA/CERCI"A Seoior Policy Managers regarding 'Mmagcurcnt of Rcmediation Waste
Under RCRA" dated Oaobcr 14, l99t ('{/here a facility otmct/opcrator malscs a good faith effort to
detsrmhe if a rnatcrial is r listcd haardous waste but c.Eot m& such a dctcrninatioa because
documcntation rcgarding . s{rwue of conanination, contaminaoq or waste is wwvailable or
inconclusiye, EPA has stated that one m:ry sssume thc sourcc, contiuuilant' or wasE is not hsted
hazardsus wasre'.); NC? Preamblq 55 Fcd. Rcg. 8758 (lYlaIch 8, t990) (Notrng that "it ts oftcn
necessary to know the ongrn of the wastc to determine whcthcr it is a lisrcd waste aod that' if such
doatmentation is lacking the ted agency mcy assumc it is not a lbted waste); Preamble to proposcd
Eazardous Wastc tdc,utiEcatbu Rule, Gl Fed. Reg. IEEO5 (April 29, 1996) ('Facility marct/opcrators
should make e good futh cfrqt to dctcnuiEc whether media wcrc contenlilated by hazardou wastes aDd
ascertarn the dates of placmt The Agcncy believes that by using ovailablc site-_and rvasts-specific
information ... facilityowucr/opcs:rtors wouldtlpically bc ablc o makc thcsc daermiuations' However,
as discusscd earlis i" O" pea-Ule of today's proposal, if infornucion is not availablc u inconclusive'
facility owttulopemlorc iroy grrro"lly assume that the matcrial contaninating thc media were not
'hazaidotts wasr6-"); n""iulc to t6n Phasc lv Rulc.63 Fed. Rcg- 28619 (May 26, 1998) ("As
discr:ssed in 6c April 29, 1996 proposa\ thc Agency contintrcs !o beticve trat, f inlcnration is not
a,atlable or bl,('/,nclwlw, rt ir geneially reasonsble to dttst,,|E thal conlunbuted soib do not contatn
unueatcd hazardous waJrlr...1; andMemorandum frornJohn H- SLinnrr (Directu, EPA Oftrcc of
Solid Wastc) to Dayid Wagmcr (Dircctor, EPA Air and Wastc Maolgcucnt Divisio, Region VIO
rcgardiug 'Soik from Missogri Dioxtn Sttcs," datcd Jauuery 6, 1984 CThe andyscs indicate thc
prlr*.. of a numbcr of tuic compOunds in many of tho soil sarrplcs taken fronr various sttes'
However, the prescnce of thcsc toxicants in thc soil dbcs Eot autooatically nrake thc soil a RCRA
hazardoqs wastc. Thc origitr of bc toxicents must bc lsroum in ordcr to &tarninc 6at ttrcy are dcnvcd
from a listed hazardous wa{s). If the etact ongin of rhc oticants Ls ,tot known, tlre soilr @nnot be
(footrote continucd on ncxt Pagc)
241t76. I
10.
PR()ToCor- FOR DETERMT\li\c WHu,Tl.lf,R.{LIER\ArE FEED ]I-{,TERfAf-S ARE LISTED H^ZAHDoLS W {sTt)
If y"s. proceed to Step 10.
lf no, procced to Step 16.
WERE LISTED WASTES KNOWN TO BE DISPOSED OF OR
COIVL}IINGLED WITS MATERIAL?
If listed wastes identiEed b Step 9 were koown to be generated at the Srte, determine
whether they were knorvn to be disposed of or commingled with the Material?
If y"s, proceed to Step 12.
If no, proceed to Step I I.
ARE THERE ONE OR IV1ORE POTENTI,AL NON-LISTED SOI,'RCES OT'
LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTTTUENTS?
In a. situation whcrc Porcatially Listcd Wastrs werc loorm to have been
generated/managed at thc Sitc but the wastes were not hown to havc beco disposed of
or commingted with the Mterial, determine whether therc are potentid oon-listed
sources of Poteatidly Listed llazardous Coustitueos in thc Matcrid. If not, unless the
State agrees othcrwisq the coustituenB will be assumod to bc from listed sources
(proceed to Step 12). If so, thc Material will be Essuned not to bc a listed hazardous
wastc (procecd to Stcp 16). Notwithstandiug thc existence ofpoteutial non-listed sortrc€s
at a Site, the Poteotially Listed Hazardous Constinrcas in thc Matcrial will be cousidered
to be from the tisted sourc{s) i.e, bascd on thc relative proximity of the Material to the
tisted and aoo-listed sourcds) and/or infor:nation concanitrg wastc mauagemcot at the
Site, the evidencc is compclling that the listed sotucc(s) is the source of PotEntially Liste<i
Hazardous Coostiurcos in thc Material.
If yes, proceed to Step 16.
If no, proced to Step IZ
IUATERIAL TS A LISTED I{AZARDOUS WASIT,.
The Marcrial is a listed hezardous waste under thc following circumstances:
(footnotc continucd &om prodoc pagu)
corciderd RCRA heardous lflsrer rmlcss they cxhibit onc or more of the ctraractcristics of hazardous
lvastc ...")-
11.
L2.
2.1t?6. l
13-
PR.oTo(I)L FOR DETERMII\I\(, }VHETHE,R AL,I.ER\ \ I !, Ft,f,D }1.\1 ERIALS .{RE LISTED H.{Z^RD()1s W,L5f T:
o [f the Matenal is a process wa-ste and is known to be a listcd hazardous
waste or to be nr.ixed wrth a hsted hazardous wastc (Step 6),
o If Potentially Listcd Wastes were lorown to be generated/uranaged at
the Site and to be disposed oflcomnriugled with the Material (Step l0)
(subject to a "contained-out" determinahon in Stc,p 13), or
o If Poteutially Listed Wastes were lmowu to be generated/managcd at
the Site, were not known to be disposed oflcommingled wittr the
Matenal but there are not any potentiel non-listed sources of the
Poteutially Listed Hazardous Constinrents detectcd in the lr,laterid
(Step t t) (subject to a "cootained-ouf'detenninatiou in Step l3).
Proceed to Step I j.
EAS STATE OF U"TAII II,TADE A CONTAIDTED-OTJT DETERMINATTON.
If the Matcrial is an Eavironmcntai Medir:m, aad:'
o the levcl of any listcd waste constihrents in thc Material is "dc minirnis"; or
r fll of the listed waste constituents or classes thcreof arc already prcscnt in the
White Mesa Mill's tailings ponds as a rcsult of pocessing conventioud ores
or othEr alteruate feed materials in concentations at lcast as high as found rn
Bre Mueriak
,
the State of Utah will consider whether it is appropriats to makc a containodout
determination with rrspcct to thc Material.
If the State malces a containdeut determination, proceed to Step 16.
If the Sute does not make a contained-out detetmination, proed to Ste? 11.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEGREGATE LISTED HAZARIrcUS WASTES
FROM OTHER MATERHLS?
Detersrine whcthcr thcrc is a reasonable way to scgregatc material thet is a listed
hazardous waste frosr altsrnatc feed materials that are [ot listd, tuzardous wastes that
will bc sent to IUSA's Whitc Mcsa Mill. For exarnplc, it nray bc possibte to isolare
Eatcrisl 0om a ccnain area of a renrediation site and exclude that matcrial &om Matcrials
that will be scnt to the Whitc Mcsa Miil. Alteraatively, it may bc possible to inqease
14.
2{J676.:t0
r5.
PROTOCO|, FOR DETERIt\t\C ivHETHER AITERNATE FEED ,lvl^TEru^rs AnE LA',rED H.{./.ARDO|,5 W^Srrrs
sarnpling frequency and exclude matenals wrth respect to which thc increased sampling
identrEes constitucnts which havc been attributed to listed hazardous waste.
Uyes, proceed ru Step 15. I
SEPARATE LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM MATERIALS.
Bascd on thc method of segregation dctcrmincd undcr Stcp t4 matcrials that arc listcd
hazardous wastes are separated from Materials that will be scut to the White Mesa Mill-
For materiak tlnt are listed hmardous wastet, proced, to Step 12.
For Materials to be sent to the White Mesa MilI, proceed to Step 16.
PRO\rIDE INTFORMA'TION TO I\iRC AND,**
If tho Matc,rial docs not contais auy Potcatially Listed tlazaldoru Consftuc,nts (as
detemrhed iu Step 7), wherc inforuatiou conccming thc source of Potc'ntially Listed
Hazardous Constinras irr thc Matcrial is tmavailablc or inconclusivd' (as dctemined rn
Steps E through 1l), or where tbe State of Utrh has made a coutaincd.out dctctmination
with respect to thc Material (Stcp l3), thc Matcrid will bc assumcd not to be (or contain)
a listed hazardous wastc. In strch circumstatrccs, IUSA will submit the following
o A description of the Sor:rce Investigation;
o An explanation of why tbc Material is not a listed hazardous wastc.
o Whcro applic$la au erylanation of uAy Confrmatiou/Acceptance
Saruplint brs b€cn dctcrmincd not to bc nccessary in Step 17.
o If Corfmration/Acccptauce Sampling has beeo dct€rnrincd uaccssary
in Step 17 , t copy of [USA's, and the Gcnemfior's Sarnpling and
o A copy of Confirmaton and Aocc,ptance Sampting rcsults, if
applicable. IUSA will submit thcsc rcsults only if thcy ideotiFy thc
presence of "rlew" Potentially Listed Hazardors Constituents (as
definod in Stcps 7 aDd 8).
Proceed a Step 17.
ARE SAIT1PLING RESULTS OR DATA REPRESENTATIYE?
Dctcrminc wbether thc sampling resuls or dari fum the Sonrce lovestigation (or, where
applicable, Confirmation/Accqtancc Sarupting rcsults) arc rrcpresentativc- The purposc
of this step ) is to determinc wbcther Confirmation aud Acccptaucc Sanrpling (or
16.
17.
u
PROToCI)L f oR DETERT(INI.\G W.tIE.r}rER AI.TERN,\TT, FEEU .VL{TERIAI 5 ARE LI.sTED TIAZARDOIS \\ \.5 I.L5
continued Confirmatiog and Acceptaucc Sampling) are necessary. If the sampting resu,Ls
or data are representabve of all Material destined for the White Mesa Mill, base<l on the
extent of sanrpting conducted, the nanrrc of the Material and/or thc nanrre of the Site
(e.g., whether ctremical operations or waste disposal were lqrown to be conducted at tire
Site), future Confi.rmation/Acceptance Sunpling wil,l not be Becessary. If the sampling
results are not reprcsentative of all Matenal destined for the White Mesa Mill, then
additional Con6ruratiou/Acccptance sarnpling rnay be appropriate. CorrErmation and
Acceptance Sampling witl be rcquired only where ir is reasonable to expect thal
additional sirnpling will detect additional coutanrinants not already detected- For
exaruple:
o Wherc thc Material is segregated ftom Environmental Media, e.g., the
Matcrial is contei"enze4 thcrs is a high probability the sarnpling results or
data from thc Source Investrgahon arc rcprcscntativc of the Material and
Confirmanory'Acceptance S"-pting wor:ld uot be required.
. Where ruSA will be accepting Material from a discretc portioa of a Site' e.g.,
a storage pilc or othcr defiued area; aod adoquatc sampling characterized the
area of corrcetrl for radioactive and cbeurical cootaminants, thc sampling for
that area would bc coasidered represcutativo and Coufrmation/Acceptance
sampling would not bc require(
r Whcre Material will be rcceived from a wide area of a Site aod the Site has
becn carefully characterized for radioactive contaminants, but uot chemical
contlmimnts, Confirmtion/Acceptance sampling would be required.
e Whcre thc Sitc was oot uscd for industrial activity or disposal bcforc or a-fter
uranium matcrial disposal and the Sitc has becn adcquatcty ctrracterized for
radioactivc aud chcmical contaminarrts, the existing sampling would be
considcrcd sufficicnt and Confirurahory'Acccptancc saurpling would not be
requircd.
o Where listod wast6 *.rp toowu to beidisposed of on thc Sits and the Umits of
thC irree wherC listed w.astes I wetp menaggd iS not Isrown,
ConErmatiodAcceptenca sril,pling would be required to culure that tisted
wastcs :uG not shippcd to IUSA (scc Step l4).
If yes, pruud to Step 1. I
If no, proced to Stcp IE.
DOES STATE OF IJTA.E AGREE THAT ALL PREVIOUS STEPS IIAVE
BEEN PERFORIVTED IN ACCORDANCE W[m THIS PROTOCOL?
Detcrminc whsthcr tbc Statc ageos that thisiProtocol has bccn propcrly followcd
(inctuding that propcr dccisions werc made at ;caclr dccision point). Thc Statc shait
18.
241876. I t2
PT(OTOCOL I:OR DETERMT\rNC WHF-THER.{LTE:IL\ATE FEED }L\I'ERL{IS 'I.R'E LISTED ['[AZ{RDOUS W \5TE5
review the information provid"O UiV IUSA in Step i6 with reasonable speed and advise
IUSA if it bclieves IUSA hrs ns1 properly followed this Protocol rn determinirrg tirat tite
Material is aot listcd hazardous waite, speciffing the particular arcas of defrcicncy.
If thrs prorocot has not b.* p.op"fty followed by IUSA in making its cletermination that
the Matcrial is not a listed hazirdous waste, then IUSA shali redo its analysis in
accordancc with tfiis Protocol and"lifjr:stifie( resubmit the information described in Step
15 explainiug why thc Material id not a listed hazardous waste. The State shalt ootifo
19.
IIUSA with reasonable speed if the State stitl believcs this Protocol has uot been followed
If yes, proceed to Step 19.
If no, proceed to Step l.
IT,IATERIAL IS NOT A LISTEq HAZARDOUS wAsTE, BUT
CONFIR}IATION AIYD ACCEPTAIICE SAI}IPLING ARE REQUIRED.t-
The Matcrial is not a listed hazardons waste, but Confrmation and Accepunce Saruphng
arc require4 as dctermined n"cessJty under Step 17.
Proceed to Step 20. i i
I
COFTDUCT ONGOING CONFTiTIT{ATTON EX,b ECCIPTAITCE
SAIVIPLING. It,
Confirmation and Acccptance S'l-pti"g will lcontinuc until dctcrmined no louger
necessary under Step 17. Such srimpting will bc condrctcd pursnant to a Sampling and
Analysis Plan ('SAP') that specifies the frequency and typc of sampliug rcquired. If
such sampling docs not rweal aaY "nen/'Poteatially Listd Hazardous Coustitucnts (as
defined in Steps 7 and 8), further evaluation is not necessary (as indicatcd in Ste,p 7). lt
such sampling rwcals thc pttscncc of 'llew" constituents, Potentially Listcd Wastes must
be identificd (Stcp 8) and evaluated (Steps 9 thbugh I t) to deterrminc whether the new
constrtucut is from a listcd hazardcius wi$te source. Gcnerally, in each casc, the SAP will
spccify samFling coryarablc to t{c lwel and frequency of sampling perfurmed by other
facilitics in thc Statc of Utah that disposc of tlc-(2) byproduct material, either directly or
that results from proccssing altcrnite feed materials.
Procdto Step 7.
20.
24li76. l r3
A.ttachnrent I
Summary of RC:RA I'isted Hazardous Westes
There are tluee different catcgories of lrsted hazardous waste under RCRA:
F-listed r.ua.sres from non-spccrfic sources (40 CFR S 261.31(a)): Tbese wastes
include ,p"ot ,oir"nts (F001-F005), specified wastes from elecUoplaUng oPerations
(F006-F0b9), specified wastcs from metal hcat treating operations (F0l'GF0l2)'
ipecified wastei ftom chemical conversion coating of aluminum (F019), wastes from
the production/manufacturing of spccified, ch)orophenols, chloroberzerres, and
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons (F019-F028), specified wastes from wood
preserving processes (F032-F035), specificd wastes from pceolanm refinery primary
arrO seconaary oiVwater/solids separatioo sludgc (F037-F038), and leachate rcsrlting
from the disposal of more than one tistdhazadous waste (F039).
K-tisted wa:,tes from spectfic sources (40 cFR $ 261.32): Thesc includc specified
wastes from wood Preservation, inorganic pigmcnt producboq orgaldc chcmrcal
productioo, chlorirc productiori pesticide productioD, Pctroletun refining iron and
steet prod,uction, copper productioo, priinaryland scondary tead smclting primary
zinc proauctioo, pti*rff ahrminum rcduction, ferrodloy production' vetcrinary
pharmacctrtical productioir, irt formulattou, and cokiug'
P- and U-tisted, commercial chemical produits (40 CFR $ 261.33): Thcse include
commercial chemicat products, or manufacturing obEmical intersrediarcs baving the
gencric nerns li51sd in the "P" or "[-P' list of wastcs, coDtaiDcr residueq and rcsidues
in soil or debris resulting tom a spilt of thesc materials.l "The phrasc 'commercial
chemical product * .arurf""t*iog chemical: iutcrmediate ...' refers to a chemical
substancc whiob is ruarrufrcturcd or formulated for comncrcial or manufactl[ing use
which consists of the co-mercially pure Fade of thc chcmical, any tcchnical gndes
of tbo chernical thil 4p produccd, or rnarlcacd' and all formulations in which the
chernical is thc sotc activc ingredicnt. I It doos not refer to a material' strch as a
rnanufactgring proccs5 wastc, that contains anylof the [P- or U-listed substancesl'"l
Appendix VII to 40 CFR part 261 identifies thc hazardou! constitueots for which the F- and K-
listcd wastes were listcd-
I p-tistcd wastcs are ideraificd !s "acutely trazardous lr".to'l lroa.r. subject to additiooel uuur.gcment
controls undcr RCRA. 40 cFR g 261.33(e) (lgg7). u-Iisted W'est6 arc idcntrticd as "toxie wastcs." td'
2 m cER $ z6t.jj(d) norc (tD?).
2.1176. t
ATTACHMENT 4
Review of constituents in Linde site Uranium Materials
to Determine Potential Presence of Listed Hazardous waste
-rIr
I
{
Review of Chemical Contaminants in Linde Materials to Determine the Potential
Presence of Listed Hazardous Waste
1.0 Site History and Background
The Linde property is located in Tonawanda, New York, just north of the city of Buffalo.
From 1942 to 1946, the former Linde Air Products Division of Union Carbide processed
uranium ores at this site under contract to the Manhattan Engineering District ("MED"1.
The history of the Linde site can be summarized as follows:
o Pre-1940's Undeveloped farmlando 1942 Union Carbide Linde Division, Uranium Colored Ceramicso 1942 to early 1950's Manhattan Engineering District, Uranium Ore Extractiono 1950's to 1991 Union Carbide Linde Division, Gases and Air Productso 1991 to 1998 Praxair, Gases and Air Productso 1998 to present Praxair Engineering Offrce
Union Carbide Corporation's former Linde Division constructed a ceramics plant at the
location around 1942. One of the ceramics processes conducted by Union Carbide Linde
Division at this location consisted of extraction of uranium from ores to produce uranium
salts, for coloration of product glasses. Based on their experience, Union Carbide was
placed under contract with the Manhattan Engineering District ("MED") from 1942 to
1946 to extract uranium from seven different ore sources: four African pitchblende ores
and three domestic ores. Laboratory and pilot plant studies were conducted from 1942 to
1943. From 1943 to1946, Lindeconductedfullscaleprocessingof 28,300tonsof ore.
The Linde division contract with the Manhattan Engineering District ended in the early
1950's.
The domestic ores processed at Linde resulted from commercial processing which
removed vanadium, and consequently reduced the concentrations of radium relative to
the uranium and thorium levels. The African ores contained uranium in equilibrium with
all the daughter products in its decay chain.
MED utilized a three-phase process for extraction of uranium from both the domestic and
foreign ores. Triuranium octoxide ("U:Oa") was separated from the feedstock by acid
digestion, precipitation, and filtration. The solid, gelatinous filter cake from this step was
discarded as solid waste in a temporary tailings pile on the Linde site. Insoluble
precipitates from the solution steps were combined with the filter cake for disposal onsite. Approximately 8,000 tons of combined filter cake and precipitates were later
relocated to Ashland l. U3Oswas converted to uranium dioxide and uranium tetrafluoride
at the Linde site. Residuals from these two steps were reprocessed at the Linde site.
The Remedial Investigation ("RI") Report provides extensive detail on the chemicals
utilized in full-scale ore extraction. Full-scale processing utilized sulfuric acid,
I
n
(
pyrolucite, soda ash, sodium bicarbonate, ferrous and ferric sulfates, barium chloride,
caustic soda, ammonium sulfate, and other materials.
Five buildings at the site were involved in MED activities. Building 14 had been
constructed by Union Carbide in the mid-1930's. Buildings 30, 31,37, and 38 were
constructed at the location by MED, and their ownership was transferred to Linde when
the MED contract ended.
Residues from uranium ore processing at the Linde facility were disposed of and/or
stored at the Ashland l, Ashland 2 and Seaway properties. Approximately 8,000 tons of
Linde facility residues were disposed on the Ashland I property between 1944 and 1946.
No material was transferred from Linde to Ashland I after this period. In 1974, the
subsequent owner of the Ashland 1 property excavated a portion of the Linde residues
and soils from the Ashland I site, and relocated them to the Ashland 2 property. NRC
has already approved amendments to IUSA's license for processing of the portions of the
Linde residues and soil moved to Ashland I and Ashland 2. As described below, after the
transfer of residues to Ashland I was completed, Linde added manufacturing operations
at the Linde facility that likely contributed additional contaminants to the materials
remaining on the Linde site, but would not have affected materials already transferred to
Ashland I and/or Ashland 2.
The Linde Division ceased ceramics operations and operated an inorganic gas equipment
design and construction facility at the site from the 1950's through 1991. At that time,
the Linde division was spun off from Union Carbide and changed its name to Praxair,
Inc. Both Linde and Praxair designed and manufactured gas compressors, chillers, filters
and gas purification equipment for installation and operation at customer sites. There is
no record of any gas manufacture or chemical processing occurring at the site at any time,
before or after the MED activities. Neither the ceramics operation, which was based on
the conversion of mineral raw materials via inorganic processes, nor the equipment
manufacturing operation, involved any synthetic organic chemical processing. Praxair
continued to manufacture equipment at the site until 1991, when it closed all operations
except the engineering center offices.
Renovation of the facility over the years has resulted in consolidation of the MED wastes
and radioactively contaminated soils remaining at the property. In 1977, MED
contaminated soil was removed from the construction area for the new building 90, and
placed in two windrows along the northern property line. The windrows were
consolidated into one pile between 1979 and 1982, and covered in 1992.
The Record of Decision ("ROD") for the Linde Property was not available at the time
this evaluation was prepared. However, sufficient characterization information on the
nature and extent of contamination is already available to assess the composition and
sources of Uranium Material to be excavated.
2.0 Basis and Limitations of this Evaluation
The following contamination evaluation is based on:
l. Chemical Data presented in the Remedial Investigation ("RI") Report for
Tonawanda Site (USDOE, December 1992).
2. Site information in the Proposed Plan for the Linde Site (USACE, 1999).
3. Various texts and published information on the history of chemical usage in
uranium extraction research and processing.
4. IUSA "Protocol for Determining Whether Altemate Feeds Are Listed Hazardous
Wastes" (IUSA, November, 1999).
5. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ('NYSDEC")
Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum ("TAGM") on Hazardous
Constituents from RCRA Listed Hazardous Waste Contained in Environmental
Media. (NYSDEC, November 1992).
6. Site visit to the Praxair/Linde property on May 25,lgg9.
7. Interviews with the USACE contractor at the Linde site.
8. The Linde Site Preliminary Material Characterization Report (USACE Buffalo
District, February, 2000)
IUSA has developed a "Protocol for Determining Whether Alternate Feed Materials are
Listed Hazardous Wastes" (November 22, 1999). This Protocol has been developed in
conjunction with, and accepted by, the State of Utah Department of Environmental
Quality ("UDEQ") (Letter of December 7,1999). Copies of the Protocol and UDEQ
letter are provided in Attachment 3 of this Request for Amendment. The evaluation and
recommendations in this Attachment were developed in accordance with this Protocol.
3.0 Application of IUSA/UDEQ Hazardous Waste Protocol to Linde Materials
3.1 Source Investigation
Several of the information sources enumerated above were used to perform the Source
Investigation indicated in Box I of the Protocol Diagram. The primary purpose of the
field investigations at the Tonawanda Site properties was to determine the extent of
radiological contamination, chemical characterization sampling was also conducted on
each of the properties, including Linde. The USDOE R[ characterization included
analysis by EP Toxicity method for RCRA characteristic contaminants (metals and
organics), corrosivity, ignitability, and reactivity, Total metals, EPA Method 8260 for
Total VOCs, and EPA Method 8270 for Total SVOCs. None of the samples failed the
RCRA characteristic tests or exceeded regulatory criteria for EP toxicity. Although EPA
has replaced the EP toxicity test with the TCLP test, both the EP toxicity results and
totals results for all analytes were in the very low part per billion levels, and would not be
expected to exceed the new TCLP criteria. Hence, the Uranium Material is not RCRA
characteristic waste.
The following sections describe the status of the Linde materials relative to RCRA Listed
Hazardous Waste regulations, and in accordance with the specific parameters identified
in the IUSAruDEQ hazardous Waste Protocol.
3.2 Contained-In/Contained-OutConsiderations in the IUSA/UDEQ Protocol
The Protocol's Diagram states, in Decision Diamond 2, that if a "regulatory authority
with RCRA jurisdiction over the site agreed with [the] generator's determination that
Material is not listed hazardous waste, made a "contained-out" determination, or
determined that material or site is not subject to RCRA" then IUSA and UDEQ will
consider the material not to be listed hazardous waste.
As described above, NYSDEC has authorized USACE and its contractor, IT Corporation
("IT"), to use the TAGM contained-in/contained-out approach on the Linde material.
This authoization satisfies the requirements agreed upon by IUSA and UDEQ as
documented in the Protocol Diagram and supporting text. Hence, a contained-out
determination made by the NYSDEC for specific contaminants would be sufficient basis
for IUSA to consider Uranium Material not to be RCRA-listed hazardous waste with
respect to those contaminants, and to accept such material at the White Mesa Mill.
The NYSDEC has published a Technical Administrative Guidance memorandum
("TAGM") addressing RCRA listed hazardous waste contaminants contained in
environmental media (NYSDEC, November 1992). The TAGM defines NYSDEC's
policy regarding contaminants (chemicals, compounds, and compound groups) associated
with RCRA listed hazardous wastes detected in environmental media (soil, sediment, and
water). The TAGM provides specific "contained-in" action levels (concentrations) for
each contaminant. If all contaminants in a given media are present at levels lower than
the specified "contained-in" action levels, then the media does not "contain" RCRA listed
hazardous waste.
If any or all of the listed waste contaminants in the media are above the action levels, the
material is a RCRA listed hazardous waste and, per the policy, may be managed in one of
two ways:
l. The material may be shipped off site as RCRA listed hazardous waste, or
2. The material may be treated on site until all the listed waste contaminants are
below the action levels, and then shipped off site, or managed on site, as non-
listed waste.
NYSDEC's TAGM specifies that for the "contained-in/contained-out" determination to
be applied to media from any site, the owner must prepare a Sampling Work Plan, to be
approved by NYSDEC, specifying how the media will be sampled and analyzed to
confirm that no contaminant exceeds any action level in the TAGM. NYSDEC has
agreed with IT that the application of this approach is appropriate for thirteen of the
constituents identified in the Linde RI, present at very low concentrations, as discussed in
Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4, below. The USACE contractor, IT, is preparing a draft
Sampling Work Plan to serve as the basis for this determination at the Linde site. This
Plan will undergo NYSDEC review and approval prior to implementation.
3.3 Other Determination Methods in the IUSA/UDEQ Protocol
If such a direct confirmation is not available, the protocol describes additional steps
IUSA will take to assess whether contaminants associated with any potential RCRA
waste listings are present in the material, and the likelihood that they resulted form
RCRA listed hazardous wastes or RCRA listed processes. These include tabulation of all
potential listings associated with each known chemical contaminant at the site, and the
review of chemical process and material/waste handling history at the site to assess
whether the known chemical contaminants in the material resulted from listed or non-
listed sources. This evaluation is described in Box 8 and Decision Diamonds 9 through I I
in the Protocol Diagram.
If the results of the above evaluation indicate that the contaminants are not listed waste,
the protocol specifies an additional assessment of whether the data on which this
determination was made is suffrciently representative, or whether an ongoing acceptance
sampling program should be implemented, and a similar evaluation performed on any
new constituents identified during acceptance sampling.
Both the evaluation methods described in Section 2.2 and 2.3 were used in the hazardous
waste analysis below.
Chemical Contaminants at Linde
According to the USDOE RI, the Linde site appears to have been constructed atop a layer
of fill ranging from zero to 17 feet thick, which was placed above natural soils for site
grading and leveling. The borehole logs note that the fill is a mixture of flyash, slag,
gravel and clays from local sources, and is present in different proportions at different
locations throughout the site. According to the USACE contractor, the fill consists of
coal-based ash and slag, from steel mill furnaces or other coal fired furnaces from local
industrial plants. The USACE contractor also interviewed Linde personnel who were on
site during the backfilling and MED construction, and examined photographs of the fill
piles used for the backfilling operation. Both sources confirmed that the fill was coal-
fumace ash and slag from a carbon steel mill in the area.
The chemical contamination reported in the RI was based primarily on samples from 17
locations throughout the site, collected within the fill layer. Background studies
determined the composition of the fill by sampling areas that were known to contain fill,
but which were outside the area of MED activities. Five samples were collected within
4.0
the fill layer. but outside the area of MED activity, in an attempt to assess
contribution of filI to site metals and radionuclide levels. The background
characterization indicated :
A number of heavy metals above background levels originated in the fill, and are
not associated with MED;
o Radionuclides such as thorium 232 oiginated with the fill and are not associated
with MED;
o Other radionuclides and metals were possibly contributed by both the fill and the
MED wastes.
Coal-based furnace slag and stack ash (fly ash), which are the known sources of Linde fill
material, are specifically exempted from RCRA regulationl. As identified above, some
inorganic contaminants at Linde may have derived either from the fill, the MED wastes,
or both.
4.1 Organic Contaminants at Linde
Seventeen locations in shallow soils were sampled for VOCs. Of these, nine were also
analyzed for SVOCs. Four classes of organic compounds have been detected at Linde:
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs); phthalates; toluene; and halogenated
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
4.1.1 PAHs
A large number of PAH compounds and substituted ring compounds were detected atLinde, as follows: acenaphthene; anthracene; benzo (a) anthracene; benzo (a)
fluoranthene; benzo (b) fluoranthene; benzo (k) fluoranthene; benzo (g,h,i) perylene;
benzo (a) pyrene; chrysene; dibenz (a,h) anthracene; dibenzofrran; fluoranthene;
fluorene; indeno (1,2,3 c,d) pyrene; phenanthrene; and pyrene.
The presence of this broad spectrum of PAHs is an indication of either:
a) plant surfaces currently or previously paved with road tar or asphalt;b) disposal of used crankcase oil or other heavy machine oils;c) both a) and b), including locations where spilled waste oil may have
dissolved and mobilized asphalt components; ord) presence ofcoal based ash or slag.
USDOE borings did locate media described as "blebs of gray-black organic material"
which the RI determined to be "waste oil." PAHs from paving materials, and from used
oil, are not RCRA-listed wastes. As mentioned in section 3.0 above, the coal based slag
and fly ash used as fill at Linde are exempt from RCRA.
' 4ocrR 261.4(b)(4)
Based on the above information, none of the PAHs is indicative of RCRA listed
hazardous waste. The USACE Linde Site Preliminary Material Characterization Report
has also determined that none of the PAHs at Linde are from RCRA listed waste sources.
4.1.2 Phthalates
The following substituted phthalates were detected at Linde: bis 2-ethyl hexyl phthalate;
and di-n-butyl phthalate.
There is no history of industrial phthalate use or production on the Linde property. Both
of the detected phthalates are natural degradation products of the oxidation of multi-ring
aromatic compounds (PAHs), which, as described above, likely originated with paving
sources, used oil sources, or fill sources. Phthalates derived from natural degradation offill, paving material, and used oils are not RCRA-listed wastes. Phthalates are also
common plasticizers and may contaminate samples due to their presence in vinyl, butyl
and other plastic materials in sampling tools, packaging, and Personal Protective
Equipment ("PPE").
Based on the above information, none of the phthalates is indicative of RCRA listed
hazardous waste. The USACE Preliminary Material Characterization Report has also
determined that none of the phthalates at Linde are from RCRA listed waste sources.
4.1.3 Toluene
Although the RI reported that toluene appeared in a number of borings, it was present at
very low levels. All toluene detections reported were less than 300 parts per billion. The
majority were less than 50 parts per billion. The RI also reports that toluene was detected
at shallow depths, of 6 feet or less, and in general, its concentration decreased with depth,
indicating a relatively recent source.
Had the toluene derived solely from MED sources 50 years ago, the majority of the
toluene would have been volatilized or biodegraded with time, and would not likely be
present at shallow depths during the 1990's field investigation. The RI considered it not
to be related to MED operations.
There has been no toluene synthesis or use as a reagent on the site. Linde and Praxair
both assembled, sand blasted, prepped, painted, and finished process hardware including
tanks, pumps, compressors, etc. between the 1950's and the present. The toluene
detected at Linde is most likely associated with the LindelPraxair manufacturing
activities, and may result from either potentially RCRA listed sources, such as solvent
and paint and coating thinners, or from non-listed sources such as paint and coating
components.
Additionally, since the Linde site is located in a highly industrialized area, it has not been
determined cdnclusively whether nearby off site sources additionally contributed to the
presence of toluene, and other mobile VOCs, at Linde. We are aware that this was the
case at Ashland I, for example, where a number of VOCs, including toluene, may have
been introduced from refinery fuel terminal operations next door.
Overall, there is not enough information to make a definitive judgment regarding the
source(s) of toluene. However, as described in this section, there are a number of
plausible RCRA listed sources for toluene associated with the post 1950's Praxair/Linde
gas equipment operation. These sources would appear to be the most likely sources of
the toluene. Hence, this evaluation concludes that it is reasonable and appropriate to
utilize the approach recommended by NYSDEC for this situation.
NYSDEC and the USACE contractor have concurred that at least some of the sources of
toluene at Linde may be RCRA listed hazardous wastes. However, as stated above, the
reponed concentrations of toluene were extremely low. As a result, NYSDEC and
USACE/IT have agreed on use of the TAGM approach, and have established that soil
with concentrations of toluene lower than the TAGM contained-in action level of
16,000,000 ug/kg (parts per billion or "ppb") will not be RCRA listed hazardous waste.
As described above, the highest toluene level detected to date was 300 ppb--more than
50,000 times lower than the contained-in action level. As a result, the USACE contractor
expects that most or all of the Linde material will be determined to be non-listed waste
with respect to toluene.
IT is currently preparing a pre-excavation characterization sampling plan for collection of
fifteen in situ samples throughout the Linde site. The sample results will be used to
confirm to NYSDEC, prior to excavation, that most or all of the toluene concentrations to
be encountered during excavation can be expected to be below the TAGM action levels.
As described above, during excavation, IT will collect a large number of samples, for
analysis in an on-site laboratory, to determine on a batch by batch bases, that all toluene
levels are below the TAGM action level. Any sampled piles that contain toluene above
the TAGM will be managed as hazardous waste and will not be shipped to IUSA, unless
or until they meet all of the TAGM action levels.
4.1.4 Halogenated (Brominated and Chlorinated) VOCs
One brominated and eleven chlorinated VOCs were detected at very low levels,
specifically: bromoform; chloroform; methylene chloride; 1,2 dichloroethane (1,2 DCA);
cis- plus trans- isomers of 1,2 dichloroethane (1,2 DCE); trans 1,2 dichloroethene (trans
1,2 DCE); 1,1,1 trichloroethane (TCA); trichloroethene (TCE); 1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane;
tetrachloroethene (PCE); pentachlorophenol; and hexachloroethane. The majority of
detections were at 50 parts per billion or less. Two detections of 1,1,2,2
tetrachloroethane and several detections of hexachloroethane and pentachlorophenol were
at higher levels.
Trans 1,2 DCE was detected in five sample locations. Trans |,2DCE is not associated
with any RCRA listings and is not a RCRA hazardous waste.
The RI concluded that the halogenated VOCs, which are long-lived in the environment,
might have resulted from either MED activities or Linde operations since 1946. There is
no history of chlorinated solvent production at the Linde Site. Neither Praxair nor Linde
synthesized these compounds or used them as reagents. Ceramics operations are based
on the conversion of inorganic mineral raw materials via inorganic and/or thermal
processes, and do not utilize organic solvents. Hence, there is no likely source for these
compounds prior to or during MED operations.
The Praxair/Linde gas equipment operation involved the preparation, cutting, welding,
cleaning, and painting of sheet metal and other fabrication raw materials, and the
assembly, testing, and servicing of heat exchangers, filters, tanks, and reciprocating and
centrifugal machinery. Linde also operated and maintained cranes, hydraulic lifts,
trolleys, and other heavy transfer devices necessary to move and assemble heavy
machinery and equipment. These transfer devices, throughout many of the buildings on
site, would have required use of degreasers and solvents for cleaning, maintenance,
hydraulic flushing, etc. Hence, these compounds likely originated from use of
commercially purchased solvents, degreasers, coolants, cutting fluids, or other uses in the
Praxair/Linde gas equipment plants, from the 1950's to the 1990's.
Disposed off-spec, expired or spent product from solvent or degreasing use is consistent
with the RCRA solvent listings. According to EPA guidance and internal memoranda2,
use, spill, or disposal of these compounds from coolant and cutting fluid use is not
consistent with the solvent listings, that is, would not be a RCRA listed waste. Also, to
the extent they resulted from MED activities, they may be 11e.(2) byproduct material,
and not a RCRA listed hazardous waste. However, there is not enough historic
information available to ascertain the exact use of any of these compounds or mixtures.
Hence it is not possible to determine with certainty whether or not they are listed
hazardous waste at Linde.
1,1,2,2 tetrachloroethane was detected beneath only one building and was mixed with
MED waste. This compound is not used as a solvent or degreaser, but is a feedstock for
other chlorinated compounds. It was likely an impurity of commercial grades of TCA,
TCE or other chlorinated aliphatics used at the site. 1,2 DCA may have been an impurity
in commercial grades of 1,1 DCA 1,1,1 TCA, or PCE used at the site.
Hexachloroethane, or perchloroethane, is used in production of nitrocellulose,
pyrotechnics, explosives, and smoke devices; and as an inhibitor in fermentation
processes. Neither MED nor LindeiPraxair conducted any of the above processes on site.
Hexachloroethane is also used as a solvent and may also be present as an impurity in
commercial grades of other chlorinated ethane and ethene solvents.
' 50 FR 25 I (December 3 I , I 985); RCRA/Superfund Hotline Report (March, 1989); RCRA/Superfund
Hotline Report (June 28, 1989); RCRA/Superfund Hotline Report (June 1986); RCRA/Superfund Hotline
Report (June 10, 1983)
Pentachlorophenol is a fungicide, bactericide, and algicide most commonly used as a
wood preservative in telephone and electrical poles, railroad ties, and structural beams.
No synthesis of pentachlorophenol or wood treatment processing was performed by
either MED or Praxair/Linde. Pentachlorophenol may have been detected due to
presence of treated wood chips and debris, or preservative compounds from the treated
wood chips, in the rubble and soils on site. Pentachlorophenol identified in samples that
include bits of treated wood scrap, or preservatives from treated wood scrap is not a
RCRA listed hazardous waste.
Overall, there is not enough information to make a definitive judgment regarding the
source(s) of halogenated VOCs at Linde. However, as described in this section, there are
a number of plausible listed sources for these compounds associated with the post 1950's
Praxair/Linde gas equipment operation. Hence, this evaluation concludes that it is
reasonable and appropriate to utilize the NYSDEC TAGM approach for this situation.
NYSDEC and the USACE contractor have concurred that at least some of the sources of
halogenated VOCs at Linde may be RCRA listed hazardous wastes. However, the
reported concentrations of halogenated VOCs were extremely low or below detection
limits ("BDL"). As a result, NYSDEC and USACE/IT have agreed on use of the TAGM
approach, and have established that soil with concentrations of halogenated VOCs lower
than the respective TAGM contained-in action levels for each contaminant will not be
RCRA listed hazardous waste.Maximum concentrations of each halogenated
contaminant at Linde and its respective TAGM action level is provided in Table l0 of the
Linde Site Preliminary Material Characterization Report, and summarized below.
Halogenated VOC Concentration
Range at Linde
(ug/kg)
Based on RI Data
TAGM Action
Level (ug/kg)
l-Trichloroethane (1,1, I TCA)BDL _ 2.3 7,000,000
1,1,2,2 -T etrachloroethane BDL _ 650 3,200
I,2-Dichloroethene (total cis and trans
isomers) (cis and trans 1,2 DCE)
BDL _ 36 cis-780,000
trans-1,600,000
1,2 Dichloroethane (1,2 DCA)BDL _ 36 7,000
Bromoform BDL _ 5.2 81,000
Chloroform BDL _2.2 100,000
Hexachloroethane BDL - 2,100 46,000
Methylene chloride BDL - 49 85,000
Pentachlorophenol BDL - 4,700 3,000
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)BDL _ 6.7 12,000
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (trans 1,2
DCE)
BDL _ 42 1,600,000
Trichlorethene (TCE)BDL _ 42 58,000
l0
As indicated in the table above, every halogenated VOC, except pentachlorophenol. w,as
reported to be present at levels from 5 times to as much as 3 million times lower than its
respective TAGM action level. As a result, USACE/IT expect that most or all of the
Linde material will not be RCRA hazardous waste.
Although one detection of pentachlorophenol exceeded the TAGM of 3,000 uglkg, the
majority of detections were below the TAGM. Per the USACE contractor, any excavated
material that is determined to contain pentachlorophenol above the TAGM will be
managed as hazardous waste and will not be shipped to IUSA, unless and until it meets
the TAGM action levels.
4.2 Metals at Linde
According to the USDOE RI, twenty-four metals exceeded maximum expected
background concentrations at Linde: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
boron, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
molybdenum, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc.
As described above, the Linde site was filled and graded with a combination of fly-ash,
slag, gravel and clay fill. The fill has been determined to be a source of thorium-232 and
arsenic, as well as a contributor to the elevated levels of cadmium, chromium, copper,
lead and silver.
The RI attributes all the elevated metals at the site either to MED waste, fill, or
combinations of the two. The RI does not attribute any of the metals to Linde site
manufacturing activities or to any RCRA listed process sources.
Based on all of the above information, none of the metals are indicative of RCRA listed
hazardous waste. The USACE Preliminary Material Characterization Report has also
determined that none of the metals at Linde are from RCRA listed waste sources.
5.0 Conclusions
In summary, the following conclusions can be drawn from the Linde site information
presented above:
l. None of the PAHs or phthalates in the Linde material came from RCRA listed
hazardous waste sources. This determination is consistent with Box 8 and Decision
Diamonds 9 through l1 in the IUSAruDEQ Protocol Diagram.
2. None of the metals in the Linde material came from RCRA listed hazardous waste
sources. This determination is consistent with Box 8 and Decision Diamonds 9
through I I in the IUSA/UDEQ Protocol Diagram.
tl
3.There is insufficient information to make a conclusive judgment regarding the
sources of toluene and halogenated VOCs at Linde, and it is reasonable to expect that
some of them may have originated from RCRA-listed sources. The lack of plausible
non-listed sources, combined with the existence of plausible listed sources, leads to
this conclusion. As a result, it is appropriate to assume that Linde material in which
all VOC contaminants are lower than the NYSDEC action levels are not RCRA
hazardous waste, and those which exceed them are RCRA listed hazardous waste, in
accordance with NYSDEC policy. (The above determination differs from previous
evaluations such as performed for Ashland I and 2 material, in which known non-
listed sources could be identified for each potentially listed chemical contaminant; or
for St. Louis material, for which both potential non-listed sources and unknown off-
site or background sources could be identified that contributed to the presence of
potentially listed chemical contaminants).
The documentation of the NYSDEC decision process is consistent with decision
diamond number 2 in the IUSAruDEQ Protocol Diagram. That is, material
determined not to be RCRA hazardous waste with respect to VOCs by the NYSDEC
TAGM should be acceptable for processing at the White Mesa Mill.
4.
t2
ATTACHMENT 5
New York State Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum on
"Contained-ln" Criteria for Environmental Media
vL/ [o/ vu ILE u{. ru r,r!} a l9 oor t "v 'rlJ v!!--vss/ Jrr
rl' ,gg YsH. srArE 9SFAITYErT oF (ltYlncruExtlL ccilllE'iYlflotr
{ ovEro:- * ft^;Z rEous slrEsrrANcEs FEeUU?lox
u oF Ttcl{inc^t !Urp65t
Technical
' Administrative
Guidance
Memorandum
3b
r ' Edli€r
Ervlror:uental Uedla containinE hazardous constltucnts
lrou Li.sted Lazardous vaste identlfied ln 6 !ryCRR Part
37L, uuEt bo uanaged as hazardoqs uastes urlesc or
ruttil tlrc ucdia contain bazardous eonstLturnt
concantratloas shich are et or balorr aetton Lavsl
concentrations-
II.
llb:ls rcostaincd inr policy only a1ryliba to soil,
Eed,iaent, and Erorurduater contarllnate6 tsy 11sted
h,a.zardous vasta and reuoved frou theJ-r natr:ral
envl,roruent pgrsqant to a Drpartnelt 9u EPA issued
pqmit, order, approvcd elosure plan, cr approved'
. correqtlve act|on Plan (Lereinafter referred to aG
pernit/order/vork Plan). this Polisy doas not apply
to lLsted or characteeistic hazardous sast€c 8s
initially generatrd or rcsidualg d,erLwd froo treating
tbese fiitea bazardsus rast3g, Such residuals rly
include: lly and botton acb lrou the irrciae=atLon o!
llated hazaAdous trastsr; prceipitatLon and bioloEical
sluaEe lrsu the Caltll,atcr treatornt of listed
hazaroous raatrl SpGnt activlt.d garbon fr<m tsho
treatuent of lieteO hazardous Hagte'
rII. fntention and-PurPaEq
Ehc poltqp is pr5-uarlly lntended for slErrations glh&e
contauinaled uedia, especially sol1, is e:rpeded to
contaln Iw concentrations of, lLstca hazardous waste
tor uUieb treataent uay not be P3actical or feasiblc '
By far tbe uost !=equently ocglEtlng situatl.on Uhictl
tUfr pollcy uill address lc the excarration of euch
r{iffirou' 3028 Page 1 Of 21
&D{G {Cdilta1ned-Inn Crlteria
for Environmmtal Fledia
trrr& flovember 30. 1992
li-l l{rrEl
l_J obaatcb
trl Srpcrce{cr xcaa !{o
ze/z'd 662'oN TIZ? Llg 9IZ ddof, fI HdSZ:S AAAZ'32''rtll
UI//ICIUU IU!. U+:!U rAA rJ"o ool ttSo 'r
TIEW YtrRK sfATE OEFASTUETIT OF ETVITONI.ENTTL CO(GERYTTICI
owlslto&'f l{ zlmous tlulsr^,Ec! Ftruurlot{
-TU
OFTEI'T{ICAL IUFPfrTe-;;
Adrninislmtive
Guidance
irlemqEmdum
;eufitbalii tffi iiat, :, ::i
o
r*'c'rtun 3S28 Page 2 of 21
stu- iContained-Inr Critcrla
for Environmerrtal lledla
brt ilovember 30. 1992
lfl f,.rllr
trl ob.cLrr
tr] suparcaaj fcto !lc.
-
Confam{Sgted soilE
at BCR;I facil.ities,
lctiqr and factlltY
activitl,as,
tor planncd and suetgenef4 proJccts
Lnelrrding both RCRA Corrective
constrtrction and rccqn3t:tuctlotl
.t
I
tliEECA one oT Dore of tba touotduq 'strlngent land
dJ.rposal requirtaantt i
ninlnr:u tectrnologY ataadarris ;
g=orrrdratrr uonltor ing ;o rand dJ'sposal restrLctionsi and
- cloarrelpost-closur' ctandards'
unrestric€3d lltt€r
ffiaotoqv-efi arvclppinq ct eanup teYels if.or '
"st1. ro:_t?:?_Pf
@G Depar&ent f,ro' r:quging tlre
i""riiti:t. irDlment a renuedy tlrat ciu ac$leve
errrrrronncntal nedla clcanup lcrels vLfCh CO$Id be aole
striagrdt tlarr-tle aetion ievels taltrlated in AppendLr
rottb.rcontained-rnrcuidancr;resentedar
Attacbnerrt } to thig policy doqrnerrt. }J.so,
;;;ualtce rith acrlon levels discusred tl. F:":::n \'1r
ii-[ir" poll,cy does nEt nsceesarily BGarl that tlro
,.ai, ls- eatr.iely decontarinated and aece,ptable lor
I
ft is the purposa of this policy to sat ltnbuu
crlterla f i. e. , gstLon levels ' covg! rgquireuents ' and
Ea.t8icted, eccols) for an errvilonnental neditro
coDta'lnated ty licted bazardous raste rhtcq u.{ be
D.t ln oroes to prccludr itE nanageScnt Bt ll'zalqous
waate. Oqhqftriee, EanaggnCnt ag hazardors thes€f COuld
LE/e'd 662'ohr rtev Lrg 9Iz dllo3 rI l.,ld9Z:S AWZ'32'\rvt
01125i 00 TLE 04: 11 l't'tr T16 lir 13z6 '\t)
fiTW YONX 3TA?E OIPAiTUENT 3F ElrYIf,ONI{EIrTAL COIISEFJ^TIOiT
ilvl$cr: oF HaZASDOLIS g.,:BS"A{CES HEOUIJT.CN.f-=-*-**=--
Technic'al
Administratlve
Guidance
Mernorardum
utsL--utsx// )H n {3 vv..
naoarturn 3029 Page 3 Of ?1
aoia if,oltained-In' Criteria
for Environm:ntal l'tedi aqE Novemhcr 30. 1992
lu I iaarrIH
El obrctco
E S[pe6a{6 }&rc ilc.
-
I17.Regrul at.or]f Becruireqents
Cartain sitlretlogs aay requlsa contaulnat.d scdla bc
firbJect, to treatrnent b.fole Echievlng tLis polLcy',s
action lgrrsls. tlrat traatucnt systeu vil! be suDje'ct
i"-ncf,| peluitttng rrnLess aAdressPd in a Artlcle 27,
lrlttE 13 order on consart, 7t-272?13) cOrrectlve
acti.on ord.er or it subject to a epectllc Palt 373
exa4rtion (a.9., ultstarratcr treatacnt rraig!] vitb a
eirrf,ice t lter dischErgq,. In uost i'stErnces
porrlttlnE nay be aceonprisbed l1z addrcsslng tbe
treatnent systcu in the cosective tleasuras
Iupl,erneatation sectlon of the Corrctive Astion llodtrle
(l-.c., l@drrlc III) of t'he Patt 373 peaiC'
Envi-ronuental uedLal 1.t' r coJ'1 sr redincnt'
contaElnated, lrrr ltsted hazardous $aste or coEaercial
cb,eolleat products liEtca ln o mleRR Part 37L' and
srrDjecttotceatuEntbelorele'ddisposal'nustleet
th,elarrd{lsEroealgeeull.Dcnts(LDRS)establichcd
Snrsuant to i tntcRR PaIt 376. Ehet treated soil or
scdLsent asatlng LDns, and tbon subsequrntly subjoet
to tand dlrposai, n.ed not be oanaged ac'hazardous
raste if li ueets tlre 'contalned-inrr criteria'
A suc6GtgtUl rcontained-lnn d'emonstration, aS discussed ln
AttacD[EDt A-'Contained,-Intr Gtrldancer DiY sti1l raqulre tbr
envilorrental scdLa bc regrulag'd and activrly ranaged as a
raeta uatariif. Tbis ncoitained-inr PolleY does not cxcupt
sqlld o-' =.rilEoltd urdie relocated off tlre lacility
proper*,y t=ti u"Gg subject to regrulatLon as a 3011d rast''
pursuant pollcf exe8pl aqueous naste lrsB relng suDjest to
the discbar;;;'lnto iUe g3otgdcater and srEface uatars of,
tIGv YoEl< State.
LE/V'd 662'ON trzv /19 9Iz dtof, II tldgz:S ZAZ7_'92''tri
0l/15/00 'ILE U{:ll t'{I 7lu 6!L tzto '!r
xgw YOex sTATt OEPaf,TlIEr{? ot EtrvlnoxrExr^L cot$lBtevr?lol{
oiltstox cF BrIirHlrolJS tulErA!.cES FESuuTlol{
u cF TEeHr,llc^l- 3IJ?PCBT
Technical
Adminisilrative
Guldance
Memorandum
9t!--uE,rl ')tL[
tocr:rcum 30ZB Page 4 of 21
rur;*r nf,elltained-Inr Criteria
for Envlrorrmental lledia
rb: [ovgrher 30- 1992trl rlr-
E: e.rcl.r.
trl Srpecedrr rcao dq
v.InnlF8entation
Tlris policT cannot he serf-futprcneutcd blz the facirity' lnrt
trLll be put into effest ry tbe Depaft,:lent on a east-by-case
basis stth a trcontairred-lnD dmonstratioa. That
d,euonstration sbatl bc uadc by the facllity arrd etraluated
Ey th. Departtent as discussed in Attacbnent A -
rrCoatained-fnt Guidance. Eefore a trcontained-lntt
fleoonEtratiou iE lnplenenta6 at any facility, a nork Plar
for the druonstratioh lrrst bc subuitted to and aPProvcd by
tie Dclrartnent. l[hie rrcrrk plan tnat be e ScParate dosuuent
Eocqsl,ng on a spe6Lf,Le area of Cqntagination at the
facility or lt coulA be parE ol t closusa ;llan for a
lazardorre yasto ESD rrnits Ur:dergoLnE closqaa, or Palf,, of a
facLlityryidc reuedial investigatlon $ork plan. lfork plans
vil1 addt.ess all hazardous constituents ffou listed
bazard,qrs ltaste contained in eacb errvtfsrEantal uediUu. ID
addition to tlrese hazardous constltuents drrLved frou
Iirtcd Lazardous rssttr hazardous consitltUonts f,rgltn aII
ottser knorn or susPectrd gources of contaninatlon ehall be
addressed in tbe vorlt P1arr'
Envirotrncntaf uedla contatlnated bry hazaadour
congtLtuents frgtl llsted ha.zardous raste Et or belou
actioa lcvtlc ar ditculsed ln Sectlon rJ1t of tshLs
pollc,y, eitLer on inltlal rcnoval oi after treatuent,
ahall bc nanagcd ar follous:
E. It a eclid or s€lei-solid (i'",, scdtucnt) I lt uay be:
(1) disposed on the lactlity ProPerty aE a non-
hazardous solld vaEtc in aecord,ance ttiti
acceptable uanaEeuent Bractices identilled in
pnnite l otiJetelrmrk trllans r oE
Le/g'd 562'ON trz? Lls 9Iz ddof, rI l.ld9Z:S AWZ'92'\af
01/25/00 TLE 0{:11 l'-AI 7lU !n! Tzzu }rl
tiEW YoHf,CZ TE DEp^fftLGflf OF ExvlForllExr^L goi''EnvATlox
f,n Etcti 0t xazArulous a[SrrNcE ;lEtrulATlct{
Or*-clrtcr-s..?Forr
Technical
Adminlsilraiive
Gui'dance
Il/lornorandum
o
LE/9'd
utL--uEt(/ )r1 t uuu
rrq*lvrr 3028 Page 5 of 21
gqee rC6ntelned-In" Criteri r
for Environnental tledir
rE Invanrher 30- 1992
E xir
LJ obr.hrt
B.
(z) sbippecl ofl tbe faclltty property as a non-
bazrrdous Lndrrctri.at solLd uarte to a trlernittedPa* 360 land-d,J.sposal facilltlt, and '
I! aquegus, l,t uaY br:
( 1) dischargcd on tba faeility propc*y a5 a troB-
hazardour caltr ln accordancc sith a SPDES
p€rilit or Dlpartllelrt Order, otr
(2) eutgped os dischuEcd off tlu laeility
pope=ty as t non-haaatdous i:rdustrial solLd
uasles io a PCltrF or inductrial rastsrtater
treatuent taclllty'
l[be action levctg to be us€d in tbe ttcontained inr
deoonEtration era lietad in Alprndix I - rLgtlon
Levrlg for crorrlctrater and, Soll/Sediaent'r and enLy
foc6s. qn tbc d.lrect buaan ingestion af,Posll3.e pathnay'
IEha levclr vcre doveloped uainE proaulEated USEPA and
. StEtr ttatldasds peotectlvg of buuan health rttlr
trecourta to USEPA bealth iicr( assctstrent data or State
gUldarrcO valueg tn the absance o! standardr' Rctcr to
attacUent'A - rContained-fntr cuidancr lor firrtber
lnfor:latLon on tbe developncnt of actlon levels'
562'0N l'tz? L79 9IZ d.CIf, rI tldgZ:S AAAZ'97-'^rrl
l)L/ZJ/VU lU! u{:11 r$,t rlo ool tlto I
.l{i1{ YOlx
'TATE
oEPARTtlEllT OF ErYlnoilxE}fflt cott{tEwrTloil
OnnEEX Of I{IZAHEOUI 'U!6Tfl€
FEAUTTTTON
O**H$crLsuPPeHrTechnical
UEV_-lllir\,, Ju-!r
ratranaun 3028 Page 5- 0I--!I
s,.,ltrc rContained-In' Crl-teria
for Envirotltln[tt] t'tedi r
rG ttnve,mber 30. 1992
[l r(.r
trl ob.ol.t
trl Srprncdc x:ro No' G
Administrdtue
Guklance
illemomndum
TE ".rti"" levels taJrulatrd tlr Appendtx I tLat are not
pr"r,rrgatad Etanrdard,E oly. A*g"- trsa tbt:l?:Iine ee
oer UrilUr rialt att.actrGnt data becoes arral,lable'
fn f..ility CmDllance RrgLon 2 seetionr ln thc
BurcauofEazardouEtlacteEagter:rBegl,oas,hasi*e*"i-bility for updeting ur. taltllation. Ehesr
tau-lrrull].bcupdatedquartarly,if,necesEary.
Eablea tlore tEan tSrcr (3) nontbc old ebould not ba
uscd, sLthout, fil,Bt chackulg Yttb.the seetion. lghat
sectlcn shouL4 bo eontact€d lor lntoluatiorr cn agtion
lrnul,s nct fourd, 1n rPPcndtJt I
o
LE/L'd 662'0ll rlzv /r9 9rz drCI3 1I ,dLZ.' AAAZ.9Z.r,)rt
C;"Tffi#*'rEo*rilo*
Technlcal
Adminisffiive
Guidance
Mernorandum
OL/Ii/OO.'l-LE 0{:12 !il ilu oil 1320 rlr
{Ev, YORX ST'TE trEPAlrtr'gxf OF E''{YlHor{uENTAL CCl{tctrlrnoN
yEL--Utllt/ J.ELtr
t.
\tzv L\9 9IZ ddo3 rI
urmsrdar 3028 Page 7 of ?1
s.rbid 'Contut ned-Inr Cri teri a
for Envtrormnta'l ltledia
crE tovember 30. 1992-|il l{rrtaJ
Ef ob'ohn
=
Srpcrcr6rr Irro lfa
I.
ltlacErEt! il
leostaiBgl-rttn s'! iteli+ aul€-E'le-g
Fasis for Aeti.on-!9ve1s
,lEhe rcoataias{-lnrr glteria oploye concentration
lgrrcts tor irrdividuatr cbenical congtituenta th'at are
Dlotective of public health tlr=ough tie dirrct-Ggestiol pattr,ray: llbe levcls tleEe developrd trou the
eoi,fortrg trooulgated standards, gSEPA baslt[ rislc
.assess11ent a.ta :rnd Ncs lorlc state DePartment of,
&rvironnental Conservatl'on (mtSDEC) gruldanCe vialues'
Tbc actLon lgne1s to be used ulth, the 'rcontalned-inrr
i."orr=trattoa for coil and sedia3ne ate tatsulated iJr
Atrrpendlx I rrrrdes tbc tltle iSoil/Sedirnerrt tc'tion
GieU.i fhese Ievels are based on assuuJ.ng bunan
oral lngestion of, coil or sEdl,Uetlt. Thn roil/sedi:uent
ta-bulatton 1ist3 aetion leve1 conccntrat:long
calorlated frou gsEpA, nor-ptoutllgated health risk
A8a.tsl!.8t d.ata (i.e., catrcl,nogcn elope lactor (CSP)
aad, tbt risk factor f,or cercinoEeas' and tbe chronic
;;o"""" dose (nrD) f,or eyateuic toxicants) an6 o?al
intalre assraPtlonc (i.e., 0.1 glij6y for a 70 ltg'
person/?o year GxEosure Period tor carc!'nogens' and
o.zElaey rori io-rg. cuila/s ycar exlrosura period tor
syst€Ill.ctox!.carrtsl.CSFsandRFDSa.rtcoEpiledfrom
U3npe, s Bealtb Eff ects Asses.m.nt eumary Eablee
(EEAsEs)
A.
LE/A'd 562'ON M2?t9 ZZAZ'lz'\lui'
0l/25/00 TLE0{:12FiLt716E51 7226 ;rrs
xEw Y6HK SfATl BfFLHTUtTT ol lNvlHoNilElrTAL CO{t{t'nv^?lorl
D,vtBtolr ot flrlzrFootlq 3-l8.rrrrEE6 FEGUrrtbil
O**at.c^.Br,FoFrTechnical
Admlnisffiive
Guidance
Msnorandum
ubL - -uLK/ 59.tr
WLZ:9 ZAAZ'92'\II
m,rr.r*urn JQIE Page 8 of 21
suata 'Contafned-In! Critejri a
for Envlronmenta'l l{ed1a
r!3 ilouember 30. 199?E
t-l
Ef
Hrw
Obaoler
Srpr=rdo llcco I{q-
B.
Lssucd, aturually but updated periodlcally wlth
orgpf.r"nts. foe "t'ry ecil/sedi'ucnt actlon level
i.!i.=.rrtinE a standard, ls the resg than one (1)
p#i per uiitlon (i.e., < 1'o uE/kg) for
i"fi"lr.tinatrd bipbenvfs {PC.us) ' Ebj's standard
;; establLtbed rrnder' the TscA PCE spill cleannrP
eoffay (1.e. 40 C'8'R' ?art 761) for clean soil'
actionlevelstobeus.dtrltht},encontainedintt
a.".t =t"ation for growtdvater are tabulated in
igp"qflx I rurder ttre title ilGtousdsater Actlon
Leve1s.i Tbe tabulation Ilsts for a particular
conctituent tlr,c Eost atringent levcl sclasted froa
p;;i;"ted Nerr rork stare Fa:t, ?03 standards and
usEPA tdcLr'. RecorrrEE to non-p8oaul'gatcd LSEPA
hcalth-based levels er EOre :t-ringent ltev York
State EuJ.dance rral.ues ua3 corrsidend appropriate
only lor constitrrerrts rbich do not have a State or
GEe- standard. 1tltrr action lsve1 caletrlations
ba.Eed otr UEEFA healtb rirk 'Oata included tha raue
clope f,aeEor, rislc fact'ot' an6 referenc€ dose uscd
;;;;"ii/sediuent aetlon levrls-' rhe lltalcc;;;rdiion ot z tr /dav f,or a 70 IBs' PerEon/7Q year
extogurG pesioa wag usea lor carcinogens and
ryl**t" Loxlcants' For a Eivcn ebaaical' llo[-
pruulgated iealttr-based traiu"t or Euidance valuee
that """ *r" ctrlngent tban pronulEated Etanaards
,"ta not selected aa ac'tLon levels'
LE/6'd ffiz'oN ttz? LTg 9TZ di'O3 II
01/25/00 TLE 04:12 lA'[ 7ru 6il ttto ;rtr
TEW YOFK 3TATE DIPAEfUEilY OF ETYIFCi{I.EII?^L COITSEiVA'I1CX
u;::ffililffnlcurrircrr
TEctrnical
Administrative
Guidance
uE\,--urn/ 9g
scrrrrgram 3028 Pege gj!l]
ssDre tcontai nedl-In" !@1L
for Envirorrcnta] t{cdla
r lnvprnber 30- 1992
E ,rcr
trl olrclru
E SrrPorc{rr Herg Nq
Memorandum
i:r.::llli'i,:l: i:1,',
rr.
Ilo attc4rt uae nade tlrrough the trcontalncd inil
o"it"ti"-to drvalog clcanup levals for bazardous
constituente ln contardnatrd errvLronuental uedia
;iE; iett iiprace or cubject to a r@oval astion'
The dev.ftp"ttf of nedta speelfic cleanup levels is a
cougllexunde*elginEtbatta]crsintoconsiderationarrallable rnd appricabLa rruedial tcchnologlca, the
deErce or eontiiiition tn an environuestrl ucdlur,
aad sit.-rp."iiic c.ctorE. these f,actors lay incrude,
b.i not f" fiiilua-to, groteatial inpacts on oft-Eite
p'b'tc and/or-Iivt"r-rital recegrtors, fut.re land use
iil;, ',rrrristricted vs' industrial) ' and Interted'la
contaninarrt Ganapo* (e.E., the lnfluencc of hravlly
coataainatedgroundratcronunsatrEatedsoi.l=lylng
ovcr tuc guouidvater), rn urc RCRA Correetlva Aetlon
tl:rograa, th. correetive ueasures Study (clts) is the
approPriate tiii" lor ttre facillty to aidress nedla
clearruplevelslntbeconte:gtortherelledligelrction
;;;;"; ' Tbe ct{s Elrould previde tlre necessary
.xl,ols(Eea:rdrislcassegta.ntseouPledtoarreiraluatlon
ofrcgedl'aIalterr:ativestofoerrstbedeve}opoentof,
ritr-specigic elcarlrp Lewe'Is' gosgrletr in tlre n'CRn'
paoqfralr ttt" Ocpartsgnt vill lake tbe final
dcterainatfoi ln selectlng cleanup Levels' Ehat
detamlnation ciura result in a cleanuP leve! for'a
contddJrant'in-i sleciflc envLrom.ntal nediru being
equated to t;; coniarlnant' s astion level for tbat
ne,ciun-
zE/al'd 662'ON I,\ZV LIg 9IZ d}P3 II l^ld2Z:9 ?8iAZ'92'rot
0l/23/00 Tt'E 04:tJ t't'f 7tu $il (ztn '\t) uE'L--r/trA'',ru-a
rrtw yoRX g?r?t oEplETuENt ol ltYlEoxr'€xtAL coxslnY^:lcr
DNlslorl ot Hrqzlmous su85?AxcEr nEULaTlol"
oF1ECHI|CAL SU|FOST ,
Technlcal
Administrative
Guidance
Memotandum
SUcb a situation can occ!13 in tbe RCRI co:rective actlon
ptoSsa! ulren haza.rdor:s conctltuents coataoinate
grorurdwatg. g1rd"t this scenario t[r target cleanup levo1s
for eoutanina'ti ft grouldrater cquate to respcctivc letion
levrlr tab,trlctld, in lppenai:t f, lf protrction oE Snrblic
healtt1 is tbc dtty cO6celn (i.e., therc is no caviroUental
irrFa4. froa, f.be contanlnatra groun€rlatetr) '
l.lre astlon 1eve13 tatilrlatcd in Appen&ix I for coil ard'
EedLuent onfy conslder protection of publie health tb'rouEh
tUe itred Ggestl,on pathray. These Lngcation levels se;,'
Eelected ae oie of Ccverat criteria tbat, urrst be 11et by
eol1 a5d scd.tnent coatanilated by listcd hazardoqs uaste in
ordrr not tO irqutf. their saasEcuent as bazarCotrs uaste'
Eosever, these jpccltic sction levrls ilay not equate-to
tarEet cloarrup 1ivnls, Target cleanrup lcne1s f,or cadLuants
nust address -Lqlacts or envLronnental r:eaptors (i'e"
aquatic lifc toizc). fargat cleanup levels for soils
alrourd br astablisEed conElderlnq FotonlLal ispagts throrgh
their Qqroaur" p"tu*oy= (a.E., inbalation, drinl<tng vatEl,
ete) and not b 11D1*d to only tlrc direct ingestion
Inthray. tf,hselote, target cleanup levels f,or sqil and
scdi-nerrt vi1l bc l,egs tban tbe diract ilgestton action
lrrels taDulated tn apgendir I for tb,e. uajorLty of
hazat.dout ccnrtltuents- taertif ied to RCItit tacllltieg '
t suberquent trtc!( wt1I provide tlore dletalls on thc sulrJetr't
ofcleanupre,"retoncnr.faclllties.Thatdocr:aerrt
diEsrrsses trre ot. or action levels, tarEat cleanup LeVcIS
ard cleanup rt"ii""a" (I..., finaL cleamrp levals) in the
contort of RA; -i*""iive action and B.RA trre'ovc arrd
decontanlBatetr gloeuroc'
uttsranatr,r J!!f Paqs 10 Of ?1
c,oltat "Contained-Inr Criteri a
for Envlronmental f{edlax': ilovember 30. 1992
l71 Nrwt!
E obict.r.
LE/TI,' d 662 'Oll IIZV Lli 9IZ dl,oS II t^|€Z:S Z66Z'92''tnl
gI,/zoluu !LE u{:l"J rAl 'lIJ orr tL'u
iltw yof,r gTITE b'epnnruerr oF Eln/tnoiLlrtat coxaEHvATlcH
c;ffi#trEsREcr/ur.x
rmanqn 3028 Page 11 of n
grttra trCorttalrcd-In' Critel-i-1
for Environmental lladia
F-! Hovsnber 3P---1992 -..-
E tlor
EI oE olr.
trl SnpclordoXoc Nc'-
AdminisHve
Technical
Guidance
ltrlemorandum
III- r.gg$FaiqF4 En[ Dc8onstJati on
In a ocontei;1ed-intr dauonstrattonr tb.e f,aClllty sill
idcntify the sor,scc(3) of the environucntal uedia
contauinat:Lon. I! l,t can be eonclusLvaly establtsbcd
tbat tbc hazasdous constltuents in tha uedia did not
cog€ tron llCted baaardous Ua3te, oE Cg6ercial
cbeoieal produCts, ttran ttre contaninated aedia need
not be nalageA as bazardorrs. ualrtt, unlesl they e"bibit
onc or Dore of the characteristlcs of a hazaldous
uaste ldentllied ln 6 NYCRR Part 37L. SEction 3 or ln,
the usEFA roxlcity cbaracterirtic in rl0 cER 261.2{.
Since a icontaintd-lntr deEonstlatlon lIiII be
inploentad ltrrough a uotk Plan sr:Eltted by the
tacirtty, tha! Plan 3hould sPecLfy the sorrrce of tlre
ai"t".iiitton Gcruatng identificatlon of t[e llsted
hazardous waste ldantifled tn e N,ICRR PaIt 371 which
contEibuted, to tbe environnantal 6gnf,an{nation. For
eaoh listed raste idcntiftcd tlre PIen sha![ speclfy
tlre hazardoue constituents presented Ln 6 IilCRR Pa*
37Lt appenair zz, tthich are tbe basis lor ll"stirg the
Y,ast . Addttlonally, tb,e Plan wiJ.l ldentify any
hazartousconstituentpresantedin6mlcaRSTL,app.oai*-zi, and in s rwcnn 373, Appendix la, shich
rnay le prarcnt in th: contaninated uedia f,roa sources
otf,"r than lletrd bazard'ous sastc '
A uork plar lor a rcontained-lnt? deaonstaation applte! to
rnvirotuental aadia (i.e., soll or sedi'oentl tlrat ullI be
'..lbject rc fana-aitpo..1 either beforc or elter treatlent'
u'st addtresli ipp:.iclplc land distrrosal Ee6urlctiong (IDR5)
establlsb.A pqrlrrant to 6 11,YCR3 iari r?e. A facllity nay
reguest a fEeatalility Varianca frol aplieablc LDRs
lii"ugU IrsEPl Region ir "nA ttre NYSDEC for tbe
LE/ET'd 662'0N rrzv Ltg 9lz ddof, rI t^l#Z:S AWZ'97-'\t7l
01/25i 00 rLE U{: lJ lAtr /IO lcr t 4t0 'trr UEL--t'tr^/ r&u
irEw yoF( STATE gEPAfiYuex? c, GllnFoilLENTat col{ltm'^Tloltl
DN€rcH O. HAZAFOOUE 5LTSTAI{CES REEIUIJfi TI
] "t-c**crLluPPoFr
Technical
Adminisilrative
Guldance
l/bmorandum
arrwiror:neirtal ued,ia. A'eonealned-inn deaonst'ration Uorls
;i;-"U.ff addrcss tbe trDR va.rianee obtained froar
USE9A/IIySDEC ior tle rnvl-ronnental uedia crrDJecf' to tlre
rcontained-Lnn criter'ia. treattd or untrcated
envtronueatatr rnedia neating LDR fequi-resents and
srrbsequently srrlject to land disposal need not bc nanaEed
as baaarlous *ri. rb311 thc lcoatg!5ed-ilr criteria are
Elt, A ltcontaj;ned-lnn dcuonrttation requires tsha!
environncntal uedia be saupled and anslyzed i[ accordanc"
yitu a uorlr plarr atDrovsd by tbe Departraent. sucb plans
au,se be d,ever"p"a in a Datln'r tEat 'clrarly =?- foryh tUo
proJect orJectivcr arrd t[e procedures_tbat rill be f,olloc'ed
to ueet tbose obJectives. tr.is entails speeificatlon in
the vork plan ii-. sutticient nrruber of, sanples, sanPlirg
protocols, approprlate anaI1rc,tcal uethOd3, proper Quality
asErrsanr"=/g*ilt] controt (aA/ac) procedrrres, 6ctection
16rt=; .ia "pptiealte actlon lcver conccntratj-ons'
Anatryticar nJtiodc rtrit be eapeblc ot achtcving LasardouE
constttueat detecticn lenels i."s t'han their corresPondj'ng
actl.on levels. Refgs to tbe EoEt tecent versl'on' dated
Ua-ch29-.a991,oftlrelrISpEcRCR,AgualltyAsBurancep=oject Flantuidance lor i,fonnttlon on sork plan
="gilt"trntc and dctection levets
I cnreial elene4t Of a rcontained ini danonstratton ls
a;evrluatiii ic anatrytical dala gencrated after
f.aplagrtatlon oc approved rork plan;' rtl'
erraluation yiir lr -liac by tlre Dcpa!'t5etrt lngludlng
revl,cu of lalosrate!:f QA/AC dala and couglarison of
i.+ior, tcvo1l vith enaL1t'ical data'
Le/el'd 662'ON
r*,'*r'tutn 302EI Page 12 of 21
srtre'Cortained-Inr Cr1-[e-rl-1
for Environmantal iledJ u
Dr': ilavembgr 30. 1992
Eru
l-1 ohrolrte
EJ Srprr:dcr Yelo !le.
-
IIZV Lli 9IZ dtCI3 II t'ldEZ:S AAAZ' ?Z'':Lti
O!./25/OO fi-E O{: 14 l'Ll llu on L ttto 'trr
NEW YOFT STATE OE'TtTl.ENt OF ENVIROT{UE}ITAL CORSERVATIOf{
etrJffii:ffBEc.r',cN
Technical
Administrative
Guidance
IUlernorandum
r.ar-r*d!nr 3028 Pagc13 of 21
soote'Contalned-In" 6riterla
for Envir^omental hedf a
cblr [nvrabar 30- 1992
E Nrr
Ll obrolctr
trl lrprrced:rXclct(a-
A. Soir a'rd Seditcnt Erralu3ttion
Solid og s@i-solld envirotaent'al uedia (i'c' I
Eoil or redinrnt) ebal1 be analyzed dlrcctly f,or
total eronccntrations o! eaCh baZardOUg constitrrent
orpceted to be eontained ln tJae aedlru' ttt'a
=elnttalt concentrationg for each detcCted
con€titueut ulll be coaparcd againet thei^r
cotr3iporrdJ.ng nsoil/sed{uent action Isveln in
A5lpeirdix i.
solid or seui-Eo1ld uedla ttrst, also bavc thrir
respeetive laactrate analyzed directly for caeb
hazardous eonstitueirt ogected to ba eontsalned in
tbe eontaninatrd qnvlroruental ueditu' lfhc'
i,otU"tie Prccipitation Ireaching Procadure (5ptg)
ytrr be tbe pr.i"=.d laboratory uethod c'r'Floyed
to generate leacbate lor analy:ls ctron the
ex"i.r.tEd soil/sedlncnt vill reoain on tbe
facill.tyProPGrty.Soil/sedimentttEtUl.Ilbe
ercavated and relocated off the faciltty 'Propecty
,ill be nlbJect to the roxicity charactaristic
l,caclri-ng Procadure (|!qt.8) ' Ilre reEultarrt
concratratLOns for each datceted congtituerrt in
laacDat flr.I1 bc conpared against t'belr
aii"=p"rrdi:rg [Grotrndnater Aetion I€vQl" in
Apprndj:c 1. ,
Thc actual }eactring trst (i.e., SPLP or ICIJ) Eay
not haeB to bc perforoed slten the concentration of,
the bazardoue c-onstltuerrt ln tbc soil or sedl'lent
ie acgtr=etely luro$n, and shen the follosing
catcutatten -sUotrE that the constl"tuent' a-,
i"i=*tr.iiot ll tha leachate to bc cqual to or
iLu than J.ta respeelive Errorrndtrater action level:
LE/VI'd 662'ON \tz? Lls 9Tz dlx33 rI l^162:S 6AA2'32'\vt
01/25l00 IUE 0{:14 }'AI 718 SoI i'Lz6 '\rr vErv--ucn/rtrr
xail yoFr trATE oE AHTUEIrT Or lxYlFONMElllAL iof{lltf,YATlOit
onnsilG.t oF Hr?IEcUa sulgrll.cts eEdulJXOt{
3"'*rc'i'rupporrTechnical'
Adrninlsitrative
Guldarce
Menrorandum
r"mqua.rn 302E Page 14 uf 21
Eulld rCdntalned-Inr Criterta
for Envlronaenta'l ltledia
tbE: ilovemher 30- 1992
[[ . llar
E ob.olil.
E Srpcrg.{r tr(oc !{q
[#t.,-* or*t',rr.r-T-f + 2o r
i in colt 6r idr'rlil II tqrtg sr F?bl I
l'-r,,"r pcactbtc ..,r.rilfl
I cormrrttcr in rlr tmrrte II tcrt (rrlt or mh) |
gbis calsul.ation presrrnes that ttre entlre Dass rcigtst.
o! the haaardorrs censtituent Presarrt in the soi.1 or
sedjrent rill leach out durinE thc test.
I{hen tbe resultant .rnalysrs deuonstrste UrEt al'l
bazardouc coistl,tucnts drtected in the sotl or
:adi:!.nt and in their rcspect!,ve leac,hates ale at or
belon cqrrespondine a€tion levalS, t[rc anviroanental
asdlrro does not have to bc Uanaged a13 ha2Af{ous sagtc
Ewcver, if, thc uediutr ls to be uoved otf thE
faeility property it shalt be aanaged in accordanee
witb 6 I{SCRR Part 360 and as disected by the Divtsion
of Solld tlastl. If, it, ls to be uanagcd on the
facllitlz propettYr illch nanageueut Bust be in
accoraaace vitlr an aPProvrd vork PIan.
Sbouta tbe analysee for the soil or Eadiuent and
tbalr reepeetive leachEtes yield non-detectable
eclstEeaerrts for hnaerdous constiturnts be10s
approved detcction lialts, tlren unrestr:lcted use of
tl"t uedfi:n vil1 be approvcd. The COnst{tuents
rogld bo considered not prosent i.n the aediul lf not
detected belour approved, alrl1tlca1 uetiod detectlon
lirnits GOLs) for the raatrtx analyzed. 1!ha [.Y.S.
RCRA OeB:t grldancr addressas th,c issua of detcction
levels "na thrir relationship to action levnls.
llh.at Efuidance uust be follosed !o= tlrr trconttlned-in'l
denonstration.
Lelg\'d 652'0N trz? Ltr9 9IZ dllO3 II H6Z : S AABZ ' 9z ' \u t
oL/ 25/ OO TLE 0{ : 14 FAtr 716 65 L 't z26
iltw yonx 3?ATE OSFAtrTttSXt Or EilVITONTINTAL Cor{sEFvaTlorr
ttr/ctlor{ oF Fni4gosLE gtSrArE€8 F{Ecuul]ct{
Sr"trEsHrErLsJpFo.r
Technlcal
Administrdive
Guidarrce
llernorandum
iI I5 Ul:L.-UBT\/ JTII
x.i,qt'd.'n 3028 Page 15 of . et
rqr rf,6ptalned-trn' Criterla
for Environmental l,ledia
!* ilo-vember 30. 1992til
E' ob6ot.o
E Srpcrordrl Yrlo !ts.
E.
?bis aqucorrs nediuu iball be analyzed, dir:ctIy Eor
tbe total concerrtcatLon (vlgbout lilterlug) of
eacb hazard,ous conslituent errgectrd to br
eontain.d fur tbe arAluIB. lte EGsu1tant
concentratlone for eech detected eonstituent uill
be coapared agalnst the corzrspondJ.nE rGroundrater
action Lerveltr 5.n lppendix l. Ifhen ths resultant
analSzscs de$onstaate that alL hazardous
constituentr detested l-rt grroundgater are at or
brlcr tlrclr corrssPonding action levcls, ttle
gavironaarrtal uedirn does not hava to be uanegad
as hazasdous wagte,- Eowever, gt=oundrates
ilrclrarEcr uutt still be aanaEad ln aecordanca
uitlr Bny prevailing and uore etrl,ngrnt SPDES
li.ultations (e.9., aquatlc rat3r quality standards.
or guldalce values).
F:{A}uatiorl f.or. +flezaEdo coB a
l[he coqtarison of bazardous eongtituent analylsj,cal
data rith corresporrdlng action level,s silL be
cartrLcd out using aI1 appltcable Eetlon IeveIs.
Eor. colid and rul-eolid uedia cubJect to leaehlng
evaluations, both solUsediaert arrd groundwrter
astlon levlls rill bc a:rauin3d. lrhe :valuation
v111 address aII Doesible grouPs of hazasdous
constituents tncluding the epeciflc chenieal
eqpou:rd and all inorganl,c elenentl and cbenical
sp"clcs contributerl bf the cou;lorrnd for rthich
action }ewals are }lrted tn appeadlx f.
. e.
Le/91'a 562'ON \\z? LlS 9rZ dUO3 II t^ld6Z :9 AWZ'?c- ''.tul
oL/zl/go TtE 0l:15 FII 718 011 7226 '\rs
HEw Y6nt SrAtE oeP^t?ratNT oF ENvttroflmafrflL ccxlEnv^Tloi
oMlslofi'oF }{^TIAntrotJ3 SUE ^llc€s
eEAUt.ATlclr{
1}**sHxrcasJPFotr
Technical
lacnEr''duar 3028 Page 16 of 21
fil/biH lcdntal ned-In' Critenl a
for Environmental ltled{a
IrE ilocEofier 30- 1992
E l{rr
lJ oltolib
E Srpcroedrllaaolfc'-
DEC- -Du{/ sttl
Adminisffiive
Guidance
Memorandum
fn Appendix I, actlon levels lor serreral dittercnt
g-roupa of hazardour sonstltuen'ts barrc been
iderrtif,iad.
lIhoce grroups jlnclude:
t. Total :lnorEanie cleoents (e.E'r total lead)
Z. ilotel class o! organie coupoundc (e.E'r Phrnols)
3. Slleclftc €hoJ.cat ape,eies (e-9., total cyani-de,
bexavalcnt ctrroaluul ; and
4. Speolfic cltolcat coapounda (c.g.r cgg[rcr,
cyarrlda, tct:aetblrl laad, phonol) '
several eraoples VlIl sar',Ve to lllUetrate the use
o! Agryendix l. So11 contaalnatec by tbe
couercial c!:co.Ical product teta,aethyl lead, upqld
require soil and its leacbale to be analyzed for
u[e cUerlcal coporrnd itrelt and total laad. lrhe
cOurporrrrd can contributr tead to tbe eontaninated'
rocaia and lppendix I lists total lead sith soil
arrd gforrntgater action lcvels. A second exanple,
soll contanlnated.by Urr cqoaercitl cbeuical
Fsoduet ccPp.r eyanide upul'd rrqulre the eoll to
Lc anatyzed lor thr ehmical cou;rotutd coPPeE
":f"r.ia- and total cYanide, a chemical speclec
alnatrd by tbc coryrorrnd lor shich a soil actlon
ir.raf exi.str. Bouever, tJre solls' leacbate vould
be analyzed lor aoPPeq cyanide, total coppqE' and
i"t=i {anidc becauce t}re latt.a tito constl,trrents
donatedbYt!€coSrorrn{havegrourrdvataracticnleve,Is. I tfri.ra ciauple lllustrates the analyslr
required lor a chaieal conSround Hbich -itself, doel
notlarreaactionlcvcl,butcarrtransfoilto
gJ V} I
Le/Ll'd 662'ON ttzv Lrg 9Tz duof, II t^ld6E :S AAAZ.9Z .r. jul
01,'25r00 TtE 0{: 15 l't.L 116 uoI iezu '\l'r eEL--r'E / rtLr
N€l" YOHX TTITE OEFAI?IEI{T AF EXVIHOI(I{EIT'AL GOX'EFVATIOT{
EtvlclEil OF I{A2aFDOU3 StJElTAr{cEs FEOUIJTIoN
U OFTEC+fi] TLEIJPFOFT
Technical
Administrative
Guidancc
liemorandum
q! vll_
scmrrram 3OZ8 Paqe 17 of 21
*rqa .f,5sta'lned-Inr Crlteri a
for Ertvironmental l{ediar tovembcr 30- 1992
E llrr
trl olaccr
trl Srgaccda Hrtc f,c-
eonstitucnts ritb uodia spectfie action lWels and
rrlttcts constituentg harre a total oratanlc clasE
lcdlr:rr astl,on t.ev.el. lIhe cb,r'.icgl coapound tbat
best illustrates tbiS gxaEFIe ls tlre cooraerc)Lal
cbqlcal product ctreosotc. this costound is a
ai:rtrrsa of Phsnols, tncluding tbe ttrr:c isqaert of
cresol, if tb: creocota ls d.ertvrd tron uood. lltse
aaalygis of the contasinated GnvS-lotuent ucdLuu
uay ir"o lndlcatse the Presenco of, other Pbenolic
eoupounds irrcludLng Pbcnol. soil/se4l-uant
ooatarir,.ted by GEeototo uould require gas
cbroatoEraFhlc (GCl analysis for pbenollc
conpoqlds inclrrdlsg phanol. Ilsrever, asalySl' of
tharol.ts' leacbate can D. liJdted to total
pbcnolc stnce i.ts groundvatcr action l6vel is thc
loet rcstrietive of, all irdlvidual phenollc
coaEpurrdlt ilcludlng Pheaol.
tlhe last cnu5lle pclnts to tbe only situatlon
ubcra tbe analycis rouLd only be reErired for a
cor:stl,tuent 1i.e,, total ;rbenoLs), slth tbe nost
restriitive act!'on lcvcl. thls at'Ptoach t'hich
focuses thr deuonstration only on thc
conetituerrt(s) witb the aoat restrlctive lrvel ts
rot'alvayt aFFroPriatc. llhs "cotttained Lntl
cgiteria-rcquirestbeqontaminaledued,iatobe
aaatyzrd lor rosidual concentrations of all
berardors conetituauts. Liuiting ttra enalysis
only to a constituent gith the uost strinEont
aetioa lerrcl rorr].d vlolate thc csltcrla rlnlegs a
petltion, 13 dlssussed in section III-D of this
itt""t cnt, is arrmitsted' bf thc facllity ard
appEov,la by tha NysDEC. Also, eqtain technieatr
Le/al'd 562'0ll llZV Ll9 9IZ dli33 II t'l4E:S WOZ' 92'NUf
oL/25/Oo T[ts 04: Ii lAtr -i rE 5rr ( zzn
tlEly TOEr sT f E oEtAt?trErr of lLvrf,oHuEl{rAL CoilSafl^*l€r'
EMEtil Of iIAZAf,EOt S SlJssITlflCEE 8E{tt/'LATiot{
oFllcrfllcAL tuPFoeir
Technical
Administative
Guldarce
Memrorandum
.rIJ UEr,--Utr1l/ JtL{t
urrsrrrrrn 3028 Page 18 of 21
su{*t'Containcd-Inr Criteria
for Envirormental l'tedla
EE! ilovgrher 10- 1992
[[ trc:
E ob.cl*.
E SrprrrdeXego Xq,-
D.
iissuEs preclude foetrsing tJro Crnonstrati.on ln tLis
!!artnc!. For exa,utrlli, artalyzlng. gnLy for a
constituent cmPonent of, E c,heqlisal cotrPound
beeauge its action f.avel ls uose strinErnt than
tbe coupsundts levr[ cou].d Eesult in a falsa
negativr dleteroi:rstf.on (i.a, I the contarninatad
roedl1fn pagsea rhe ttfotrtal,nCd i5i evalqatLon). Suctr
f,alre resrrltr trly oFcul wbcn sua1l dlffarencee
o-tst betreon tha aptlon levcl of tlrr couBound arrd
tbc uore stllnEent ectlon leveL of a constituent
eontributeA tsy the loporrnd- Sbora is a rB..son
tor snrcb, erroneout tesults; tbc welEbt of a
cbeuLcal ffrpound a[vayr cteeods the rruignt of any
of its individual plrts tllten separately and,
thereforo, the coqlou[d alrays contributes nore
rasa 6f corrtadtnatlSn Pe1t Unit ueight or volg6c to
ti,e uedia. DlanY ].ifted Eazardous castes are not
Iigt3d for a epacifLc chernical coapourrd' Lrut only
for uctalllc cl:ucnte or lor cer:Ealn cheuieal
specles. Fstr Sxanple, F006 raste lg listed tor
ClAuiul, UlclCrI, cyanride, a.nd hcrsavalent chrouir:ra.
I'hlrrfore, envi,ronaental uedla conEauinated by
oaly Foo6 raste would requirc analyslr lor aII
fo,ri eonstituentsr Lncluding total cadDitrs, total
uictgcl, total cvanj.de, and hexavalent chron'iuD'
lnalrtteaLProoosals and. rFtitiqEE
Irlhen a etandard laboratorY analytical procedgre Ls
not anrallable lor a hazardous constituant the
facillty t iII FroPotc ane' fhe propcsed
analltilat notbod ei11 be included in the sorlc
plan suhitted by the tacility for IIYSDEC
LE/61'd 562'0N fizv L\9 9IZ dtn3 rI t^ld@:s AAAZ'92 'x-lt--ri
oL/zl/oo TtrE 04:16 F&I ?16 65t 7Z26 .\t5
XSY YOIX ET^tE DE,PTf,TXINT OF EXVITONINfTAL COflAEFVATIO|I
Dfvrstot, oF t{lzAf,lcue laulsrlrcs E€uL^noil
OF TEC}OIETL 3JIrcFI
uEg--uEr{/ )fl1
!!roqt1n 3028 Page 19 of 21
l.dla'Contafned-Inr Eriteria
for Environmantal ltediae ilovcmber 30. 1992[Ex.'
E ob.€t.r.
E Srprccdrr Yclc Nr
Tecfinlcal
Administsative
Guldance
frrbmorandum
a;4nowa1, eod lt strould be capa.ble of detectlngdeuical conpounds cr cheeical .:pecies brlor theiarespcctive aetion levels. '!Ibe pregocal ri1l be
creuJ.ned and, lf approvtd, it ulll become part ofthe rorlc p1an.
Elhc faciflty uay petltion t!&e rYsDgc thrcugh tbeuork plan not to analyze f,or ccrtain haaardous
constituent cheuica.L eonFounde tlrat cannot be
drtected by Dractlcal analltieal uethod=. Sucb asituation could ariso when a eheoical coupound
transfoms lnto otJcr conctltrrents lcaving only
urrdct3ctable trace lcvels of th. oriEinal cmpoundin tlrc s:rrErIG uatrdx. llhe petltlou'sust lncLude
verif,ied technicaL data, rhlch can bc talsen frou
rrferenccd literatu,re, ttrat clearly dcoonstratrs
tb,e inpact tranEfor:latioa lrtocesses bave on thc
clrenical copound in tbc rnvirorutentaL uediun
urd,er evaluation. Sucb Proccsses Bay 1nelude.
hlzdrolysi.s, photolyrts, oxidation, dissociatsion,
equilibria, and blotransforaation. lfbe petition
ul1l be rxanirred and, If, approved, J.t vtll becouepert of tbe sorF Plan.
For clrronlrrn the nost restrictive action leveJ. in
ro1} ir lor tha hexavalcnt spccl€s. l{hrn
ualyzlng a solld or scul-solid aatrtx for
clrroal,rra urirg lIIf-845 lethodology tho sample
gregraration step in the lahoratorT (i.e- ,
digestioa of the sanple by acidlf,icatlon) converts
by cheoical. reduction uoat, if not altr, haxavalent,
cbrouir:r to tlrr trivalent sPeciec shich 18
']
Le/oz'd 562'Otl ITZV LIg 9IZ dll)3 II l^ld@:S AAAZ'92''itjf
01,/33i00 ILb U4:.1,U l;tL Ilo ocl ttto 'rrr
iEW Y0iK trrrE DEPAFTutlrt O, !'XYrncr''tlEt{iAL cct#tERvA?lcN
$lnslox OF FUia^'EouE sUBerAIcE EE6ul.A?lol{
O' tIC'{IICAL ETJPP€FT
Technical
Administrative
Guidance
illenrorandum
uDv--Lrr,Jt/ Jrr,[
nrrrrrxrl'r' 3028 Page 20 Of ?1
srrble'Contained-In' Criteria
for Envirormental lledia
rE f{nupmhpr 30- 1992
X.r,
Obrol.!.
Srg.stdcr Mets l{a
-
E
trI
trI
IV.
reporEcd as .total. chronir:u. llhcrcfore, unless the facllity
pr-opo.." dn alprivablE anaLytical retbod for bdxavale'ilt
"urc,urru, t&,e -ucontainr€ lntr deuonstratlon l,l}l conpare the
hexa.narent cbsmLrn actlon lcvrl tn roll/sedl-uent vltE the
reuplets total clrroulum concentratlon'
under tbe icontained-inr eriteria soil/sedinent lugt ueet
"iii-u*r." ingestlon action leYels, and not leacb out
conttllnants above groundvater action lev:Is. Ilorevetr,
that requircucrrt uai aot be euflisient to nltigata
pitorti"r fryactE via otlrer oxpotule patbuayrs (e.g',
irrbalatLOa) or site-speciftc l:qrosure conditions (e'9" tbr
addttivs r-Fact frou ,$st,oe" oi bazcrdous constituentg)
elther of rblch aay tlrreaten publtC'healttr' Also,
potentl.al i:tr[ncts crn environnental receptoqs (e.9.,
leacbate dS,scbarEinE to surf,ace rater) are not considered
undtr ttre 'rcontain.e ini deuonstration. Tberefore, to be
tully protecrtlve of prrblic health and tbe envirouent,
sotfjrldiaent at or Delou tb,r actlon levels ln AFlrcndix I
nnd, ebov. approvcd deaection I'inits uust bc uanraEcd ln a
Dennea thst aifotas reslrlcted accora eo the nedla by t'he
r".rric arrd tiat provtdcs cover lor the ledirrn, if
unrestricted .""Ls" is not grantd by Nl(s Depa:fuent ol
Eealtlr. Tbese mquirellents uill be eatisfied by uanaging
therediaoffthef,acilityproperty.lnaccordarrcrgith6
mrqRR part rio ana as direeted by the Division of sorid
raete. llanagcoent on tEr lacillty property shoula be 1n
approved o"i" at locations uhgr prrbllc access is
restrictEd. such are6s uust be tracked and noticed ln a
leqal lnetr1Jllent that rill be axamin.d ubctl tlre property is
sold or transforxad'
o
a
L€./trZ'd 662'0N
0.1,'2il00 TLE0{:lEFAI?16951 ?226 }15
' ilEt yoFX 8"AtE DEPTHTUEI{T oF =ilvlnoNult'TAl col'sEfivlrloX
Uxffi'ffi*sEcut^rlo*
Technical
Adminishatlve
Guidance
Memorandum
DEC -.DEX,Z SEI
trc uitigate othcr potrntial prrllic healt,h and
cnvironuerrta} l4lacts throuEh tb,c air and surface
uater expo3ura pattruaye tbr apprsved oa-sLta arcaa
vill be cove=ed-. Cover desiqns vill be sub8itted dt
tbefactliwtotbeDepa:iEuentf,orrovlevandafpronal. [th" cover dGlEn eubuittal ehould occur
"-iio1tar..oualy rlth thr subittal o! tbe trcontal'nad-
i:rtr tarlt plan- Eorevlr, if Eite-specific
circrurtanoas preclUde SUch a' si.uultaneou! sqhgittal,
i" ef""euent oi sotUsed:lnent aedla Eust ocstll nntll a
cott.= design ls alryroved ry thc DcparEnent ' covtr
iesfgnE 6IrouIA desonstratr hou vind blosn pa*iculate
uatter uiII be eliuinatcd at the agproved area and
aecq:rrt for Long tctlu lnspection ald uaintenaace of
the c€tE:E. If nlccsga4', the cover aesiEo ulll
JOr"== rnitigatlng tnpacts on the air ex,osure pat'hray
;;; ;latiliztnE-hazardous constituent residuals tiat
remaLn lr the apirov=d Etlea. lbis reLaase uacbanrisu
iay Ue i.uportani-'for volatilo eonstituents vith hiEh
.iiLlr.AGcrrt Lngestlon actlon levels shicU do not
i.iairy leach *i cro, ure nediuu. Such. a situatl.on
ioufd iffw larga residual volatile eontaninant
soacarrtrations in tUr roll/Eedj-ncnt ?bich uay result
inneerativeairi.upaetl.covs!desiEnssbouldalso
denoonttrate prot"Olloo of, adJacent s,rface saters trsu
nrnotl.
rr..rrrrosn3028 Page 2! of ?1
*rblr.a .Contained-Int Crltefl a
for Environmental t{edia
hL Hovrr$er 30. 1992
lv I iarur5J
trl oorelrlr
E Stprrerdcr [{an Xc.
LE/ZZ'd 562'0N rrzv Lrg 9Tz dUOS 1I t^ldTE:S AAZZ' J/ 't'ruf
9L/ ZJ/Vv lL'E U{:L/ r'{'d' f 19 0nr l6to .rlJ utrli--uE(vJ&I
frrsoEc
Contelnrd.ln Ac{on Leyels
Soil/Sedirrlent 'Contrinrd-1n,, Crltadr eannot .mtd irrgestion act-on lwde in mcdir 3pg[ media's lachctG
cannot ldvlrt.ly grtrundweoar: see TAGM p. '13.
652'0N
R lsoiu s€dunBiln R
E I eaonLwe I EFI rmcad tF
fiILE ilETIIYL CYAIIIIE)
lzt+sl
ts5rz{o{ I e.sg*ot
DItiEilN. IETZYL AIOCIIIJ}I CIILOTIDE
cllLilt0l Gl'clLilo'l
1.1E 0zlc
5.oErolld r 25E-o1 c
Z2E.o1 lc
Page r
L,/EZ'd trzv L19 9TZ dliCl lI t^ldtrE:S ZZZZ'l,l '!ut
VLlZA/VU lLt U{:lr r$A '10 0Ol 'd4O
Contalned{n Acdon Levelr
.r t J lrEr, --yE/i\/ J&Ll
NYSDEC
u4tg7
{r!ia
R lSo,tl Sedi,ll€fld R
E I nao., rr.,ri i E
Flr-rlartlF
3.OE+€1 ra ; 3;lf+o5rc
IEIZo(c,h. i:PER?LEXE
qa12+2 I soErot'a
5.oE+o1ll I z3E?o+lc
, '3.8E+@ls
rottGl -Tsoe..o--olt I g'tr'olc
1163.1S6
rctu. uouTEs g IETAEoRATES
if r f t sso.t I org:+3; I 3G'9e1
allrylGffi-1' I t.e+os'!
rsErOl ta I 3-9E'Oa c
PaEe 2
LE/VZ'd 552'0N rrzv L\s 9Iz d1il33 rI t^ldZE:S AAZZ' lZ'"]ui.
Ol/25/OO ItE c{:17 t"A'f, 710 unl '226
l M!.L--ucl(/ )f,.j8
NYSOEC
I U'J
Contrincd-lh Acdon Lorcts
O So,/se di rrr Gnt' co ntai ned' I n' ;Tffi Sili rffi,off.T:ff*}fltr ;l ]iI " * ,"*l1 :
f
* rr a e
Pegc 3
814197
o"ernctrgEr I a lsor s.c".ni R
Adcn Larel E I aaun Lad I i
r105€S2azr,i*t I s,oq4!g
tSe"Ot la
r9E€1;c
!-ePortPFoPl{E (EPlExLfiofloRlxl lztoor ' -li z-osiol. i 1.0!19?19
lsr'to{ I :'qE-{gE
(? - cHloro. 1 13' BJUgIEEI
1.1 !+00 r c
l-cnr.ono- o- roLUlD I rE HYDtotrlLoll 0E
t ri r:-ut ono-o'ltrllYllllIL
LE/s,z'd 662'0N ITZV L\9 9TZ ddof, II l^ldZE:9 gg67'92-'*el
U1,,3!/UU ILD U{: Llt f A} / lO ool t '19 'rIJ UDL--r,r,rl/ 11Lr
NYSDE€
Contuined-ln Action Levrb
Soit/Scdlment nContatned-ln' Cribri*, annot sxCd ingesfion acilon leryels ln media ggg! mtdle's leachate
q,i uaq
cannot sdvarsely tmpact grounciurateq seTAGM p- 13.
Pege I
I
I
lcAsNulrl
Gmundt'ater , R lsoiu SedlmGnd R
AdonLrvC I E I Acdonl-aclr E(usr, lFl (mclret lF
2tE{1-9 | z.oeot lu
! r.Ee'Elr
'! la I
lal1o6-r&s 1rl
1za:t".1 I a0g+001r I 11E{ll ic
7.0E+€1lr , 1,6H2iC
i'r
rorite I s.oE or ielotl{+i--- I s.oE@
g.{2€ I S.Oa*o!a
la I t.SE {O c
OEITq'o & DErErul-S)
lzrseg
z3o:L16*. --T s.EE,o1is I t'gg"ot c
s-oE"ot lO I z.eE"oo c
rEnoFElltofllt{EfllAxE eoE ol lD I zse'oarc
8rgt|@tcHl"oaolE llAxl
I .Z-D rBIo,ESTIAIE (EttlEEnE DtEnotlg!]
(NETfiLEIE IEI'TDE)
2-olEro€-3'fltrRttoPliltq[illqt '
l-n-BUTY1, Pl{Ttll|ItE 4.4E41ia I z:e'oa c
I 6l Ldt! (2"3:D I EHL*O' l, 4' lAPl{tHo(lJttlqP
t ;.0 I cnlonoeErzErE (r0,I!{u,roEalzE"!]2?!-01rC
1,a.0 tcllLoro-2-EUTEIE
-1 ..-D tcl{Loro-z- flnaE
LE/92'd 552'ON ttzv Lts 9rz ddof, rI 'rtr I
0i,'zJluu tLE U{:15 tA'[ /I0 JDI t'lo .\lJ ut,L--uttl.')!,1
NYSOEC
CortttlnndJn Acflon Lavch
Soiusediment.Contrinod-lrf Critltrit €nnot.rclcd ingesdon asuon E/als in nedla lnd fiodla's lcachate
cannot adverseU irnpast Eroundwater see TAGM p. 13.
Prgc 5
(LiZ!
u4t97
R
E
F
ldfu S€d&?'€flJ R
Adon brel I E
1.z-DrEt{LorcefHArE (6TH?LEIE o | s.oE{olt,b I z.oe*Oslc
I g,or+oota I r.re+olc
15€€9.2 r I l.cE+otllc
a e I are+ozlc
,6-0TCHLCNOPHIEL 4.4E+00!s | 7,EE-02 C
rl
5.08r{0r. I 3-6E.t{0 c
100t 141'5
looE1{z€ I 5.oE!ooi6
,o-s r EiHrL o.z-eYutzlrtl Pfi O6PHffi OT$tstll 5.0E+O11. l.3E Gllc
o tIEr[uIt tto uzrExzErE 6.0Et{0lr I E-sEtt 'c1.gn€rHYl,rxALLll (2.4'I?Llo lLE,
{r.Oerc1ld I 7'8E'03rC
t rarrtr. lonutt tDE (n, n-u tlEEryU9f,l$lt!!!
tpha, alpha'DttOrtt r=aatttVUti
r I 4.7E-t{ll c
7.6f+041C
ase+ot lr I z'4r41 :
^S.o u trrosazElE ( it-o! tllTxs8lx,zErll
. 6-0 tt I Tfc.e. EitsoL t!:!E!vu'6, e9i rr i 1.8ry1
L€/LZ'd 562'ON rtzv L\9 9IZ ddOS tI l^tdEE:S ZZZZ'32''tUl
gL/ Ztr/t)V lLt U{: l6 lA'l t J'0 0J L t lzg .1 r) ytrL--uEJi(/ JB.[
NYSOE€
Conteinrd-ln Action LEveh
SoiUscdlraant',Contained-ln'' Criteria cannot exceed ingestlon rction l(nds ln mcdlr 349! mcdla's leacnar.e
cennot edvaruoly Imprct Ercundti,aE: see TAGi' p' 13'
-
{g u<S
814t97
l*"un
oountu&r ' R lsotu srdtmant R
Adm ls{d I I I Adcn Level E
,tZta+Z | 6.0E{fill :
s.+sor f c
reltg-ta2 [ 5.oEf,sEl.l:117,Aa I s,oe,otio | -- t.ee'ctc
tz+rr-t I aoe.t{t la
3.,l E.01 l C
5.08+001.
!,0Et01 rr ' 3.3E {t 1C
rlil+s I euetot
10041-{ ___ | E.0E+001a
OI "n-PR@YLTUIoAnBCnTE (EF f C7
ffi--," I +ze'o!l
elE+Ol C
Page E
LE/AZ'd 662'Oll rrzv Llg 9Iz dtloS II ZZZZ' lZ ''rtif
oJ/z'/vv lL! Ut: f u r.t!a {Lo tc.l, t llo )t) lJl,L--UEt(/ }fi1 4"U'V
MYSDEC
Cortrin.+l n Acfion Ltwls
s o i r/s edimen t' c o n tain ed-r n' ffi ,trffi ;r?rofffl*HlH",f ;: ff d h a n { rn€ dh's reachate
strSslArcE l*.n*
Brurtdlrtlr
Aalm U!,rl
(ug/t)
R
E
F
Solll Scdlmaro R
AEdofl LJr.l E
(msnql I F
atuzottoil€87.€tA t 0E{Ol 1.7E{1
RNFUNAL Dt{l-1 5.0e+ol a3B@le
RJrtut rtt{a{ I 7.0E{3 r l.3E{2
rLtcIDll-DEIIYEE (?,.1-CPdlFlOPAIAt,r65i{..trOE:FO1 T 3.'tBO1 c
E{6!II AIPIIA IETATIOI ilA rt ClUt !
|EEIE EETA TTDIATIil N ,1000PCUL
llXIFEIESII slcl I 5-oH1
JElllarl a!7W NO a t.4E{1 c
BE''TINE 1@+57-3 t{o 7,OE{zlC
- f, aaaj4YratarttEtrrtr, ir.<r3- I E.oE 00 e 1.6E*02 c
uEu.rll lllclttlr-gll 't1FP.7+1 L5B0'l t 4.0E{1
uEylaril a!i-t l.llI?l0lrr,87€&3 5,0Ero0 a 8.2Er{0lC
tT?<71rECtl?lt!?EIt 6.01+001 I 3.tEd2l
r9.0g7A!t 1.(E{3,C
JG,ltIl ,ra6l?LAlt ,,o.7'ib1 5,oE+Slr (5EJ{1lC
lErEflLOl6ptllf,l lzo.go4 7.0E+00 I 131r01 c
IErcxlotoPtoPaE 11!!+71-7_s.0E€0 a
3.08X!1lr 4,7Ef03ts1r1s6rs
t91-7lL s.d€{r t
-
IYiI T' ? IE l:oz+t-z 12E{21 a 2.1E{l
IMilJIIXE EILFTIE 1oqplrl-2 12Eff a z.1E{1
7.{0€7,0E{q a l.AEnqlls
lz?ts.c..1.1E{fi a e3E+{El c
r1&3t€5.oE+{r ld 3.rEr{B tr
rZEElZl-4 5.0E+01!d
!.oE+or ld
1!t$!E€zoE Glld 9.0€.t1 ;c
.1 3.0Er(P tr, z
!-6!6oalnt I 7&6+1 5.0E€'l t 2.39+{4,C
2srE1-21-5 $0e|{tD!AC6I ?I
lass.n-€5.0E 00 a
76.5S1
lssr2o{,t{ts8Pfl0r0ilE 5,0E{'011c
-+8.OE+001e
6.7f,r02
1,38+e3 c
9t4i14 5.0e+00 I 3.1Er43,C
o- tSoPiFYLIELUEI!
ISOSATloLE,..
leerlrfi?ffii
5.0Er{a le
a0E+01 la
184t.?2€5.0E+{0 a
llrt$80{ND ,l
1,5Ed1lb aoE+O!lh
LEA!,TEYIL _ . :::l I{EI a ..sE{1ls
Llttoll{! (trmr-Bllc) !!! .. .'' ixt0.55.zLtnnor . -lr
t 121'75'5
l.0E+oolt '1.8E.01zic
3.58|o lr
t.ceroetg7.0E{qr3
llITll l9ll
AU"97
Page 7
LE/62'd 652'ON tTZv Llg 9IZ ddOS rI HdEE:S AZAZ'1Z'\d[
0l/15/00 Tl-E 0{: l9 IAI ilu !5t IZZU '\xs ULL--l,,t'l(/5tl:l
NYSDEC
Conteincd-ln Aetlon Lsvels
soiusedrment'contained-r1i:,H'"ff *ffi
"'.HrtH.Hlffif
[[:raendmedia'sreachate
Pega 6
glUrJU
u4t97
GrtrundwaEr
Adan Lad
R isrn sdln.nd RE leato'l*.i i Er! ('iq,ts) lr
5.0Er0! ie S.86r,c.lC
(!lIrlArE r-41)r.gEt{Ol. i 3.3E <12,c
3.oE+82!E 2 i 1.1E{.lCl''t 4,.E{1lr r 3.9H1 C
11r$€0-I sSerOr la t
-2.PRoFE|EIllI
11o4sa 1 lgEtotla
-5-tITrlXltLl llE €.0*ror l. I z3E+o3lc
. 3-IETHY[Eilt-il s- ( 2.9!!€4!!!!!]
HtL t6oBUrtL xEnxE r.'lGil!!:?'PB[I9E!
6.38.{3lC
rLIxE (5-Ilfto'o'l0LUlE IllE)
LE/a/g'd 562'0N fizv Lts 9Tz ddo3 rI l^ld?E :S AAZZ'9a 'fluf
uLi lr/ vv LL',E Uq:i'r ri-f, I l9 5J L t l'40 -\I) ',EL--Utl(/ )!'l'
NYStrEC
Contrinrd-ln Acdon Lrvrls
so irlsed iment " co nE i n cd] no iffili il ilffrJl*ffiH}ffi J: ll* en d mcd ra s I ca c h ate
3ul9lAllcE C6SNUM
Grcundvdr
Adm Lrvrl
(usa)
R lgou s.arrn.* RE AcUan LGrrl , EFI (rneiLs) iF
ETHYL S] TR$E 2101$r54 5.0Ero0tr I l.TEQrc
tSrl[PttG (PIESUTIII ns8.s+7 s.0E+{0 c
IttlEr a&Ht{5.0E€0le A.E+otrC
lELIlrTE lzt*t-t s.0Er.ol l.tE @lc
ltoL?totltl, {EfaL lr l.8E+{:lle s.Effaic
uP[THAIJIE 91.2G3 1-0E+01 I I 3-1E1OZ|C
t. b-rtflr?flEJl Iqc r130.154 s-0G{1 I
.ItrHnffllfi lllt ( I.[rF[ITtl lll.lltlE)7L3i2-7 5,0E+00te
.IAFfillf?l-AHTIE €-llPff ?XAllUlilrE)sr€s{5.0Er{c t
TilEITITIDE 9€{44 5.0E{'1 a
UEIEI, TUIAL ',1 1.0€{2lE 1.EE-{3rc
IITPr!II irz?+t+t 9.sE+Ol a
ItTn TEs (aB tl)}{^1.0E 0a b lJEi{stc
{lrttc q10E 01@414 35E+Glle 7.8E+Gtlc
rrmrrE lul t,oE+Grlb 71ffi C
ITTilLOTTIAEETIE ASIE 39d+9 l.0E+001c
r-rttxoart L rlE d-{ lfnDEExzEiflIrE)9S0ll€5.0E+00 t
drrtorar r L rIE €-l{ I ?lotExzau,llrEr t&7+.t,0E+{0 a
Ito^x I L tIE (artTrcsEaElrilt xt)'t00-01{5.0E+O0 I
FlosExzEttE 5&96-3 3.0E+O0 I 3.Sr01 C
TITPI,FUTIffiOIX 167-2trE 5.0E{.01 I 5.H3 C
II?NOilIAZDIE s$€7{5.oEtol a 431{t,C
ilTtttEEt{ Dt(xlDE 1Et02,{14 !.tE+od I 7.3E{alc
r-{ I l$PtlE{O. €-IITIor[ErriL )r8&28,5 !-J- r
(A-IrfiODlEInL,t10G@-7 B ell
2.XITITFROPAIIE t7s.€.e 5.0Er{1 : I 6.7E{2lq
a-trr?rradtild-trE 1 -dtDC ta67{3.0E+0'l
r- l{ lTlM0 l' n. eurll.rl,l tG q:2+16.t 5,0Elot a 1rE{l lC
r- I I noSEo I -EIHA!|OLIXIIE 1116.5L1 5.9!r{1 t z3EOl lC
i- xrTrosEro IErHYLfltttlt i5-r+5 5.0E.01 a 4IE€IC
a- r rrRosm I llETlllulr lG i2;75{s.oE+o1 3 1.3E421C
l!Gso{5,08+011C 1.3E.02iC
s-oF+o'lle .. 9.18{2lc
10595-C5{5.0E+{11.2,gEgt:c
rGt+9$5 aoE€1 a i 2-',842'c
r- ll r YLtsEllElll llOL IIE 5949.2 E.0E{{1 I
rrl 100-7+4 5.04r'{1 lr
n-IttiOSOFYtl0-tDtrE $65A2 3,EE+01 t 3"0E{1 tc
Iru 5.oE+0015 7.€HZiC
ITITTEITYI D.''ECIEIGE UAETI I D E 62.1$e a0E+0(I r-gE{4il,c
,ARAIIIIAT TAA'.1L?3.0E+0c t 3.5rc C
1.SE+001o'{?ErCZ C,ATAHIq lE4&2
IUII?E l! ! 1-fi.2 | 5'oE+01 ir I 'YE-N
Page 9 a4lgT
Le/18'd 562'0N rtzv Ltg 9Tz ddol u l^ldP€ :S ZAZ2'fZ ''.rt
I
ot/l|/Oo TLE 04:20 FAtr 71S E51 7g!6
5 oiUSed iment C o ntslned'l n Crttarla:
IY5 DEC..UEI(/ SE.I
NYSOEC
Contalncd-ln Action Levels
Meet bou1 Bre inEeSflOn ldien tovol ln soiUscdlment and meet gror-ndwater
edion lerrel in soiUsadlment leachae-
LlJ:
GroundrdEr t isotu Sedunen{i Aaton t-r"a ! E I egion t-eva II rusru lFl(,trf,rllll
R
E
F
.leFllaoe+oolrl3'terostc
E7{tl-! 1i
Iffito tlx ItE ( 1, z'3azlrEo I rtrt [E)
IE (1 .3.lElfzExElll{tila
Forrr+ 1 r.Oq*€,l!
ilE (Z.TETIYL PYIIDITE'
ItPttlrfYLS (PtEr'
YCHIEiIIATED EI PHEIYLS (pcE_3t
tt i StLtGt Crillll
cuvcou tr,z-prED!!E!rl
cLtEOL rmsrilvt Et!!
1110-6G,1 aoEiot rr--f 5-l E'02'c
lrlri 226 PLw atoll$ zz5
Page 10
8tu97
LE/ZE'd 652'ON rrzv Lrg 9rz drp3 rI t^ld?E : 9 ZAZZ' '32 ' xlu i
cann6t Impact ;8{}e s 13,
llltrl
iuBflrcr icAsNun I
Groundurarr IAdn Laat I(u{rl.t I
R €ou sadhnsa RE leaonu"u I EFf (nrglkg)'F
ISIEL lase€!-l 5.0Er€0la 3-9E:+d3lC
torEllorl tt 7s4 s-0H1'5 l,1E+{2iC
SAFEET E tAs$7 5.0E+{1 le'
sEIjrtcus AglD I7U!00-8 1.lEr€2lr 3,9E.@iC
irl au?rI "."r1
.1 1-08+01 r5 3-EEroZtc
rtt llrlpcr fi10.10i 1,0Er{Zle 3.sE-02 c
IL9ET, TUTAL
-
rr lrE! alAllGE
tl
EOE{44
It0Et€1la I a.r*fi,lc_i!,!
35E+Glr5 | 7.9E.03 C
1?2.*'4.CoE{r!!5JE+001c
?rrfA I '1 40000 ir
rtr rrrIlEC I r.$3il-9 tlEr{s1.!.1Er.031C
t $rrtl ntFluvtnI?I?6E rtl,ll?l t4&tgj trsfpor z4Hl0lc
ltnrrr lFriurxrtsl?E 13718"25.t 1lEro1 7.BE-01 C
a+.r'tr'ltltr 6d NA 0eC1rL
lrlG all ?G fl;t+e 5.0ErOl ia 23E+t 1 c
,??BI.ST TTFI,RIEI 100-{2"5 6,0E+{0le ZiE-01 c
TA ZIE+05 e
{A 5.0E+01 d
lst5$g€€5.0E+0'l l.1.EE O0lC;i. ,sH ,r r a <-rF?alanr rlE!.EErttIE rstt'^t
g.6E&ld , 7.E-E-s0
5.0E+00ia t 2.3Er01
c
c
. 2 a a-andarur,q-trt6t,.Lrolliltl tz-!.7.8.1c!0) ?,2.€{i€ | r.soe+sir ..1E-G
t . I . 1, 2.?E?RACHLilGTXAII!m0.2tl$5.0E 001.e58{1
t, I, 2. Z-lEmSHLqlqErHllll 78.3h5 5.0Er00 I 3-zE-oo c
1Zt.lU i 5.0E+{0 I 1.6*6r lCtr5t
5E-SG,z a I z3E{B,C
I rrr ri rhr-tEtQrlltll.6ld?6l-ljllll 1216-25.1 5-0E+{01,5.4tr<Ja r.
r!6Elll(l 061-l t6 g.0Er{0 t aTEr{1 C
rErm!,TtrL o lTll t@YlgPllEPtlATE a $n FqfEryl 368924.5 E.0e{01 l.1.3E 011c
TEJSA t.6ES !7.88-03 c.M
r0&93-t 5.0E{{l rl
lElHllyrYrvlsI .-! !-._ -| - ---' ltqtt qq clr4lltE gIrE i131'ar''s
T[ltLIt l. ftnAL
-
'1
5l€?4
t s.se+ooio i z.ee-oo' c
I zoe.ootl , 7,!E<o c
llnLLIu *E.Irs . -- .l : :- - E5AL?!LeTttAtLrTl clm.olAll . i---- -
1rl91-12{
z.eE+ooi. I 5.38"0oic
,"oE1o E.3ruoic
101gta$1 S.2&{olc 7.0E-00 C
r;mes2h | 3.5E+001e TlEr'OO c
To-os-r_s+r | !.se{Olc 7.11E.00 c
ls+::-g
121r6n4?a
..0E.01id
5-0E+01 I 2,!8.03 C
a.(THIOFTAISIETIIYLTIII9J-EE|4IJ|4.I.9L{ r'5'-',, :- -,- .6.0E+{'a Z 3e-01 c
rllIE7AE
! q:-ra-e S.oEror ie I l.leot c
lraltE
614t97
aL/ 23/ 00 IUE 0{:20 FLI f10 $oI TIZE '\r5 UbU--ULK'/)!I
NYSDEC
Conlalnc$ln Aston LsvEfB
trzv Llg 9rZ dlnf rI tldSE :S SZZZ' :r; '*JUi
Soil/Sediment "Contained-ln' CritErla cannot excecd ingesUon adion levels in media EElmedie's leachste
TAGM
Page 1 1
Le/Ee'd 662'0ll
LL/II/OO TtE 01r 20 FAI 716 651 7226 \Ys DHC--lJll("Sfltr
NYSDEC
Cortrlned.ln Act on LtYcls
€j ur{
Soil/Sediment'.Containecl-tn,, Cribria: cannot erceed ingasliOn tCtion lamls in rredia ggg[media's leachate
cannot edrersdy lrnpest gtoundrrsiec sec TAGM p. 13.
P3ge 12
8/4/97
:ASNUiI
GrourE!.faE
erdpn Lrvd
(rrL,
F,
E
?
Eolu S6dtn iltr R
ncdon Lsvd E
(nrEIq) | F
.|3Z.25rl1.6Eir{Otrl3.9E+.0Zlq?ut t^r
Itfl. ro?rL 7a.e31-5 115r{0le 1.ttE+oalc
lELUgtE (ilEr[rL EEIUIE)08{8.3 AEE+{ole 'l.tH4lc
IZ.a-EtUa.ED tAtlIIE 9560-?5,08{0l.z0E41,C
r9$706 5,0E{OOlr (7E+0arC
823-60-5 E.OE*001.t.BH0a,C
gl!'a.tG9 t.0E+001r'-=-"-'-- -"--'.- . - _
--rtltrntrE rr-rFltlYL aE[&ultIE! I l5'53J 6.O!+qgl.?-7E+COIC
-,.A. rlrirG,l-rE?ltvl qEE ElllI?IFl 10&49{5.0E{01.3.6E+0{rl C
2g:165"4!H 5.0E+O'l td
IULI 8@1na,.z lrN9 5-6E41iC
ctt u6t\9\112-1 a6E€1 B.3E+{;IlC
2303-17-5 +-eEr@,1:1.0t..61c
r{A 5.0EXElr 3.9E+02iC
rr-.- .--::--"-'s6.3+l I eoeotlc I 3'lE oot4
I. S, 6.fTI C$IOEtrAIII LIIE $a,t$t 5.0Ei0(I l,9E Ol
t{A 5.8+Ol.D*Q1
2, a. 6.?rl OlLsrtrAII Ll IE Hltn(trH..EntDE
J,2.5. ?r t CEl.orElElzEtE
J,2,4-rilctllonceflMll .--.-( r t-nrmrrprFrllllF ?rFTHvL ExlcnaFotlt
t7€r€6.0Er{ttlr
12GtZ-1 5.0E+O01.7,8E+021 c
"1{s{ I s.oercolE- 7'0E{3lc
l,2.ItlcEu,Eogrrlrl€,a,Jrlt: i 5.0Bro0ll 1.1Er{l
iilir- I 5-0Ei'{0ll 5.6Ert,l c
TRIEf,LOTOIIIITLITE (TN,I TLSEEETIIEE )
- -.._----.,4
ntEflLoloFLuorotEllllxE (F'i1) .. .
-
-................-75t+.__I
5.0E+00
4
rtti. I a3E{.ls
-------------
7.8E+tEl c
tes{ea l13 :.8E-01 C
t-?!+7$5 [ t.oe'ot ?.lE,.elC
lss&r€5,08{00t.3.9E+&ZlC
i96.184 6.08+00rr 4,7€{02lC
letg+5.0E1{0lr I 3.9E 02 c
,S13.t l.0E+00ia I Z3E|05 c
Ld-ry.|E'E- I n' r'r:#: 1'L
r.o.o-tltErHYl FrGPH0l0?llIqTE -___--r rA4g.1 SSf+ot la
662€9{35Hl ie a.3E.{1 c
TEIFUTAL:X
1, 2, 4-Tl lrllllYLBEllzEI!
. ! l-r.rr-fllYl lGdrarlt
EErG$a -- i 5.0H01.
1085-f{5.0Ei@le
c0,0E.01 ;3 | 1,/E+1r
10E+.o11d
r.oErol !dffit. i s.eEigqle
rw-TRtlllTtEtEllExE (1,5,
t'18-!E-7 6.0EJ{Ole 3.!,E+{tr
g.gE+gl lt
5.0E*€1td;5E+{z1t1 s le.ozlc
-
I l2E+@,le 7.08+OZlc
,lrtorul parfttrIoE
L€,/VE'd 662'ON r\z? 2-19 9TZ ddof, rI'tldS€:S AAA2,' ?Z'NUf
Ol/U 5/00 TLE 04:21 I'AI 7I€ 551 TZzg IIS llh;c--IJUX/ SU-t
ilYSDEC
& i,,J t
Conteind{n Ac'tlo n Lerch
O s or/sedr ment " conEincd-m' :,ffi ffiffi ffi 11 ffffi.,*ffi I ry n'n
--
ITglETCE c^rguJri
GrEtIndvGfdnlrrd
(uEL)
R
F
SelU Srdlmrni
Adon tt'rll
(mul(El
i
E
F
t77l+1$?.oEmzl.1.!E{Glc
ltit},??-?lrE:.ol t 7.6f+Ol
,lrrL rcE?Afl 10t{94 1oE+€r I 7.8Er0.1 c
7+0l-a zoE+o!I s.rE41 cAa,ra?gluli
fi{r.2 5,gE+Ol a a3E+O1 c
riExE. ts?a ollETnL EEpExE)
riltfll C,.otETHl'L sErzErE,
lg!f}?{lrl 6-Ottfi I {.8E 0€c
r0&31{6.ilr{0lr : l.EHs c
tl5/.74 eGr,00 a 'l.EE*!0S c
IEX''EIEi tG4la ElEro0 a
I 5.0E {g I a3E+0.G
557{l.l 't.tlrs I treEr{3 c
Urc 9F'PIIIOE------'a
-
131ffi ,,1grot t z3Er{0;c
l21Z2G?A 1-EE+@la 19El{3,o
tlif,ls7.s4 lzE+filt
Pege 13
.
Le/98'd 562'ON ttz? LTg 9TZ ddof, rI oaa?'?z'rol
OL/LI/OO Ttr:E 04: zI FAI 71S 0Sl 7lI0
f,ootaoer
AII sgacLes itr tbe g=oundrater al;dlox t€ll trbrt CoD,tain thj.s eleuent are
tneludea in ttre toee!.
Iota-l ConccatEation oE igon and aanEanoss should not Cscced 500 W/L'
art phcnolie coperrads (togBtr phlnots! rlrcrr not execed 1 F{I/L [Nr tocs
(1.1.r) l.
Eotal csnceitraslosr of tlese fout tsf,ihaloaechtnoc rbsll get ercoeC 100
F$IL.
t{ot Avail:hle
Not D€tQcrable by tesEr or eaat$ilcel deteralnaEloas. thc_grosldwrtar
protectioo cooc"itiiiio" shou,trd-be rrLttra rt flco-dotactabre (ND) tcitb a
E;fi;;;-iei"Iiyf"E-th.e uetnod dctcctiosr li.oit (!OL) for the rost gcs,sj-tlvr
."a:-ytri"fiiiuiidii. (e.9., bEnzcur uD by ssEPA l{cthod 602 ox 8020 tt:iut en ltD!
a 0.2 sE/I! .
Er€reeFa
?akcg froE 5 NYCAR Ertt ?03.5(a) (3) C.lass 6l' gror:adr.8t.a qneltty strnd:sds
(Septesber 15, 19911.
taksn flotrl usEPA ncrrs (F.ebrurry 19961 '
Eased ou USEPL Eccltb Elfects AssessElEt Sroary (EeSTtl Deta (l'ay t993' r'd
oral i.ngesEloa c$latiofl.
6NYcsaElct?034SlencrsdoagsE-EAlGLdo.s.note.tl.stforthisco.rtitueat,Guld,,lr. ealue tien-WiOEi Otrition oE tlate= tachslcal and Ogerericttst
Gg.Ld.^nce s.rraaii6Est-i:i.r rai-used sisrcc citrer no tsEASts daEt is cvej.La3Le
or if aw-ailabl:,-ft-neJ l"ss .otse*atlvc thar fOGs gr:'ioance valuc'
6NYCRR Part ?03 4 sEsnderd or IISEPA ltCL doos Aot b:dst for thir eonstltust:'
I Haalth based oiloi-fton .OSEPA ilEASTs data u:r ttced ciace Lt sras uora
I"ii"=titive tb,rn thc gtr'idaace saluc ia roGS '
Gu:Ldesce uelue takea f=o BYs locs 1.1.L for !9ts1 ctrlorlnated dlbeuzo-P-
dlo*tas enA cUiiGitii-aifet19f,:.raas is O.0oooo02 pE/1 aquifal'ntss of
2,3,7, g-teUeCni6ilIii""*:p-ctortn 12'1'1 ' 8-TCDD) . -rha 2,9,7 t 6-TCDD
equi?er.Rt ro= ?-llrGi""-r-r.odilii"i iy-ruitrprytng the conc*rtrarron of e::at
congstr.r uy its-tlilEiiv 5rr""i*"" lcitor (Tiri f,ioo the Grbl. brr.ou- rhe
grrldance value't;; CfEsS ei "at.-r Cors noE iuO.uar thc congezte= 2'3r7rB-TCDD'
e oridesca "alu. fo: an lralyfarel congeue.s, valuc clg be calcullecd by
er;Idr"g--o.oooooo2 :Bqlt, by the tEE tor that congQne=.
0.00003t EE/l applles on'Ly lo 7'3'7't-TcDD
3 h.4/ e7Pegc :.+
i\Y5 UtsL--UEl(;'5!.[gJ U.'O
t1
r2
ol
r{
t{A
rD
b,
c)
c)
ft
a)
dt
LE/*,'d 662'0N trz? Ltg 9Iz dlto3 rI ttdsE:S WZ'92'\al
oL/21 /vu lLt u{:4t r'{a /J'o ool tzlo .r I J UEI --vEJf,l Jtll
eonoener tEE
{! vu i
2-, 3, 1, 6 -TETE ACELOROD IEENZO-'- DIOrJN
other t etl ecLlo rodJ-banzo-p-d'io:dns
.Z, 3, 7 r I - PEIIIACELCEODIAE!|ZO-,-DI0Xr]I-Othet paa gSchlosqi{ hqrr2s-P-dlo8j::'s
Z, 3, 1, E - CE)(}CHI,0R00trEBiIZ0-p-DI OXIXS
Otbes herachlcre4lbcnro-P-di.onj'ns
2, 3, 1, B -EEitrfC$FnoDleEN2O-p-0IO&lN
Otbas heptachloEodlb a[zo-p-ttiorins
ocTe,cEloi,o DIBEIIZO-p- Dro:fi u
2,3 t 1, I -TETnACS!oBo0IBEUZ0E!a.I!oin"t t etracblorodlba$aofirra.qr
2, ?, 1,7, 8 -FE!f,TACEIOBODTBENZOFTSAN
L., 2, 3,7, 8-EENTECEI'RODIEEUZOESBIIIotber Pentachtr osoCllezo luerns
/, !, 7,\ -EffigloRg glEENEOEgE,All
Other be:acS.Lorodibcozolrrra.us
2, 3, 1, I -EEPIICELOBODIBEUEOFIIRIIo'itr: Eeptactr'l ocodib+\'of'ganr
ocfaclr.oEo D IEENZO EURSN
1
0.01
0,5
0.005
0. 05
0.0005
0.005
0 .00005
0. 005
0.1
0.0010.5
0.05
0-0050.1
0. 001
0.005
0 .0000s
0.005
E)Refer Eo gooraotos iB tbe slsDEC Divlsion of f,ete-- lechrrlcal erd otrEretloa.cl
C,rfOeee Srgtrcs ltoGsl !.L.1'
hl this ls usEgA's rBcoEaendartron besld on tEeir Intergrated EleoruEa ugtsh€-
Eiolctnertj-jisuEii-i"Gr In assessiaE Eotat read e:rposule ehlldlts (u.s'EPA
A:,IY 1{,1994) .
i, osEpA Grridance oa Reodiatioa Actiou for superfund sltcg rltb PCE soBtgrBlnatsion
(u.s.EEA, 1990)
j)DonottrAlAgeashazardousr,rst.i!lessthat!50PDa.
3 /t$/ e7Page 15
LE/LE'd 652'0N trz? Ltg 9Iz dllof, rI l.ld9E :S AAAZ'92 'NUf
ATTACHMENT 6
International Uranium (USA) Corporation
White Mesa Mill
Equipment ReleaseiRadiological Survey Procedure
2.6 Equipment Release Surveys
2.6.1 Policy
Materials leaving a restricted area going to unrestricted areas for usage must meet
requirements of Annex C Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment
Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use (dated September. I984)
AII material originating within the restricted area will be considered contaminated until
checked by the radiation protection department. All managers who desire to ship or
release material from the facility will inform the Radiation Protection Offrcer of their
desires. The Radiation Protection Oflicer has the authority to deny release of materials
exceeding Annex C Guidelines. No equipment or materials will be released without
documented release by the Radiation Protection Officer.
2.6.2 Limits
The release limits are:
Alpha emissions:
Average
Maximum
Removable
Average
Maximum
5,000 dpm/100 cm2,
15,000 dpm/100 cm2
1,000 dpm/I00 cm2
0.2 mr/hr or 5,000 dpm/100 cm2
1.0 mr/hr or 15,000 dpm/100 cmz
Beta-gamma emissions (measured at a distance of one centimeter):
2.5.3 Equipmcnt
Equipment used for equipment surveys includes as examples (or equivalent):
t. Eberline PRM-7 gamma scintillator, or equivalent2. Ludlum Model 3 with 44-5 deteaor, or equivalent3. Ludlum Model 3 with 43-5 detector, or equivalent4. Ludlum Model 2200 with 43-17 detector, or equivalent5. Glass fiber wipe filters
2.6..1 Procedures
Upon notification that materials are requested for release. the radiation protection
department shall inspect and survey the material. Surveys include fixed and removable
alpha surveys and beta-eamma surveys. A document inspection and release form is to be
prepared and signed bv the Radiation Protection Oflicer or his designee. Any material
released from the mill will be accompanied with the appropriate release form. If
contamination exceeds Annex C levels, then decontamination may proceed at the
direction of the Radiation Protection Officer. If the material cannot be decontaminated.
then it will not be released.
2.6.5 Rccords
Documented records tbr each released item are filed in the radiation protection
department files.
2.6.6 Quality Assurancc
The policy and documented release forms are periodically reviewed by the Radiation
Protection Officer and the audit committee to ensure policy and regulatory compliance.
ATTACHMENT 7
USACE Value Engineering Proposal for
Ashland 1 and Ashland 2
ORIGINAL DESIGN:
Ship matcrial offsrtc for dirposd, or podbrm soil werhiq (oftrttr) to rduc. volumc; then.
J'ipo." of resultant w.3b 3urt mt by rhipnrnt to ditPoc.l ltelity(i6).
PROPOSED DESIGN:
Ur rrycling and minrnl rccov.ty tadmdogil at r urenhrm mifl to nducr radioacttvc
;"uid dbpd.t c61tj. An operrtrg qtvrntqr.l rJilfun ml, $tdr I ho mo opcratcd
ilh1.'n-.d*1 U6nir,rm Comraion (lUC) in .ostlr.6m Utlh, hrr thr trc.hnology
nicilery to nq'da mrbrhb lbr erulrc0on of urrrim, Yandun, rilfa aattt mincralg,
.nd d1a, nt tlh, .nO o prwiff tr dfpo.J dhrts m h tr |Lcflt{b fi{y lirod and
NRQ€fnpl[nt orirtlrg tiet$ hPorrndnrfln. BId on r p6fi*uy rwirw of thc
mrtrirb 3b.rd rn<l dbpo..rl of ln pitr a rtmdl- a u! A.lthnd tib, it rpP..r! that
rccovrnbL lGr.b ol uranirm. vandlrn rlrdlg rrr ortl mfrnb rnry urrl tn thc
mfrrul to b. orcryrtrd froflt 0tL locrfpm I wll I otrr FUSRAP ti[r'
Sturc. tho drrnorizrtorr dt b fiibdo il b dnat b qurily tho uutum contrnt and
r.syd. ,rfr ol tht milrid. lt ;prrf lromr;r. 0trt Jgnfbrnt d Ulo matcnal
.oufO b. 66ydd to r b rtd.E h. Corp.0 EII crrdUon d. Utrt ttt.Ebtlity tcrB
conllrm 0t.liifi ol rurr$h ntfl, gl*n n& t(E !l. prcillhg cot a not'
to{c..d ergp111lp cod t anfr, brl fi a rry lxr confil d rrftlrbb urenrum
and otror inlnonf i vrtr. Thb prcpcrl dtouts b. rcrb.d b itdb.f hryor rvrngr rf
morr frvonbb dm bocul rvrfbb.
ADVANTAGES:
1. confunnr b congirJond rnrl ngulrrry m.nd.b whill Icourrg. ur of
rcc'ltc{ingtL R.dtn rdcUlty dth. niltLl E b. dl.Po..d of'
3. R.cUd- rrru*n d dt t,rftrlb-4. R.dr gg| dd|gal d byf6cdttct ftut rryclttg oP.ffi: .5. Tr-ilrt rrd oHab dbgo.d rn por{brnrrl A on locdion, wiut Ur. byiroduct
fronr rcfdrg b-te dtpri.d olh in NRCanplrtdfPo.d tt&n, m..orE 10
CFR 10 d-agn cdbln(r. 11c(2) bftfo1[1d b dhpo..d ol in rn .ddtg biftgj= tmoundmont whtdr ts
conrbtrnt -*i,Ur
f O CFR aO App.ndh B hf.tt tternoprcmrdon ol rmrl ril6'
7. Acn11l cod t vltga fi Urtrrnt .nd dt p6j.l v.ilul cg1t d dinct dbgosl can
only br g11r!r UEn profaO in thij gfopc.l, da.ttdhe uPT ltr 'Gtu'l
contcnt
of ncorrnOlo unnim coonr miffirb lbmd h ILUgilr $t]'m '
\
r-
ilrs l€cnnclcgy 'ras ceen :eronsii'ated an rur!iple /vasie si:ea-s i-: -:;
potentlal applicabrlity to all other FUSRAP srtes.
@:
1. Trangpolt tion by nI ir posiblo to r nilhod loc.[d wihin apgrorimatcly 100
milcr o, Urc IUC ir|l. How.tfi, r.h.ndhg of nrfrdrb tbf fud( trlntport'ton vta
Jrrp bodi.. or inbnnodel colrtrinft i noanry b Ernr{lr mrrnab from thc
nilhod b ul. luc Mil Jb.
2. Th. Mit ha ln pla rn NRC lic.ma b po..a, S0l, "rd dLPd' of lourco
me[rirl; howevr, .n illandmftt *ilE, in con[ril atld lbflilt b provtous
routin lyr{r]ttrd .fiLfldtnantl ftLy br nmrry E rcagt uri m.trid undcr
tcntL ol NRC guirltar.
3. cod crtn.I)- lbr Errtnrnt .nd dbgad caud ba ftlh.d uttd turthcr
.tt rffir0on drE wlilcn itdlcln thr csrlnf d urrnnu .nd du mlrrrh ol
vlhL, ir rvrihfi.1. NPL lt!n|. dAJtml t .tl!l 2 $f nrry pluttt n$dfrty liln'b'
JUSNHCAT]ON:
Thir propold wir provid.. cod rfhcrhn rurrrlEhn o9ton. R.clcfrlg b t mcrng of
ntceiirg'Coftetlirfd tl|rtra b tt l g[ itlil wlUl pcllb' fil b e6ttg'lty
rccydr ufrni^In c g[ra, rir- (r nffi:l ufrj RCRA), rr|I m'dle [a Publdlr
.nd Sf pfd.f1161 h.l tI ;-rt nof b. Uttd ql tI, j1d 61f t bo dbpqod
;f[b. At!r.,4}t tt 61 11rrtlp h ta pjqa] 6 astrvdnly br'd on 'n
agrumpton r,e orry-rr h,-a urf*m a drr mfrl cll bo lEYrfrd, g'l.trf
."d ,.,ring. *ri-di gorild rtrrbry s drrronGrr haghr cortttt ltd Lv.b
of rccoui. Pm;afi Itrr uuirn rrfoprabd by 1JC h tJtrh.L rrd r ho beg
of tlL prcpaa effi;Er d ll erffiy b Errrm. etut idhg r lLl csYrprr.orr
of codr *d qr lo*y h1fig bjrr- ltttl hmrponrdon coc!'
NoD ffih cd ldnrl 1r povldrd tt Ob Pt!ga.t' lilnrf e Uud on lto
curutt PfqaC dfnrf g116h tL. t1a d.dv.d i6nt tlrr !*ia1 rtrmn' 'ndEdrnr,r ! brd qr !r rt- trtr. crrrr.illCrr cltf cooElF t D dbpcrl'
Propoerl C.l rddnre thb dlfttrncr
'!
COST EST;MA']'=iiC F KSi'EE- tESTIMATE A)
PAGE \O ]p@p65,11 !o c-t t
lrEM Ul!4 0w
Disposal at Envirocarc
Ashland 2(FY98) CY
Ashland 1(F/99) CY
Aghland 1(Fr00)
Loading FacilitY CY
TOTAL DELETIONS
tulthtrl 2(FYgt)
A.lthttd r(FYge)
trEM ulu qry cosr
Proc... end DirPoo.t MI CY
tuhlrlld 2(Fr9t) cY 19,5@
Atlthnd l(Frge) CY 21,7!n
tutil.ttd r(Ff00) CY 21,7n
Lo.dhg FxSfY CY 1,500
AddiUon.l frrnrpormon lil Hltdlng Co.tcY 19,t0cY 21,79
i2,14t,000
2,392,t00
2.302,500
e42,000
t3lt1,0@
391,500
391,5@
27.000
tt,733,000
tt,314,5@
Ll3!.!fttc,call,123
COST
19,500
21,750
cY21,750
1,500
AOOlTlOtl
UNIT
rOTAL
't215.00
215.00
215.00
335.00
UT{IT
TOTAL
"tl10.00
1r0.00
110.00
42t.00
tramlam
1t.00
rt.m
E4,192,500
4,676,250
4,676,250
502.500
t14,047,500
Arhlrrd l(Ff00) CY 21,7fi
Lo.dhe FxilitY CY l,t0
TOTATADOMONS
Nd Seine. (odrb. AdO)
"Merturpl 23f
TOTAr SAVlllGS
.Unlt cct lr fio;n tho cururt prq|6t lllnfr .nd b bo.d co lrhillb dbpo1rl
rlt!.
..Unit cdbrrl fi urf*rrt aonblil r0.5 psrrrt nrd no tgllaild milrrb. A cr'dit
of ac mgCr r llflbn s|| ba gfit atr br.dt O.f prrnf frcrnrtrl iE u. h urtntum
.ont nt 1lgf, 0.5 pa,af. Gl;t 0r veilbtry olvl|I d dU, nlirnb. ren outu' or
mcttb, crdff ai O sdl rlltrt! wqrts ba a trEthn oltl tttftat v.m md cont'nt
ol tro pethrll.tan tn Cd of [rlrrnf vL pruolf cold b. ilqf "rd
nductd
bil.d on th1t.,rL ortlrEbfy 6 or dt r-alcrnt corniOrrdonr. Addibn ol hc!'
vrriebhl all s.flr to i,lctca coat trvfrtga
- Mrtugo: lndudor Contrgg cil (23tl)
tlob: Addiuond tt.ntpottrtlon md h.ndfine coatl, colttg.fid t, hmrportetbn to
Envirocrn, ol t f arcV. indud. co.! d of.lirlhg ftltll goftdot
"r1.t
thr ntlhcad'
lo*ling inx1 dumgtldrr 91, contrirr Eud,t, tudn 19 b fi. tatt, .nd olllo'dingdclivcry
!
at ihe luc stte
ITEM U4i orY
Oisposal rt Envirocen
Ashhnd 2(F/9S) CY
Ashhnd 1(FY90) cY
A.hlrid 1(FY00)
LoedirP F.cili$ CY
TOTAT OELENONE
trEM lJlu qry
Proc... end DLPor l Ml CY
Attthtd 2(Fr9t) CY
A$hnd l(Fr3e) CY
A.lthnd 1(Ff00) CY
COST ESTITIIATE WO R KSXEET (ESTITATEBI
NO: a OFa
Lo.dfre |ffi, CY 1,5@
AddiUon l Tremponr0on .nd Hltdllte Coa
tuttbnd 2(Ff90 CY 19'5m
A.hl.lld 1(FY90 cY 21,75
tulrLtrd 1(Ff00) CY 21,7Xt
Lodhg ltdlt, CY
TOTALADOMC'}€
Nd Soring. (O.lb. Add.)
-Urtupr 23f
TOTAL ITAVINGI
1,5m
TOTAL
't1c7.00 t3,250,500167.00 3,632,2501C7.00 3,632,250
'12t.00 642.000
311,163,000
UNIT
TOTAT
"trlo.00 32.149,000110.m 2,391,t00110.O 2,39:1,500110.0 1c5,000
tlt.o t351,0@1t.00 391,5001t.00 301,5001t.00 27.000
It,2tt,000
cosT
19,500
21,7fi
cY21,750
1500
AOot?lotl
cosT
19,500
21,7{
21,7!r0
t2.907,0@
!3,19
3i1.033,750
' Unltcdbld oo tho lttrrr CIU R D udr dbgoe.l CocErct tlb.
..Unil coA b11d fi r5r[m con!il r0.3 prrcrrt, md m lraovrtftd il*tr.b. A crcdii
of o nr1cfi r $OEr ca5 b. Srrl br rdr 0.1 gauf ffil iEtr. h uturiur
contfrt .!ovo 0.5 paEalt Gfu- Sre vrrlblty dv*r ddrt nfior-. il! o..tlt, of
rnetlL cndilr orr o rdr olrrnn rcUld br r firrtbo dtl mft ttrlt ltd cont.nt
ol tn ptdoJLt olrnrnt Cd o, trlrurt vb proanfrg oqd b. rrqf rnd nduced
brd qr tr r111fi dtr0rlfy m or du rrlGrrf aornfl*m. Addi[on of 0rrr
v.ri.bLa rI rrw b incnrl coat tat lngl
- Mrlrupo: lndudo Con&g.ncy (25lt)
Not: Addidon l f1r1gofi[on .nd ha1(lhe co.!' comp.rrd b tsurportetion to
UNIT
Ervrrccare 3f S 1ErCY. nclude CCSTS:f :ff''caCrng'rorn 3Ondcia :ars at :'e -3 -:::
,i.Jiig rnto dumptrucks or contarner trucks, lrucklng to the srtc' and off,oadrng' lQ ' ' 8-
at thc IUC sttc.
ATTACHMENT 8
Classification of Uranium Material as 1le.(2) Byproduct Material
t
sl-{,\! \ Fill\ l,\N
POTTS t'TKCV\,E3.IDCE
r -' r-r - . LtF i \a-- :'.; :i.\- -::,iic \..r - - *' ir(r.-a \S
MENIORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE
RE
Stuart A. Treby
Maria E. Schwartz
Anthony J. Thompson
Warren U. Lehrenbaum
March I, 1999
Stans of Materials at FUSRAP Sites
This memorandum is intended to follow up on or.u telephone convetsation earlier this
week, during which we discussed whether or not materials prcsent at sitgs administered under the
Deparunent of Energy's ("DOE's') Formerly Utilized Sites Remcdial Action program
C'FUSRAP") can constirute "byproduct material" as defined in Section I le.(2) of the Aromic
Energy Acq as amended (the "AEA").
I. ISSTIE PRESENTED
lt is our r.rnderstanding that concems have been raised recently within NRC's Office of
General Counsel ("OGC') regarding DOE's characterization of certain FUSRAP materiais as
constituting I le.(2) byproduct material.r In particular, we urderstand that OGC is concerned
that FUSRAP materials that were creatd prior to the enacunent of the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act ("UMTRCA') and that wele not creatd puniuant to an NRC-licensed
activiry cannot qrra[ry as I le.(2) byproduct material.
OGC's concerilt regarding the statrs of FUSRAP materials as I le.(2) byproduct material
aPpear to relatc to a lettq that Robert L. Fonncr, Special Cotrnsel for Fuel Cyclc and Safeguards
Regulatioru (NRC) wrote to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE ) about ayetigo. In
that lener, dated March 2, 199t, Mr. Fonner took the position that NRC docs not have
' FUSMP sitcs gencrally conain a variety of radioactive matcrials: DOE has dacrmincd thar a number of FUSMp
sitcs contain I le.(2) byproduct material. See U.S. DOE TIE Form*ly Utilbed Sites Remediol Action program
(FUSR.4P): Burlding Stakzholdcr Partrcrships to Achiae Efrective Cleanup, DOUEM4233 (April l99jt,
Appendix I.
2300 N STKEEL N.W,WASHINGTON, D.C 20037-1128 TELEPHONEZO?6$rcOOtAX2cL66-18C,07
, urrsdiction or er nr;:enais
that:
L \ITR.C.\ care \RC slatutorv aurhorir)'orer tailines [tiom ore
processed tbr source material contenrl. bur only- or,'er raiiings liom
activiries licensed bv NRC as of the etfective date oIrhe Act
lNorember 8. 1978). or thereafter. See Secrion 83 ot rhe .{romic
Enersv Act of 195.1 as amended.
Because the residuals at the listed [FUSRAP] sites were generated
long before NRC had any jurisdiction over tailings, and were never
produced from source material extraction under NRC license. NRC
todal' has no basis to assert any regulatory aurhority o\.er the
handling ot rhose residuals ar rhe listed sites.
Letter from Robert L. Fonner. Special Counsel for Fuel C1'cle and Satbguards Regulations
(NRC) to Ann Wright. Counsel. HTRW Center of E.xpertise (USACE) dated March 2, 1998
(hereinafter the "Fonner Lener") at l.
We believe that OGC's concerns regarding DOE's characterization of cenain FUSR{P
materials as being l le.(2) by'product material iue unwarranred. Specifically,4s we explain
below. we believe FUSRAP materials can be characterized as I le.(2) blrproduct material
(assuming such materials satisff the definition of I le.(2) byproduct material) consistent wirh the
statutory scheme created by Congress. with NRC and DOE past pracrice. and with the ideas
expressed in the Fonner Lener.
II.DISCUSSION
When considering the starus under UMTRCA of FUSRAP materials derived from the
processing of uranium ores. it is important to bear in mind that Congress. when it enacted
UMTRCA, intended to create a comprehensive system for regulating the tailings and related
wastes resulting t'rom processing ore for its source material content. Congress itself expressed
the twofold purpose of UMTRCA to be as follows: (i) to assess and remedi ate inactive mill
tailings sites (i.e., sites contaminated with uranium mill tailings and related wastes that are not
subject to an irctive NRC license), and (ii) to regulate the management and disposition of
uranium mill tailings and related wastes at active mill tailings sites (i.e.. sites subject ro an actir e
license). 42 U.S.C. $ 7901. To accomplish these dual objectives, Congress created an
integrated, rwo-part regulatory scheme. under which tailings at inactive sites are addressed
primarily under Title I of UMTRCA and tailings present at active sites are addressed primarilr
under Title II.
The keystone of the Title II program was the creation of a new category of AEA-
regulated material -- I le.(2) byproduct material -- which Congress defined to mean:
.)
a
ihe tariinss -.-..1 \\.lStcS iitrJuccJ, :\ tire ertraciltrti oI coRCitltrstltrrt
ot'uranrum u.: :horium lirrtl'l JIlr ,rre processed pnmartIr, tbr its
source mater:ri content.
+2 U.S.C. S l0lae.(l). Tuo rhings about this detlnition must be emphasized. First. Congress
did not impose anv temporai iimitations on the t'', pes of materials that qualift' as I I e.t l)
by'product materiai. In other *'ords. Congress did not det-rne I1e.(l) by'producr material ro mean
tailings and wastes produceci . . . after the effective date of UIITRCA. Instead. Congress
imposed temporal limitations only on the activities rhat may be subject to NRC's licensing
jurisdiction. Thus. Section 8-1 of the AEA lret-erred to in the Fonner Lener) provides that:
Any license rssued or renerved alter the effective date of this
section . . [tbr] any acriviry that results in the production of
[11e.(2)] by'product material . . . [shall contain specitied terms and
conditions]
+2 U.S.C. $ 2l l3(a). lndeeci. Section 83 itself directs NRC to regulate as 1le.(l) byproduct
material tailings present at licensed sites that \\'ere generated prior to rhe enaclment of
UMTRCA. For example. rhe sratute provides rhat:
Any license ','htch is in elfecr on the effective date of this secrion
and which is subsequently rerminated without renewal shall
comply wirh paragraphs ( I ) and (2) upon termination [speciffing
that ownership of any I le.(2) b1'product material resulting from
the licensed acrivity shall be transferred to the govemment]
Id. Clearly, then. Congress understood that materials generated prior to the effective date of
UMTRCA could still qualifr as I le.(2) byproduct marerial. Section 83 speaks to NRC's
licensing authority over materials generated both prior to and following rhe enactment of
UMTRCA: it does nor provide that a material must have been created after 1978 or pursuanr ro
an NRC-issued license in order to qualiff as I le.(2) byproduct marerial.
The second important t'eanre of the det'inition of I le.(l) byproduct material that musr be
borne in mind is that Congress purposell'detlned I le.(2) byproduct material broadly, to
encompixis a// wastes - including both radioactive and non-radioactive wastes - resulting from
uranium ore processing, in order to ensrue that none of these w'astes would go unregulated.2
Similarly, Congress intentionally defined I le.(l) byproduct material in a manner thar was broad
: Thus. as NRC has noted:
The fact that the lenn "any ore" rather than "unrefined and unprocessed ore" is
used in the definition of I le.(2) byproduct material implies thar a broader range
of feed materials could be processed in a mill. wirh the wastes still being
considered as I le.(2) byproduct marerial.
57 Fed. Reg. at 20.532.
-J-
jnLlugh tLr ensure :nat \\asies resultliig irom prlrcesstng r-rr€s Corlt&tntng iess [:-.-l;] ite :n:.icri ,,. -i.e..0.0:0otoiuranium rrould strll be encompassed uithin the class oi lle.ri blpro,jucr. , : .-.,:netertal.- Thus. rs the D.C. Circuit concluded tollowins a reviervoiL-\ITRC.\'s lesrsiarrre
lt is clear tiom this exchange Iin rhe legislative history] that the
detlnition of "by'producl marerial" proposed by [then NRC
chairmanl Dr. Hendrie and adopted b,v- Congress was designeci ro
extend the NRC's regularory aurhoriry over all wasres resultine
fiom the extraction or concentration of source materials in the
course of the nuclear fuel cvcle.
Kerr-,\[cGee y. L.S. Nuclear Regulatort,Com'n.903 F.]d 1,7 (D.C. Cir. 19901.
While Title tl of UMTRCA was designed to achieve the comprehensive regulation of all
\\astes and tailings resulting from uranium processing acrivities at active miil sites. Title I rvas
intended to perform a complementary role by providing tbr the remediation and regulation of
tailings and rvastes associated with uranium processing activities that had occurred at inactil.e
and abandoned milling sites. Congress. in Title I. specified 22 inactive milling sites ro be
evaluated and remediated by DOE. [n addition. Congress directed DOE to idenrif.v. evaluate
and. if necessary. remediate any additional inactive milling sites designated bv DOE. as well as
sites in the vicinitl' of inactive milling sites that were conta.minated with tailings and wastes tiom
the milling activilies (so-called:'vicinity sites"). -12 U.S.C. $$ 791l(6); 7912. r Just as Congress
' .{s the following testimonv tiom the legislative history of UMTRCA reveals, Congress modified the definition ollle.(2) byproduct material to apply to"atty ore" processed primarily for its source material content in a licensed
uranium mill for the specific purpose of ensuring that all wasres from processing such ores. including ores
containing less than 0.05% uranium. would fall within the regulatory program established for I le.(2i byproduct
material.
[Chairman Hendrie] The Commission is informed that there are a few mills
currently using feedstock of less than 0.05-percent uranium. As high-grade ores
become sciucer. there may be a greater incentive in the furure to turn to such low
grade materials.
Since such opcrations should be covered by any regulatory regime over mill
tailings, the Commission would suggest that the definition of byproduct marerral
in H.R. 13382 be revised to include tailings produced by extraction of uranium
or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source material contenr.
L'ranium .llill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. Hearings on H.R. t t698, H.R. t 2229. H.R. I 293g. H.R.
l:535. H.R. l3049andH.R. 13650, Subcomm. On Energyand Power, HouseComm. On Interstateand Foreign
Commerce. 95d Cong. (hereinafter "[Jranium lvtitl Tailings Radiation Hearings") at34344.
' It is wonh noting that when it created the remediation program in Title I. Congress recognized that the governmenr
had a special responsibiliry for these sites because they had been used to process uranium for the Manhanan
Engineering District and Atomic Energy Commission in support of the nation's early nuclear program. See, e.g.,
L'ranium ,ltill Tailings Radiation Hearings at 238 ("the sites [covered by Titlc l] are locations where uranium ore
Footnote continued on next page
--t-
Jetlneri ile.tltclproduct material as the.r)r:e:sione ot:ie Tirle II prosram. rr listr Jellncrr,r
nerr class of material - "residual radioactrre mlenai" -:s rhe cornerslone oithe Tirie I
program. Speciticallr'. Congress det-rned "residuai radioacrive material" ro mean:
(A)',','aste (r.lhich the Secretarl [olDOE] determines to be
radioactive) in the form of taiiings resultine from the processing of
ores tbr the extraction of uranium and other valuabie constituents
of the ores: and
(B) other waste (which the Secretary [of DoE] determines to be
radioactive) at a processing site w'hich relate to such processing,
including any residual stock of unprocessed ores or low-grade
materials
42 U.S.C. S 791l(7). Thus. the term "residual radioactive marerials" used in Title t of
UMTRC.{ encompasses materials that consritute I le.(2) bvproduct material. Congress simply.
defined residual radioactive material more broadlv to sweep in a wider range of wastes that
might be found at abandoned milling sites and viciniry properties. (lndeed. recent amendments
to UMTRCA implicitly recognize that I le.(2) b,"-product material and residual radioactive
material are essentially equivalent. by providing for the direct disposal of residual radioactive
material from Title I sites at licensed Title II facilities. See 42 U.S.C. g 7918(a)(l)5.)
Thus' Congress created in UMTRCA an integrated two-part scheme for comprehensively
regulating uranium mill tailings and related wastes - both from past activities at inaCtive.
abandoned sites and from ongoing activities at acrive sites. Under rhis statutory scheme DOE
was given primar,v responsibility for administering Title I. while NRC was given primary
responsibility for administering Title II. However. Congress' overriding aim in enacting
UMTRCA was to ensure that tailings and wastes from the processing of ore for its source
material content - rvhether already existing or )'et to be generated -- would be adequately
regulated by either NRC or DOE in a manner that would provide definitive protection of public
Footnote continued from previous page
has been processed to produce uranium to sell to the government for national defense"); td- at24l-243 (,.These
tailings [at Title I sites] . . . were produccd primarily as a result of the Federal Covernment's Manhanan Engineering
District and Atomic EncrgY Commission programs from the early 1940's through the early 1970's. . . . Given thesecircumstances. thc GAO bclieves that the Federal Government has a srong moral responsiUitity to at least assist in
cleaning up the abandoncd tailings. Further, it is probably the only organization with the abiliry ro carry our such a
cleanup on a compthcnsive basis.")
' similarly. the mill ailings and related wastes presenr at FUSRAP sites essentially identical to the residual
radioactive materials found at Titlc I sites. However, a given site containing railings and retated wastes would have
been addressed under the FUSRAP program rather than the Title t program rypicaiiy either because there was a
responsible parry associated with the site (i.e.. the site was not abandoned and thereiore would not have been a likell
candidate tbr inclusion within thc Titlc I program) or because the site was owned or controlted by the govemmenr
(since sites owned or connolled by the federal govemment are expressly excluded from the Title-l program. see 42u.s.c. s 7el r(6) ).
health and the en\lronmenr. .ice +l L S.C i iat-)i:rsc.r;r(, H. Rep. \o.9:-1180 er 1l
lexplainine that rhe.{cr rr,as inrended ro adcjress both unresulared and unremediared tailinss.r.
w'ell as to clarih \RC's jurisdiction to regulate the management and disposal of mill taiiinss.r:
ectir e sites).
The position expressed in the Fonner Lener is consistent u'ith Congress' intent to ensure
that uranium mill tarlines are adequately' regulated bv either DOE or NRC. at least with respecr
to the Fonner Letter's treatment of materials that are present on-sire at FUSRAP sites. The
Fonner letter states that such materials are nor subject to NRC jurisdiction "at the IFL'SF.tpJsites" because the materials rvere not generated under NRC license and therefore NRC has no
basis for assertins jurisdiction over them. This result makes sense and is consistent with
Congress' intent as expressed in UIv{TRCA. because so long as the materials remain at a
FUSRAP site. thev are subject to DOE jurisdiction and control. However. the fact that materiai
present at the FUSRAP site is not subject to NRC's licensing jurisdiction does not preclude thar
material from qualif ing as I Ie.(2) byproduct material. so long as rhe material fits within rhe
detlnition of I le.tl) byproduct material. During the time that such material is present on-sire ar
a FUSRAP site it is I le.(2) byproduct material that is subject to DOE title and jurisdicrion.
Once that materiai is moved from a FUSRAP site and enters an NRC-licensed uranium recoven
facility, )'IRC obtains iurisdiction over the material and the material becomes I I e.(2) byproducr
material subject to .\'RC regulatory control.
This approach comports with Congress' intent in UMTRCA by ensuring rhar either NRC
or DOE retains regulatory jurisdiction over uranium mill tailings. In addition, thir upproach is
consistent with the way in rvhich the FUSRAP program has in fact been administered. For
example, in a lener from USACE to NRC's Office of General Counsel dated June 16, 1998(hereinafter the "USACE lener"), USACE concluded, based on historical and sire
characterization information. that material at a particular FUSRAP site meets the definition of
I le.2 byproduct material.6 However. USACE iecognized that since this material was nor
processed after passage of the UMTRCA and was not generated pursuant to an NRC license. rhe
material at the FL-SRAP sire is not subject to licensing by the NRC. In addition, USACE went
on to note that when the material is moved from the FUSRAP site. any facility receiving the
material would have to possess all "legally applicable licenses, permits, or approvals from all
regulators with jurisdiction over their operations. including the proposed handling of the
materials." In other words. the material. once transferred to an NRC-licensed uranium recoven
facility, would be I le.(2) byproduct material subject to regulation by NRC.
Not only is the approach outlined above consistent with Congressional intent and with the
manner in which the FUSRAP program has been administered; it is also consistent with rhe war
in which NRC has implemented UMTRCA in other conrexts. For example, NRC does not
ordinarily exercise jurisdiction over mining activities. nor does the Commission ordinarily
exercise jurisdiction over ore containing licensable quantities of source material produced as a
u Letter from Lt. Colonel Michael J. Conrad. U.S. Army to Office of Counsel. U.S. NRC Waste Management
Section (June 16, 1998).
-6-
:3suit oI such.rcttrities. el:iter.it the nllne sile r-rr in transit to.i uran:um *,11. !{rr,rerer. ).RL' ,.,.-_.irken the position lhat orc.!rntainlng source matenal. that *as not:reviousll re:uiated br \RC.
r)nce it is transt'erred ro a iicensed uranium mill becomes subiect rot)nce it is transt'erred to a iicensed uranium mill becomes subject ro \RC reeulation. TheCommission expiained this position in its Final Generic Enl'ironmental Imp-acr Sraremenr on
Commenr: The proposed [u!ITRCA] regurations shourd not
address ore pads because no uranium milling or ore processing ro
create source material takes place until ore enters the mill and is
processed. . .
Response: . . . Section 8a [of the AEA] srares in pan rhat.-the
commission shail ensure that the management of anr.byproduct
material . as det'ined in section I le.(2) is carried out in such a
manner as . . . rhe Commission deems appropriate to protect the
public heaith and sat'ety and the environment from radiological and
nonradiologicai hazards associated with the processing and wirh
the possession and transt'er of such material . .". ThJsrorase of
ore on an ore pad prior to milling clearly constirutes an acti;w
associated ',r'ith processing. Under the language of new Section 84.
theretbre. it is rvithin NRC's authority to regulate ore pad
activities.
U'S' NRC Final Generic Environmental lmpact Statement on Uranium Milling, NUREG-0706(September 1980). vol. II at A-89.7 Thus. as with the case of material at a fU5'nap site thatqualifies as I le.(2) byproduct material. once the ore containing source material is transferred toan NRC-licensed uranium mill it becomes subject to NRC juriidictionl prior to being moved to alicensed facility it is not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.
Finally. to the extent that DOE has determined that materials at FUSRAp sites fit within
the definition of I le.(2) byproduct material. that determination should be entitled to deference.UMTRCA grants DOE the authority to determine whether materials qualift as .-residual
radioactil'e materials" subject to regulation under Title I. As discussed above, the rerm ..residual
radioactive materials" encompasses materials that meet the definition of I le.(2) byproductmaterial. Since DOE is granted the authoriqv under UMTRCA to determine whether materialsconstirute "residual radioactive material." DOE's determination that a material qualifies as aparticular subcategory of residual radioactive material (i.e., lle.(2) byproduct material) shouldbe entitled to deference.
Similart;;' NRC does not have jurisdiction over materials present ar Title I sites being administered by DoE:however. once remediation at a Title I site is completed. NiC assumes jurisdiction ov-er the site, and rhe materialspresent on site become subject to NRC's licensing authoriry.
-7 -
\loreorer. rs a practtcai and ptiicr matler. tirere:re sound reasons rrhr \RC _.houiJ
detbr lo a DOE determination that maierial at a FL'SR-\P is lle.r3) bvproduct marenai. First.
rr,hen DOE makes the determination that a FUSR\P material constitutes lle.t2) b1'product
matertai it is fully cognizant ot the t'acr that. if thar marenal is ultimatelv disposed oi in an \RC-
licensed I le'(2) impoundment DOE uiii evenruall."- have to take custod."- of the marelal (and the
site used for its disposal). See 42 U.S.C. 21 13. In other *'ords. DOE makes such a
characterization "rvith its e1'es open and as a co-equal regulatory authoritv under U\,ITRCA.
One implication of this is that if a FUSRAP material designated as I1e.12) by-product material b1.
DOE nere to be processed as an alternate feed material in an NRC-licensed uranium mill. .\RC
could be assured that processing the material and disposing of the resulting tailings and w-astes
in the mill's tailings impoundment w*ould not jeopardize ransfer of title ord rrttody'of rhe mill
tailings impoundment to DOE follo**ing site closure (a ke1' concern underlying the Alternate
Feed PolicyE;, since DOE will have alriady determined that the material qualihes as I I e.(2)
b.,"product material. Thus, there are sound pracrical reasons why the approach ourlined above
makes sense.
Conversely, the practical implications of NRC refusing to recognize that FUSR \p
materiais may constitute I le.(2) byproduct material are severe. For example. there are a number
of NRC-licensed I 1e.(2) facilities that have accepted for disposal (and have disposed of1
FUSLA'P materials that were characterized by DOE as being I le.(2) byproduct material. tf NRC
now takes the position that FUSRAP materials cannor be I le.(2) byproduct material. the
Commission will have violated its Non-l le.(2) Policy by allowing these materials to be disposed
of in a licensed I le.(2) t'acility without t-rrst ensuring that the nini criteria set out in the Non-
I le.(2) Policy were satisfied.' Similarly, if NRC takes the position that these materials cannor be
I le.(2) byproduct material. some might anempt to iugue that I le.(2) licensees who have already
accepted such materials for disposal (and disposed of the material) have violated the terms of
their licenses. Finally, by refusing to recognize that FUSRAP materials may constiture I le.(2)
byproduct material NRC threatens to "orphan" a substantial amount of mill tailings and related
wastes currently in DOE inventory that DOE has designared as I le.(2) byproduct material. This
E See 57 Fed. Reg. 20.525,20.531 (May 13, 1992).
n Indeed the inconsistency of NRC taking such a position (i.e.. assening that FUSRAp materialcannor be I le.(2)byproduct material) is evident from commens made by NRC when it was developing irs Non-l l(2) and Altemare
Feed Policies. Then, thc Commission explicitly acknowledged that some materials "i fUSnep sites constitute
I le.(2) byproduct tn"t !1!: Thus, in the preamble to Federal Register notice publishing the proposed policies, NRC
states with respect to FUSRAP sites that:
Govcrnment contracts were issued for thorium source material used in theManhanan Engincering District and early Atomic Energy commissionprograms. Wastes resulting from that processing and disposal at these
[FUSRAPI sites would quaUy as t te.(2) byproduct material.
57 Fed. Reg. at 20.521(May 13. 1992). lt would be a stunning reversal of position for NRC to now assert thar
FUSRAP materials cannot qualifu as lle.(2) byproduct material simply beiause rhe were nor produced pursuanr ro
an NRC-licensed activity or were produced prior to rhe enactment of UMTRCA.
. . .,,4 -8-
ts prectselr rihat Consress intended ttot to iuppen rrhen lr enacted L'\1TRC.\..rs iir:
Kerr .\lcGee court pointedlr noted.l0
III. CONCLUSION
The position articulated in the Fonner Lener is a reasonable one - ar leasr as ir applies tomateriais presenl on-site at FUSRAP sites. \RC does not have jurisdiction or.er mare.aispresent at FUSR{P sites. even if those materials meet the detinition of I le.(2) bl'producrmaterial. since the matenals were not generated as part of an NRC-licensed activiiv. \\hile ar aFUSRA.P site. the materials are I le.(2) byproduct material subject to DOE regulaton-jurisdicrion and control. However, when such I le.(2) b1'product material is tr-ansfened to an
NRC-licensed uranium mill. is becomes subject to NRC regulatory jurisdiction and control. Thisapproach to jurisdiction comports with Congressional intent. is coniistent with the manner inwhich the FUSRAP program and UMTRCA have been administered. and makes sense as a
matter of polic,'" and practicality.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with you further. if 1ou thinkthat would be helpful. In any event. if you have any quesrions regarding this memorandumplease t'eel free to call us ar 202-663-9198.
cc:Mitzi A. Young
t0 See 903 F.2d at 7 ("NRC's intcrpretation recreates the regutator-v gap that the UMTRCA was designed toeliminate and excludes from.reguluion for the protection oittre puUlic'health some of the radioactivi mill tailingsthat Congrcss intended to bring within the Agency's aurhoriry..'j
-9-
FII: r'^,^1
Ul'\::ED S:AIES CF ,,\VERTCA
NUCLEAR REGU.AICRY CCMMJSSION
COMMISSiONERS.
Rrchard A. Meserte, Cnairman
Greta JoY Dic.i,ls
Nrts J Dr&l
Eowarq McGaffrgan, Jr.
Jefirey S. Merrifield
ln the Maner of
)
)Sgfi\4EDtD r o;
FEB : 2[N,I
)
INTERNATIOT.IAL URANIUM (USA) )CoRPoRATION ) Dod(a No. rl0€6E1'llt.A'4
)
(Requert for Matcriala Lic.iaa )
Amendment) )
)
-)
cu{xr{t
METORANDUI AND ORDER
l. lnroduction
ln rhis oecisron ur reviow e Prcsoing Oflicr/r lni[C Dccrrion, LEP'8S5. {9 NRC 107
(1ggg). *hidr uphrti a ticcnre em"ndrneilt i3.u.d to Sr. lillmationa Uranium (USA)
corporanon rlusA.). Thc licrnrr rmrnctment afiorirad lus^ to ncrivr, procr:r. erd
disporc of patarEr a[cmdr hod macric hm Tonaunnrtr. Nau Yoil Th. tllC of t.li'h
chathng33 th. Ec.lta amGiltnant rnd now m appcrl laGl€ rcrnal olfi. Prttiling Olfie/s
decisiol Erwiuru of Ut h, lnc", h.! fitcC ang{gO-e1g[t bdrf ruPPoni4g tJbh'r dulEngc
of rhr prc:iti4 olcar,g crcirion. ThG NRC.t lt.ilt lusAruPgOltrro Pnerllu oilfc#r
dGciriill. trtr eflirm lhe dccisaon lOrUr tl.lollt tl gtC bGlow.
. ..,1
ll. Backgrouncl
tUSA owns and cperates a uraniufi ffirll located at Whrt€ Mesa near Elanolng, Utah
Cn May I 1998, tUSA submrfi€d il request for a license amenom€nt to allow rt to rec8ive and
process approxrmatety 25 000 dry rons of uranrum-bearrng materlal from the Ashland 2 Formerty
Ultrzect Srtes RemedratAdion Prognm (FUSR^P) srtc. eurrunty managcd by mc Army Corps
of Engineers and tocated ncar Tonilanda. Ncw York' TI.IG NRC grailed lhe IUSA bcens.
amenctmcnt on Junc 23. lgg8 Uuln fimcly pattttoricd for lcrvc lo antcrvcnc tn thc liccnse
amcncrm.nt proc..orng. On Scpamber 1. 1998. $. Prrrdang Ofificcr i$milltt \lEh as e paftv
to me procecoing $gg tnrcmarionat Uranrum (USAI Corporation (Rccelpt of Matarra frorn
Tona*anda. Nan Yofl(), LBP-90'21. 4E NRC 137 (199E)'
Ar issuc in thrs proceedirg is thc Atomrc Encrgy Agr definrtim o, 113.(2) mernd.
Ocfincct by tho Stiltut! as thc tarlingt or wa$83 profucrC EU tha 3nnrcfim or conclnfirtlon ot
uranlurn or thofium from eny orc Aroc3s*$ primarilv br rlg rourcc mrEntlcontrllt' 42 U S C
g 2014e (emphasrs adctecl). utah antcrprcts thB to mclr ur.l slc Prunary PurPocs for ecquinng
tne orG fiust b€ rn rflt3f3st n procsssrng fre m.tEnel lo rccrycf 0r unnium. Empnasrzrng that
IUSA is berng pad ovcr four million dolE'ri to 'lctM! rhc Ashnno 2 mdcrfl from the FUSRAP
si:r. ut.h .rEu$ rh.t tusA't mcrGn in oE3 hirE IE m3tcrial b'primerily for Peymont of a
ctisposal fec' end not for recavcrrrg any uranium thc matE iC mrEhr connin. Utlh'l APP..I BnGf
(May 24, r999) at 11.
Utan clflairl3 ural dla lha IUSA wrll rtcrivl h $h tr nt.cuon fer rrcccds thc monetary
vatue o, n3 rreniurn tlrich mlght !p crractt(t from nc macrirt. tJufi accofdingly ru9go3t5 lhal
r lusA maclS l srmrltr requestlo rteErvG, proo6t, 1tr dilPolc of_unnium{cenng
marcn3l from uro ,rcarDy AthEnd 1 .t1d s.ilry Ar.. o FUSRAP aE!. TlrA [Onr.
amendment is th€ subt& of e scPryeta f,fnC aii6i66ry (tlockd No'
'O-868r-Ml-A-s) cunon1y nrn in .D.y.rE P.n lilrg th. or13c61tlc d ftfi epprel'
' - -.'4
J
t[e -pfiffi3ft'reason ,usA rs prqcessrnq the rnSt€rr3l rs So tnSt rl can De recl'
ma!6rrai and men drspcseo of at the tusA mrtl srte ..lSeJ'r!l' at 10
ln shon, Utah argueE that the NRC staff rmProp€dy grantsd lhrs licen
because tUSA rs not processrng the Ashlan(, 2 material 'prrmarrly' to recovet
mrntmal uranrum conEnt, but raher tO OBnrn the gcnerous handlng ancl Clasl
emphasEes rhat IUSA'S trCQo3G alncndrnant aPPlic.ttofi flrlrd lO adGquatdy
the m.tert.l w.s to ba'Processco pnmarily'fof its uranium coilGnt Utan tn
objecnye documtnlatrol" lo snou lnat racovaty of thc ur'n'um. nol p'yfn'nl
lusA s primary rotlr3tt Brnn€ nc ucensa emcmment s!9 ulirn's Repry tt
IUSA'3 Brrcfs (JunG 28. 1999X'lJt h's Repty Bftcn at 10' Giwn $ra Akle c
tnc fec IUSA wilt rcccrv. for f.hrtg and Proccttng thG maErial attd lhe Pfot
of thr uranium rhat can De recoverGd. utan dSrtll8 [1i|t utc'only GasonaDts
drawn rS thill mC'pnmary Purpoaa of epplyinE for Ute hCGnlG amcndmcnt w
mrllion <totlar cta3pol.l ft3.' !g.t !l'11.
ln interPnrting nfi.t ir mcent by 5 11G.(2)'3 rcquircmrnt [rat orc At'
for rts SourCA malOftal cotltatlt.' tJtah nli.a hmvrly uPon Lnguagt fi ttlc NF
Gurdence on ll1c Use ol Uranium Mill FccC Mannel OOr.f Th'n N.tur'l Ores'
49'296(scpt.22.1ggs)rAmm.leFccttGurdarrcc.).ThGAtGmacFccdGuir
trccflscGlr to .ffi trr.t thc fbcd matcrial *rll D! 'proctllad trimafily br nc
ur.naum end ft1, lD 6gxr plrP6a.' l$ .l a9.297. Th. Gtrrmc' go" on t
poalblc rry3 a licansca can'iuUify'ltit ct(ilicilbn nd tirad md'fiill i' l
rouree material. Tnc drcc p6libb haon a Lo.n!a. cr'\ ciL tm tntrtc''
nigh uranum f..d c€nt.nt of ttr bed ma!ffral, of dJtcf Efosndh.'Jg' Thro
+
prccgec:nQ lne pan.es sr,arpry nave orsputea lne 0i€3nrn$ cf
"nesa
and otier slaier':e''ts ^ :'-e
Allemale Feecl Gurdance-
Uran. 1gr rnsrance, argues rhar the Gurdonc€ rflctuct€d a 'Certrficalron and Justtfication'
test expressly !o Prohrbrt hceosBes from'usrng a uranlurn millto Process matGnal for the qnmary
purpose of . [rectassrfyinglUrc materi.l to sllo\x il to be dBposeo ol in ulc mrllntlings
rrnpoufldfl,lGnt.' sE uulh'! ApPeal Bricf at 10,12- utat! dalm3 h.t P'oc's$no matcrtd merelv
for the sakc of r$latslfymg it a3 11e.(2) malcfial ia'shdtt proc63'ng.' and that lhe wastas or
mr1 ulrrings g€ncrared from suctr'snam proarssrE cto not mcGt lh3 ctefinitron d 11c'(2)
byprocuct mat.rial Seo]4 ar 10-1r. utah condudc! that lusA {eilrd lo turtfy and document
under fie AlrBrnarc Feco Guicrence .ny satisfaaory or pauraHr groundt to stlor hat lluSel
wils flot ongaE.cl in sh.m proelaJng'' &[ a 11'
ln LBP.9$,5, ne Presidirq oficrr q.ctsd Ureh's "gurfionl!'
'tolrc i! pfoccsscd
prrmarrly fOr itS SOurCt macn.l contcttt,'$etcd UrC Prtt*ling Oficar' 1di'n ltra artraction of
SOufO! marcnal rs fie princrpal rGason for proccrshg thc oo.' rcgar6lc3s ol any othGr rcason
trhrnd lhe hcensee'3 intcrc$ in rcqutnng the maprialof tlrtlng thc ovlrall trans'Gtion' see
49 NRC at 109.
on rhc orhc, h.rd. 0rc prctlding Officrr sqil on to crplirin, 1il, ... thG matcrial wcrc
proccsactt pimanlv to rElloua totllc odLf ruD.tanqlg (vanrdium, EEnium. coal' clc') and me
edracuon of uranrun *er ircirhntet. hGn d1c pfoalgslrlg souts nolhll sr$in ttr rntutory lesr
and rt rroukl ril B! Dygroducl mat3rhl wrthin utG mcanang dnc Atomac Encrgy Act' Tnil E' the
aoverb'pnmrrily.'apPlt)t to t{hl i! ilnoved trom lhG m'tial b{ thc oroct3t and nd lo ln€
motv.rion for undcnahing lha ploci3.' l4 (rmph-ir ad6)' ln 0t. Prt''o'no Ol[ccf3 Yrctr'
.rhe onty .sham'mat dopa mdatial fiom uring DyPtodud mdt'lal b il il i! not acualty millcd' lf
rt rs mrlle6. tren ir rr not a !ngm.' JII at 111 n'6'
l
Tne preSrorng ofiicer founct rnrs rnterprelation of $ tte (2) consrslgfitwrth lhe language
and iegrsratrve hrStor) of tne Uranru(n Mrll Tartrngs Radration Control AA of 1978 as amended
(UMTRCA) He went on lo conclutt€ lhat fi€ 6laff aPPropnately grantd the lrC€03€ amendment
bacauso IUSA -is mrilrng ort'to enrad uranrum anct herelore is'nd rivolvGd in a snam 'Sg9
EL ar 113 The Presrdrng oftiCCr also tosnd m.t utah had masundcrstooo ure NRC AEmate
Feect Guiclance. He rejedeo utah's ctaim that drc GuidencG was rntGidGd to prGvcnt ffi3lerr3l
from DCrng caGgorEed as 11e (2) Dyprodua material rf thc liccnscc's Pnmary cconomic mouve
was to r€cerv€ a feg for lv.ste ctisposal instead of to recover the uranium lg. at 112' 'The
Altemare Feect Gurctance.' ttlc presiorng Oiffrcer 6ultgd. 'ia not aupportivr of thc Posrdon' laken
Dy thc Suta of Ut h. mat matari.l rs to bc comdcrgo byproduct only it 0ll fmary ccondnrc
morrvagon is ro rcmovc uranium rrttrer than to ttirpor of wr$1.'Jsl. under LBP'g{I's,lhcn' tnc
ticansee's unctedytng motlva or Purposc for acqurnng thr merriel in ulG firrl placa B inetevant'
what maners rs lhSt rhr marrrid.cuially is proc6lac through thr mtlllo rccovcr souree
rnatenal
Botn tne NRC safl and lusA cndofsc uic Prcliding oficrr/s condusron3' Thc snff
erplaans mat'lhc Presrrlrng officcr proprrlr aPPlaed urc talrcman fcctll gu'dencrr by focusrng on
whathcr tnc proces$ng flaS Pnrnanly lo anrad uranium.' rcgamh3 Of fny rcommic
moriv.$ons rnvotvGd. sx NRC Snn Oppocrtron to utah ApP..l ol L8P'9&5 r$'ff Briel'xJune
14. 1999) .l 13 (CrnpnaaL a.rhd). TIE lulll aEo $t63aa thrr'[nlrisrrr ' ht8h urnrium content
nor econoflrac prdtatilo irrrquind'rrndcr uxl guiranca,'nillicl prcvil.l &rt. rrPeralc and
a[Gmailve re.Eon! a licanarl cen dcscribc to suppon a Propoaad licarlta rmrndmcnt
rncr,ctrng any numalr of natonr nrhidr rnrgfrt hn wfih nr cargory ol'o0rr gforrnd3.'lrgrg
tnc,ecd, thc stall argu... Sr deftnitron of $ 111 (2) byPfoduct mrt d.l 'hosld f bfo'd Gnough
lo Gfleomp.:r d1ose fL|el cyda acttvtlb! invotvrrg nC pOCesiltg of eugt hifl grilC - wim
A
retatrvery lOw Conc€nlratton Of uranrum - feedstocx i6 al 15 'Utan S anempt lo requrre an
ECohOrflrc motlve test ano to requrre oelarled financral rev€w shoulct be reJedecl,'lhe sEff
urges lc,
Focusrng L/pon UMTRCA's tegrstalv€ hr$ory. IUSA srmilafly condudes lhat al tssu€ rs
srmply wheher the tarltngs anct wastc6 were'Pfoctuced es Pert of $. nudcar fuel ctctc''see
tUSA.s Repry to Utan's Appea Brref ard Envirocrrg'l Amrcul Curiac gnct CIUSA BnefXJune
14. lggg) at g-10 Accorcling to tus.A, those tarlingr arrd wrtto ftom feils procctxscd lo recover
uranium outSrd€ of the nudgar fuClsyClC, 3S rn ? lCcondary or sidc'cgl11m PfoC'"! al a
pnospnate pcovcry opcftttion. woulct not Dc 11c (2) matlrid bcc.uS. th. .crud![EglS]Og was
not [intendectt prrmarrly tor thc Sourct matcrlalCOntcnL ]St But f,'hcft thart lr3 ' lic'mcd
uranium mrll involvect ,'lne only quesuon lo b. .nsuarad.' atgtlG! IUSA 'is thether il ir
rea3onaote to crpcct that urc orc wrlt, fi t*ct. DG processcd flrr the cxrac3ton of uranrum"lg at
15
Whilc not aooptng th. Pnmicting Officrr'D raaloning h rtli cntircty. tlrc Commrssion
affrrms LBP-99-5. for the n.sons ENan Dcloe
lll. Anrlyrir
To ct..r .w.y ! finano5 mltrr. wa murt bficfly comader drc NRC $.ffl detm mat lnc
Ashtand 2 maariel rkB+l.I rrn I 11r.(2) h/Prodtrcr marrial. at an bcfiofc il *el 3't!t to lusA
ano evcn bgrat il rat proo!3lLd. sE $.n Brbt.t t n.l1: 14 n.1* 15 n.19. Tnc rteffs theory
denver from src Dcparrmcnr of Encrgy'r ccrtificetion u1ll01e AshLnd 2 macnal was the
rssrdue of a Menlrattan prcriocl ururiurn ertr.cton protect, and mcrlfoft cotlSttutctl .tailings or
wastr produccd by thC Gfiadlon . . Of uranrum ... fnOln ... ort Pfoc.lt'd pnmanly fOr it3 source
malcri.l cont'nl' within tho mraning of rrcinn 11''(2)' \'1,. tltrd il unnccarery to rgeh thc
- -.i
s:af{ argurnenr Hrsicrrcalry. tne NRc nas fiarnt'arneo rhat rr iacKs reglrarory autnor} cver
uf?firurTl-D€aring materrd, trKe the Asntand 2 matenal generateo at facrfutles nol hcensed on cr
after 197g (when uMTRCA was passed). -E Unrteo Srates Army coms of Engineers. DD-99-
7. 49 NRC 299, 307{8 (1999). No$rng rn lhis opnion actctresses the pre-1978 queslon or
snoutd De unct€rstood to clo so. lnstcad. our opinion re6ts srolely on scaion 11e.(2)'s'Process€d
primarily for its sosrc€ materialcontcnf dausc'
On appcat. Utan tinds u1G Pr.sding Officcrr'firs eno/ lo ltavc bGGn that of having
-rcson[cdt to rnterpretetron of rhc AEA.r€ thc lcgtshtrvG hEtory of UMTRCA in searcirng for
the meanlng of 'primanty proolrr.d lor.- Slg gqa6 Appcd Bricf .t 1 1 '1 2. lngrad. Unh argues
111c prg3,6ang Oflicer shoutct havc foa,rscd onty upoti t1c NRC'! Anlmata Fccd Guioance to
drscem how lhe ! 11e.(2) dcfiniuon at to b. .PPlbd .nd nr.t lll' .t 12' Th' Commtcion'
howeyer, egrees wrth thc Prcsroing oficor th.t ut ! 11..(2) drfinri<n. fifl lt! ttqui'tmenl tnat
maglnal DG'pfim.rily processrd for ils souroE malGniU coltcttl'can onry bc propcny
uncterstood wrthrfi 6lc contGrl ol UMTRCA and iSr LgbLtit'a hi$ory'
Bascd on.n in{epth rcvicr of UMTRCA and It! logadadvr hiaory'an<t dthc Atcmate
Fcrcl Gr,Ioance and ils b.aclground doqrmGat!. tro conrmicion nachat trtt aral 66ttduaons
To begn wrth, lltc GuiclancalEEl appcat 16 coil.md.r .n NRC rtafi inquiry into ' liccnsee s
motives for e ticrnse arflCndr|Gnt.,1lJ3l aS l,Jta t sug(rGat3. ThG Guidancc, for instanca'
exprcssc! a 'col'ptm ul.t waltao ttut *ould hava to D. drPolad of er rdioactivt or m[ect
waslt woutd r pfopo.ad for procr:ring I r rranium mill pnmarily lo b. abL to cliaposs of it in
me 13dirEs ptg er 11..(2) bypfoouci mt!tri.l.' 60 F.6. R.g. 49.2t8 .49,2A7 (S.r' Zl' 1995)
Tnc Guiomc. thur ouilinc. posibE lusnficationf Oral a [eilcG ffiy dctctiDr in rupport of
rhc t6ensG apptic.tion. .nd g1crc arc intsndecl lo assi$ 0rG stlfr'[i$ cHcnnhlng whcthcr th8
proposcd proc$smg ]s primanry for 0p $urc. matafill contm or for drl clisPosal of wasrc ' -[9
8
lndeed, ine requlrement cf a lrc€nsee 'Juslificalron' aPparenlly sterr'rned frorfl i 1993 Fres C r';
ottjcer oecisron whrch questtoned, rn another proceedrng, whetner a Slmpl€ licensee
.cenrficatron. wtlhoul more, woulct adequalety protect agatnst ulterior motives to ctrspose of
wasle.se9uMETCoMlneralrCom..LBP.93.7,37NRc26?,?}3(lgg3xemPhasrsaclded)
Such srstEmentE do not 3upPoft he NRC staffs currGil vir* that under rhe Gurcrance a,
that mane6 rs thtt Proessing for uranrum was intandad. cgrftlless of unclerlyrng motlve' on
lhe contrary. mG sntementg in bolh thc progoa'd errd find Gudencc take aS a given that
processrng for uranium contanl!4! ulhs pfircc. bt[ allo ndicals th'] suc'l proccssittg stlould not
otcmploygctsrmpy33io6110!tonlcffsomatcrlallocnabloiltorclrposroof-er11e(2)
byproctrrct rnatGrlal - et e uranrum mtll :rlr.r At uen hes mardainod' tho'tfon' 01. Atrnatc
Feed Guidanc. crn.rnry can B! uodrntood - er,d is pcrhapo Daat unda.tood -.t r.tl'cring
an intcnt to prevenl matcrril from bring carcaorizcrt a! 1lc (2) EuProdua m.tenal *'hen the
trC€oSet'S overricling economlc motrvo E to rc€Eit'G a EC br r'SL Oi'pOg'
Y€t'a[noughthedraftcrsolthcGurtlerrccrypercrruyinEnd.dtoClbsineuithlnreen
thosc riclnse amcndmcnt rcq.'st3 ur!.re urc rkrnscc'r wrmdrng nl"rtst ir outairung urSorurTl
and thosc wncrc p.ymeni for 66Potal ir clnvirp th. retBec$on. mc NRC 6ufi 'Pp'r'ouy
has
not consi3ten'y utrlzed t11.c Guilanc. h this ray. Whilc thc hngu{r of th' Gurtlencc may
suggastfi.tatacarr!.c'amciu.ti.rnrarGED.lCn^citlaz.d.prrrrt.'n'1rc'ghcd'urcNRcstatt
r tn fd. r,han ur. Guiranct m! fiar proporal. ft T w.t a dG$ri6ion ol nm ounorE
of tory-tevGl of mild rr..8, firdttg Utc higl;$l gf Otsqil' mightfinrl il."rcry ilractv'' to
'p.y . mdl oPtrEtd .uocLtlti.lly lG" t;"?* me {!r'd! tsr ru rrarium cont8tr and
oispor. of Ir r-.rn"giTi.irr'ry.".1: t.rnct iran rc P', t& Crpo"l tl ' lotx-hrvd or mrxed
w.src hcrtity. s33 -uin umiu Faotit;.i.q,.., 1or ti6. comnrcntg m Gur6iltlc' on th'
usc of Uranium M6 F*,6 Maarrle6 Odt;-Td ia,rtaf Ot!..' 5? F d' R'e' 20'525' 20'533
(May 13. 1sl2)CPtopos€d Gt/tdanc.')- iha Propo*d Guilanca had'o sudr ratr!ffi1'nl
.3ha.6rspor.rt.. arnr imprirrr n r -*ouo;;;I--,h.-d.firtt n o, 1r..(2) typ.oduEt maGnal '
!g at 20.533.
i-
9
typrcally haS nor ierr€d sPoo such pfoDrng revrews Of lrCensee rnOllves lt has not been ine
stalf s praclca, for erampte, to requrre lrc€nS€€s ess€ntrSlly lo 'pfove'quantltatNely or
omerwrse that me v?tu€ of the uranlum to DO recovered from a Panicular liCensrng 3Ctroll wrll
ouMeigh other econofirc fs3Sons tor fie u?nsaclion. Se9,!g', UMETCO' 37 NRC al274' 281'
82: SUff Bricf at 15-'t6. Sinca the Guirtanca waa fir* l$urd. it sccmr, uren h's ocen li$c
conncction b€twccn what thc Guidance scGmrngly ?tOpOOa and wlnt lh' Etaff n rodily has
requrr€O
fnrS fact nas promPled illG Cqnmrsson on til! apprd to t'l(. 'n irH'Prh |ook 'l the
Gr;rOancc and rtE policy remficetrot't3. VlrC find firt u1a aPPannt rol'fi3 h tm Gurdlncr lo hav€
the slafi scrutn,zc thc monvcs bchmo trc litnla amandmant ranslcuon ra nai0[r comP'llecl
Dy thc ctatutory lrnguege or n6$fy of UMTRCA nor rtflrctj rognd potcy' Orr rcvrew of
UMTRCA and rts lcgisl.tiv. nistory confirms ul Prc.ldirp oficr/r condu''on thl tt'
reQuifctrlGrlt u1at matcrial be'proccrsco pfimanly lor ilr ror.rrcr mate ic contenf rnosl logrcallv
refcrt to ulg .dual ad of procc.iing lor uranium or tlEnum withrn u1G @u,!c of tha nucEar fLrel
cyctc, enct clocs not Dcar upon any otLf unct.rlying a'hitsar'iltucs uld m.ght br clhvtng the
ovcrall ran3adlon
As ,rr. d.rcnpe in furg1cr daarl bclou, Ur prrpora bGhirid thr ronling of S 1lc (2)'s
ctefinr$on scrvcd. (r) ro Grpan r frc typcr of matariats h.r proparly coulrl br dersifid es
bypfoduct mod.t (2) to meta dCatOLt rvrn frccEtodr coil.lnrE lG3E Ol.n 0'05l}t sourcs
m.rcnrt cadd s|.[f, a Drgtuluct mderiet: end (3) to asslr! U1at ulG NRC',r lurMiaon 0lo nol
croro or.r mEo rrivitict unlllatxl to El. nuaaar li.td ryd.. Th. luSA li?'n.. mlndmont 's
cmastlnt wrtn tnols sLurtof, htrtltiona. ragrrdba$ of umdrcr lusA'l b'ge'f imrnsl wer
paymcot for uring thc m.tcri.l or pryncnt for ur tlcorrcrld unniun' lndGad, lvcn rcccpting
urah.s daim tnat u1c four million dolEf p8ytYrcil lusA conmciGd ro rG€iva for prcccgstng and
d,sposing cf lne Asnlano 2
IJ
FUSRAP site matenal was Ine Pnmefy ffiolvStol for lnis iransa;i :-'
th€ !zrrrngs generarec from ffie procrssrng c3o Stril property De crassrfie{ a5 $ 116 (2) byprodi-ct
materral
UMTLCAg PurPoses ancl Histon
It may be helpfullo ouuanc a mrb ol uMTRGA'5 lcgrslalrvc tuslory ancl. rt1 panicuar' now
rhe s 11e.(2) dcfiniuon cam. about UMTRCA hel two gmcral go'ls' (1) Pfovrlinq t r'medral'
a6ion progr.m to sraoilizc a16 conror milruilingr el veriqrr id€ntirlGd rnactivc rnrll satct. and (2)
ass.Jnng tn. actequat€ raguraron of mirruarhtrgs et acwr mr[ srtco, borh dunrg proce.sng ancl
ater operauons ccascO. AS ficn charmar HGn6m olrrc NRC uplam'd to congrrr' mc
agency at rhe timc ord not havc Glirccs rcgulatory contrc orcr uranium mitl Lilitfa Tho wings
rh€mseryes werG not sourca m.tcrirr .ncr dd nor fafl imo any otlr cilaeory ol NRc liccnsaolc
matcria Thc NRC erercised sonlc contrd ovcr nrlin€[. but ollt, andirccdy ar parl of he
commissroo's lrc!ffiinf, of ongrcing mdling oPcr.ltidlL 0116 ogctroont o'a"d' howl'!r' lhE
NRC h.d no fudhcr jun*ficfron or.r t iling[ Thir recrdtd h doaltlt of aDandonrd or
-orph.ned' mrll tarhn$t Pill!
To prevcnt futufro abandonxl rnd unnguh3ld tallingp glcc. congtBs 'fticlcd
thG
11r.(2) cttfrnrion, rnicn trpildy dacLrt(t millt ilho. lo Dc e funn of byprodud mat!flal' A3
chaarman Handri. rrflancd, tllilituia arc'fidtly ngatdad n u.ltll mffii'b from tlc mrllrng
opcraton,' ha !I pfopacd d!finilitn roultt caaaify trult ll E Product mirnd lhcl thus ma'!(e
rhem raccnlaDb und.r n AEA undcr dr rrcw s r1..(2r ocfinnixr, chrrnnan I'Lndri.
cmphe3rz.c. l.|filpl gcrcr8tctl tludrrg unnium milirle oParaion! woud'lormrlly bc byProousts
11698. H.R. 13229. H R. 12938. H R. 1253!t. H.R. 130a9. and t{'R 13630' (hcninaltgr
l.
'UMTRCAhearrngsl')Su'DcommOnEnergy&Power'HouseCommCnii:tersialeEFcreqr
cornrnerce. g5" Cong 2ffi Sess at 4oo (1g78xstatement of JoePh M Henorie, cnarrman
NRC).
At rne ume Congress ctrafrcd UMTRCA. lhe Envrronmcntd Protearon Agcncy hact some
authorrty over uranrurtl firll tailrn$s undar ma R..oqrca conservation and REco'c/y Act of 1976
(RCRA), but EPA had no authority ovcr thc mrlhng whrcfi gcntrat.d the hrlings Bv
ctefinrng rniltErting3 rs a byproducil ffiiltlfiSl. thr nm 11r.(2) defrnilion removecl milltailings
from RcRA's cov.rag. stnce RCRA exclrlClCs all sourca. ByProdtrt. and sprcrel nucls'r
malrnal. This erclusion from RCRA rar inrmCcO to mintmizC lny 'dud rGgulittrofl'of tarhngs
by borh EPA and rhc NRC. Clrarfinan l'lGndriG St€gc$rd lnil 3incr 01' NRC rl'crdv ngul'teo
rne sita.specrfiC ddarlg Of uranium mrtl*rg. it 3CGtnaC looiCel for Or NRC to rcgul'tc lhc
treatmcnt and crirposel of tairrng'whrch wa p.rmamd lo b. gEnc'utd rn tlre first placc" Jg' at
3p;243.
From thc legrsla&ve ha$ory. rc can gLan e frrr cqldu$q1t abotd u1G a6lJA torctrng ol
rh. 11o.(2) ctefin&on. A3 ongrn tty propGcd. trtG d,cfinttto'l of 11c.(2) byprodua m'rn'l wa6
ctrfcctly lrnlred lo tne commiorion'! c.tinioon of lorrrca tnatGn'l' Ttn orginal dcfinfim rcfeneo
to -the n turally occurnng €ughlafr of unnir.rm lrd thonum founO in d'lC tad'ngC Of flasto3
producect by ihc crradion of coltomredm ol rrranirrn o' &orrum fromlcals-@ElE!3!
deEneE in tFanl-SG0n-Ilf;et' But Chailmar Hqtdrb rat co'le!'nGd thar a dcfini0on of
byproduct mrrid Eil t'ra [nl(Gd to urat ol rurcr mLrial rctld ududG orc! con[inhg
o.o5% or 5!a d uanium or 0torhrm.t lh proposoc 0lilt iL langu.eo br roviOd to 'fronr anv
r -sourcc maeriat'ha3 DcGn dafrnad by sra Conrmi$inn to Grdudc oreis @llSillnrng less
man 0.05jt ol ursoiutll or thorium. 10 G'F'R' S 4O'''
- ..v
1'l
ore proc€Ssed primanty fOr rts scurce materlal Conlenl.' HiS discussrofi rvrlh CongreSSman
Drngell Yuent aS follows
Mr Hendrre: The Commisgron rg informe( that ll1erG arc a fet mrlls
crnerruy usrno feectslock of less then 0 05 pcrccm utanaum.
As hrgn graO. orss becomc scarccr, tl'lcm m.y br r gnarr
incenttve rn the future lo lurn lo 3udl low gre(E m3tctlaF.
since:uchoperataonssnouldblcorrr*lbyrnyrcaulrlory
regme ovQr mil tallings, the Commisslon Uoulo 3ueEGn ili|t 01.
ctcfinrtion of byproctuCt matrnd in H.R. t33E:l be revrsct to rncludc
rarlings produitd by cxtr.clon of uranaurn or tlprium from any
orc process€d pnmanly for itr sourcc matcrial contcfrt
Mr Dinqell. I am cunoua why yorr iIrclud. Ir thet trc urcrd 'Pro€$ad.
pr,mafr-tor 3oura. m.tcri.t coilent. Tncrt arc dnar oraa thl ala baarlg
procegtod 0tat cto conEin fiOrium rnd uflnrum n amourila ancl I
assumr rqual n yaluG to thocl yos .r. drarr3ilp lrcrc. 13 dlcfc atYy
re.lon why wc o€ht not lo glyG you trtc tiltllC as0tofity u/t0l ll€[rtl E
thosc 01e3?
!4!!gII!!!'l:TheinterrtofUil!Enou.g.Itol(t.pNRC.crCgul.tory
autnonty pfimanty rn $n fidcl of $rc nudcar fid Crda. Not to rnrnrl
thir our rnto $ldt Urin$ at Pho.Ph|t. minrng rnd pc'rhapc ctGn
lr'rtcttollo mrning urhr€fr .rc opcftltions that do clittufb 0r radium-bcering
cnrsr of rhc Earth artr producr tome crposurB3 but tlocc oorr acuvitic!
are not conn.d.d *ith thc nuclcar fucl cydo'
UMTRCA Hcanngs l.l 343.{4.
There wene. mcrGfo(!. tuo pflnclpal intcntronr bcnind clrairman l{qxlria'3 propo$d
tanguagc. r,hadl congfs.r @n,(, Frrtl, UL 11..(2) ddlnition r.s intaldG.l b rlilrdi cven
-lor grede. lbodrbcr widl lca olan . O.Gi% conofimarion of unniunr. Sacorld. thr drfinrton
wes intlndao E mata lu't ur.t 0p NRc'r iurildiclion ci! nc apartd imo rnr no3 ttttlrtionatty
part ol rtrc NRC'r cornrol ovrr thr'n,tdaer fucl cyco.' Tlr rltlinilrqr frrftfolt lbqrrr rrPon
uranirrm milting mstai'and nC. fot rrempb, upo.t thc rasEr fom phciphafa orc procarsing
wnisr aj3 rt*) coo1,1min tcd wi0r amatl qmnmior of rraioraivt cStnGntt. ![ a 35a fscdton
Dy sccr|on Anarysrs ot H.R. 133S2 Ar RrvirrO Ey NRC Rcconrmcnrlal lenguaoc cnangcs')'
tl
Srrnrt:ltly, 11e (2) materlal was notloencomPass uranlum mining wasles DeCauSe, as Cnarman
Hendrre erplatnect. 'lwJe Oon't regulafe mrnes The mrnrng rs regulatect by lhe DePanment of
Labor uncter other regulatons so our rtefinrron wet 6rawn lo mirotili0 mat and to keep us oul of
the mrne-regulatrng bu$ne3s.' l4 at 401.
we fino, tnen. tnat uic s l1e.(2) &firuton foqscd upon whethcr th€ Pfocess $€fl€raun!
the wa$es w.s uranrum milftng wrthrn thc coursc otolc nudrer frrl cycffl As Chairman
Hendrie made clear. lhc conolntra$on of 0u uranrum of horrum in tlle fecdstodt wa! not a
ct€termrnst,ve fador rn *heth€r Bre resuttirE nlings rhoultt ba consilcrcd 11c.(2) flrilcrral The
focus wes not on the vdue of lhc enractett uranium bd on fia acttvlty involvcO-
ln short, utG s l1e.(2) dcfini&oar foqrscs r,rpon slrc.Etggltl th:il g.ncfatad lhc fildrosclve
wa$a3 - trc rtmovil of urarum of tlotium as pan of drc nudc'l frJel cydc' s!'JlgeGgc
Chemrcat Coro. v NRC, !n3 F.zd 1. 7 (D.C. Cir. 19e0). But UMTRCA doCc not GQurft lhal tn€
martct votuc of ttlc uranaum rGcot,Gfcd bG tnc lacttlic{B't prectonrnant anrrta& enc u1us
UMTRCA docs not rcgul]c rr,! NRC to as$rG u1irt no o0rcr inccntivcr lio bchincl thr liccnsee s
intercst in proc..sing matcnrl for uranium. Thrrr rmCy ir no rcasorr uncler UMTRCA why
trcensccs cennot havr sorard motivr for r rryrrecrirr.'That IUSA'3 prirnary gpel here may
. Scg3El$ rg lttt?.tjt6... s}3 F.zd d 7 $rtl,ll !l. coun sugEp3tcd thet nc rcrd
-pr,manryT-m-g t tc (4ffi could E rra6 to rflaan 'rrrbrtrnthlly,' and thur tlp titlrogs
fio, rn..oP|lddon daor.r€a rnai.ml rnt raro Catfi could sSill b. dc.tncd 11..(2)
uyproouct ;c.|ic !o tong a!!03 of lr€ rG.ronr br prccGrng the oflras for cxtractng
tiir"r muill Tht coit'r rmsonng in K.rr-[lcco. ir consartenl rith thc UMTRCA hrstory
whrctt rcficctt nA f h.. lo'lg bc.n tl c.aa, for ir3lrcl, tr!.tlegt vimi[ium and unnium
mrght bc G[ractrd dudr€ r roccrsiq of metcdrl. and lndccd ilat th. .rnount of rccovcrablc
van.ct[rm m., YG|Y lil(Gl, b. mudt gtt.Lrfian oul otrr. rrcouarablc uranum' s!t.t-g .
UMTRCA Xririrpi I .S i55 (nh.r pnvin cofnpany rrproecrarg manrid w..-crracu(82 11
pounds of veneoiim for evcry % Wfi of unnim .rrrcld); !.. a!!9_ UMTRCA Hllnngr ltt rt
136 ft\ro rlcoff .. eeolrt 1.boo'pand! r day of uranrum. aboul4.m0 pout€. of vanadium')'
Thcrc w.t 6€vor.ny r{rggFrtion in rnr frgrAam finory ota ilm amosrtr or Yalua of 01.
vanactium provctt nrgncr-than ma of thc rrnrium' uc nilingr coultl nor b' catagori&d '511c (2) UyPro<lud m.ten.l.
. ,.,
lr.t
have been lte four filrllroo doilar paymen: iOr Oisposal rnsl€3d of polentral profit irom any
recov€r3Dt€ uranturn ooes not rn and of rtself prevent lho lSrtrn$s generated from the mrllrng
process from lattrng wrthin tm ! 11e (2) definilon. Moreover, as we touch uPon funh'r b€low
mahrrlll such purely economrc consicterauons a ctetcrminatrvc pan of thc shff3 rcvrcw woulcl
u6otcgSSinty oavcrt agcncy resourcies to rssuel unndat d to puolG health ancl safety'
The Neett for Rcvrsrng lhe Gurdllct
tn thrs liugahon, utah and th3 other p.rt6 foq,rrd nd upon uuTRCA.ricl tll l.gtslalve
hritOr!. but spon the NRC'! Alemrtivc Fccd Gurdrn€a. ThC COrnmirrrm' l|ox(fl'r' t! nof
bounct by tnc Guadanc!. Lil(G NRC NUREGS an<l Rcgumory Gutd6. NRC Gurtanca
ctocumcnls arC rqu1nc a$g6cy poliry prgnounomrents drat (b ng3 €ny nC Blding efrct of
regutarions. gec. gg,. Curarors of thc Univcrcrtv -of Miltouri. Cu'9$1. 41 NRC 71. 149 (1995)'
tnrernarional Uranium (uSAl CorP (Wtilc Mec. Urrnium UilU. LBP'9?'12,16 NRC 1. 2
(lggTxrefcrng rpesfrcafly to finatAflern.rc F.d Guidanc! a3'nontanding snft Euldance')
such gurdancc documcils mGrcty @nsttutc NRC rtaff.dYica on onG ol morl possrbl€ melhods
lic.nsrcs may usG to mGct partrcuEr regulatory requiremcnf- Sff'-lS'. Thc Curarorlgl me
Unrversrry of Mistg$r!. cu-9$1,41 NRC 71. 15O E n.121 119911); P$4i9n for Emc7qcncv ano
Ramc<rrat Acrion, cLt-7g€, 7 NRC aoo, a{E{)7 (1978): Coaruncn P*gr co- (Elig ROCI Pornt
Nuclcar Ptant), AIA&72!, 17 NRC 5&L 568 n.10 (19t3); Vcrmoni Yenk?cludrer Porcr
Com (vennqtyrntrr Nucrrr Porrr Snuon). CU-7a{O. EAEC EOg. El1 (1974). Trrssc
gu'da., hffitfi cc ,ld orsnrtvcr h.vG rhc forca d tleulrtiom to, tlE, do tlot imPore eny
addi&onal lcgd roquirCfirofit3 upon liCGtlSGG3. Ucenrcc ntmaln ltfr tO s$ oollf 'nc'nt rc
accomprish rhe same rrguretory olt cr1v1l. sl-u. IAlg6ncy irrt rpcrndona and polkiesZrr
not .catuad an 3tonG' bur rauEr muSt bc rubiea to rHvalsaoqrr of thcir wrrdqn on a @n&nurng
'(
casrs ' K3nsas Gas & Eleg Cc lWoif Creer Generat;ng Stat'cn unrri1 49 i\RC 44i 46C
s37,863€4).
Accor(trngly. rt ha3 long bcen an estabhshd Flinopc Of admrnrEtratYC law lhat an
agency is ftcc to choos. smoflg permislible intcrpreEbns of nc goT eming rntutl' and that at
dmes nry interpreta$ons may npr?tant r sharP shift lrofll pnof agcncy Ylcg|s of
pronouncements. Chevron, 467 U S. at &12<S, 862 (19S.r). This b permrssible so long as the
ag3ncy gtves'adcquate reaSOnS for changltlg coursc.' Enrirocarc of Utah v' NRC'- F 3d-
No. 98-1a26 (o.c. cir og-.22.1ggg). strp o9 at 6 Givcn th.t (1) th. dBputld gonron3 of tne
Atternate Fecrt Gurdanca .r. nor dcnvd dirrcty rrom uMTRCA or iB nidory: e) nc Gudance
app.rcnuy hes not bccn @n3astttltly.pPli.d h thc mrurGt pmpocctl Et O: St'lG of [nah; (3)
rhe prcc,sc Grms of tnc Gurctrncl .rG not entiraty dcer (F t.!3..'olhGr groundl')i and (4) lhc
commrssron berieves that ht,rd adhac.ca ro urc apprrent inEnr of d'c GuicEnca *oulcl lead tc
unsound polrcy Gsults. ulc cotnmi$ion dedirps to bllow il hGra am wiu ruqu'G thc NRC staff
to reyrsc rt 03 looo ffi Fr.ciieEb't
Scvrnl Policy re.sofi! sJppoal dcpaning trom tha Guilencr' Fint frr NRC'r suilutory
mrssion rs public hcalh anGl $fcty. our nguhtiom GstauBn comprchcnsivc critcro for me
poss!3son anct dispocal o, t 1C.(2) bypfoduct m.lulal untlr NRC or Agnrmrm Snr
jurisdrcoon. sll 10 c.F.R PrlaO. AppardirA" Tlrc criEna ucr! dc'iJlLd to ilt$rrc tne safc
r ThG comfirllron hil pulr,rtgrtod no rcguliltiu'l impbmcnting ttp Guilanca' Thus lhe
Commssion'a rairAi<Xr Of na Guarlfncr Oo6 nol p|l.cnt e ritrrtiqr *fAErG thc Commlss'on n's
anc6d .3rJddenty .J g4$fgtp tod.d ,rncrprahonr {-p *O neuLllont'-JISE$
n"ro*,rc.r oct n..'cii@EE Ing,6ss-F2d ?!.3! (D'c' crr' 19E:l)' Scc oeneralh
Svn.o, tn,'t Co- L@ (O C. Gr. 1997[ Parat?ad Vqmrans of emcnca v
O C Agtna L P . 117f3d-iZ9 trggZt. ..iu d"t,cd. 523 U S.IOO3 (199E): Unitcd Tccnnotoo'cs
cerp , EPA, E2r r 2d71a (o c- clr. 1987).
l6
6rSpOSSl Of Durh materral wngse pflmary radr6logrcal Cgntamrnaltofl r5 uranlurn' thonum' anO
radtum in low CollG€flll3trons But whether the concentratlon Of ufanium rn ths feeclslod<
matena 15 o5E% or OoE% - lh. inrtrat hrgh anct low esilmates, respcctiY€ly. of thc Ashlano 2
mat€n.t ba3ect upon samPl€! tal(en - has@ impea uPon thc gcnGral apPlicabilisy and
adequas,y of mG agensy'! rcailh and sd.ly ltandard3 fof di3potal of 5 11G'(2) matcnal' Yet' rn
u.n.3 vicw, whctlcr ma aclual urtrniuftr concamrapn Provcd !o bc 0561or OoE% coulcl well
oictilta wh€ther thc r$umng t.rhngs approprrataly coulct bG d.!5i[G6 a3 s 11G.(2) mat'nal ancl
rcgul.t d bY thc NRC-
utan.s rntGpnstariofi thuc clivrctcr byproducr marrial urto two tlifirrnt regulatory camps
b.€cd solcty upon m.rlci-orbilao hcto|!. i c.. tttG clpccEc pfoft trom rllirr Gcovsrerl
urtoiutlr ycrlui .ny ohar.conomrcafiy acfuinll{rou. arpadr of u'ta hcltltc amandmant- ut'h
emphasaE3. for cramp|3, rr.r rt .har mt otrircrst to 3c\rcfirl tlusAl an fTlfL llcd hcense
amenctment requ6tt whGrg th€ wa$G fn3Lnal contehGO [E6afr 'moumtl
of urenrun'' 1fge
Ureh's Pctirron lor Revrtw o, LBP-99-5 (Fsb 2!, 1990) at 9 n'to' Frorn r hcafi end 3af'ty
pcrspcctive. tnougn. $rrrr L no rcaio.'l to pfo|tut IUSA ho|ll ditpo'tne of nilimr m'tcrd In rts
dispo3al ceps sotcly on accctultt s(t,c fcc<tJocr h.yittg e lot* rrranium concgltraim or lower
m.rk.l y.lric Ct r(rn{l59eF, 8O3 F 2 'f 7€'
Second. g1r Gurdrnca. il apgarrd aa orpn.ll, intottdGd, would caat tla NRC sefr inlo an
inapgfopflata toL, conalcritg Pd.txtau mulu'frcaxt inquiri3r into n' fnancic antactivcnsss
of transaaiol Thl ad?arnriely tould nG.o to hor bdind an'l vfifr 3!nty ilrcttbn aDout
mG .conomr lbdO6 motY.ling I fo0oaad erocceling d mdf,Ll - ln unllqtfllry 'nd
wartcfut ust of limted agmcl ;|aornpe.. il a drna whan 0l conrmbrin incrceriw lta
- -.7
li
movedawayfromperformlngeconomlcs.orlentedi,ev|e$,Slhathavenodlrectbearrngonsafety
and are not speofically requrrsct by congress'6
tn actctrtron the NRC seehs to regularc efficicnuy.
'mporng
the least amount of burdens
neces&lry to E rry out Our Public health anO safGty mission' Yd' ag u1rs procrdrng rtsef
demonstratc3. thc Alternatc Fcett Guidanco'r rJnrxGldy'caftiticaton .'rl Justrficiruon'lest lends
rtseil casly to Pforacttd tlisPrr*e ar'o'€ trr NRC5aff, itltG,vtlxtnt, antl,tc lienscc ov.f SuCh
issu' rs how rnucn ilr licenscc wi['rcall/ prollt frorn lcllhe racov.rcd uranium' *'na lnc
hcansee's 'brg$ct, motvea may Lr. atc. All$'! efion a'rd il'noon rflrpoSot DUrdGn3 On lhe
panics whrb ctlraarng from our cailml mssk)n - radiologicel $hty'J"t" assufine mal there
ar. no consttualt! in tlre a|tam.tc frrd matadal tld Todd p|..l''nt ite mill from complyrng wilh
a[ applic.bn NRC ncatn ancl sefety rsgulatiolls'
Nor is it inconcrivaDrG 0r.l ltcntual PoEnrt'l chrrrgo h m matrdgli'ot coulcl impaa
wheher poftrcullt mlerral mrght fa[ withh thG S 1rc.(2) Grfinition onc ycat bd not th' ncrt'
merely on accouil of somc ncu mall(.t facror furdy 'eommic
f'Gtoni' m 3no|t ctoulcl not
dererm.nc how r*rioactivc matarhr i! dcfinc6. yvtarhaf rusA ra. psrd s'sub6emd.r .um.' as
utah cmpha3Ett. a nomn l 3um. o|, iLd to pay a sutn to rcquin $' AsttLnd 2 matcfial hae no
Dcanr€ on health and sa'.tr a$.a. tllGr.foft,dri' it nd aPg'oPri.ltly t,ll Commissron's
concrm and arso snoqr6 hauc r,o Earng on u,h3th.r thc rceuling tauirr$ rr..t hG stilutory
ct:finitron d uyprodua meicriel undt t 11r'(2)'
lrlfiah I may b. trl!, .3 lftrn $at .. s1a3 f'tiGn cqrgnss onacrd UUTRCA there was
no thougt[ d usal'g oGite .Gtit,. ut niun mr|tt ro F!c"' utl drpocl d imtt3rid cGsnup
. See. Eg,. Finrl RuE, EnvironqcnEl Rauau for Rmc*a ol NrJdcar Powcr Plent
opcr.rine Liccnrct.;iil-h.s i!,.u,l,ii'.* iiq" 5. riiii: Gnrer cer e Enc' co' (Vvotf
clii oinirarmg srrion. unil 1-). cLt-9$,19, .t9 NRC..r 1t9lt9l-
^
i8
waste lrom FUSRAP Stte5.' U13h'S Repty Brref al 5, several Congressm€fl drd elPress an
rot€r'St rn having pnvare corporations take and reprocess materrars as a means to ofhet the
feoerat government's ulumate cftspolxll cocts for cleaning up uMTRC'{'s dcs€nated Title I SrtES
E,gg.uMTRCAHearingsonFl'R.13382.H.R12938.HR.12535.andH.R.13049
TUMTRCA Hearingr ll') Subcomm. on Enorgy t the EnvirottmG'lt. Hou$ comm' on lntenor &
tnsubr AffeiE (1978) at E2 (.telemcnt ol Rcp. Wearcrx3oflic'C!mprn|.s might bc inEresEo tn
shanng rnc cost of *abilrzation of terrings n rilum lor eccets to mincrarr romarning rn thc
prlca.) 7 Thcn Chairman Hendnc voic*t m oqcdion. $iling $.t'ffthcy *antto ltptocrtgs lho
prring to makr . comprctt rccov.ry of rrc resourof sLra. l think hiil is finc from a conaaftauon
$anctpomt. lt aEo ptlts $l.m b.ct in 0r laivr btr$n!3! of milling'' S! UMTRCA Hcarings tt
ar 82.
Herc. tho Asht.ncl 2 matcnal h.r bccn approvcrl for prccring end di3poaal. and tltc
resuling byproduct matcrial wrll bo dilposatl of nrauern !o 0te s'mc ncalth aml safrty
stancrarcts rhat agpry ro.ny ottrcr rle.(2) milriar rn an NRC{icattr.d mil[ 10 c'F'R' Pan 40'
AppenOir A. Though utah may br clisatisfic<t uth tror tElrd"tle, 3n adiudicato{y proo!'chng
is nor rh. eppropnat! fonrm ro conten gcn fic NRC ,lquirOrnonts Or rrgurrtions. sgg'Js ,
oiJke En€rgr Comorilion (ocorc Nud6r sntbn. Unfir 1. 3, art1!3). CLI'9+'11' 49 NRC 32E'
334 (1999).
wc ril. dderon[r, dLlaatly in uro roccctliq lJrah crpnesrrl conEc|n thel thc
Ashr.nd 2 rnilric, cofir.,r ro 0! NRC nrlh finoirgs, pcEauy containad hr.cl ltserdoss
, stldgl, t-g., uIITRCA H.-.tings 1 aqtl !*T- rntlrnrnt of Rcp' Johnson)'
F{cerines on s.3md3.so!a,'_."c s.rylTuMiicA rirU,rr rrrl Subcomr: fr Encrgv Proo
E Suppty, Sone. C;;. On Enrrgy e GLrar Rreo,ru (f a7t) a 5e (narmrm of Sctt'
HegcllXrf privaE carnP.nl6 rGprocaltGO loma of tr. nilhe3. tfl Uould DC rlgl&ilCc undcf
tna NRC'c r.gul.tlmt).
-- .';
l9
vyaste But whrl€ lhe accuracy of tne tlcenEe applicstron can apProPrrately b€ the suDled cf an
aoludrcatron. notwrlhstandang staff findlngs h€re subsequent events ha,e reno€red utah's
nazarctous wasle concern moot. Followrng ncgotiattons wiln IUSA and. afiCr antlyzing
rnv€strg4rons anct oara from the Asnland 2 srta, ut.h formally wrthclfcw ils allcgation lhat fie
Ashtand 2 materrat may connin tisred hiueroout wastc.Sgllutah't ApFcat Bncf at 3 n'2'
tnstead, atthough U13n iS uPlet rhet thc sraffs allcgrdly'aGianty'rrvier took only'abost s{x
weetrs,. its orn r.yrcr feilc<l to un@ver any aftE !r in drc rrefl srdusim ulat lllc matGnal
contains no li$ect hazardou3 wasta. utrh's remaining gpnGfalrzad complalrlt tboul ho* thc staff
rcacncd it3 concluspn as not a lit'gablc issr.re, grvcn ulat utah nor @neu'! w|d1 cn *efls
conclusion and no lonEcr.llega3 0u prc$ncr ol eny [.qt haafllouS l.lstl'
Neventretess, suclr dt3prrt3s aboul [lc p{llGnca ol hazsfttor.a wrtr rrt hlcty to recur.
and 111c rssuc is a significent onc, rmpricatng urtrG concam3. (r] posEruc trca[n ancl safcty
rssues, (2) lh. Poten&al for an unoaSarabb. compler NRC-EPA'drnl rlgultlbn' of th. 3.fit'
tarlangs impounctmenr. .nd (3) m. pornB.t lor teopardizing uc ultiftlto rrrnlbr of thr bilrngs
prlG to th. U.S. goycmmcn1 for prrprrurt crrrtody and monEnancr' Sol grnrrlttv UMTRCA'
Tiile tl, g 2OZ (Scction el of fic AEA,. ln vr.r ol our tlrcirion trlri [rc Altl natc Fecd Guioance
rsqurres revision to refiCa our clccirion on tho t1C.(2) fffinititn, f,a wi[ tlincr U' $'ft to
considcr whethGf thr Guitlu eEo rtroutd ba fwiaad tr inc[rr mon ddinilivr rno oolcclrvc
requirancnE q' tGnr to .tsutt fial lbLd ha&rdoua or toric Utt|t ir nol P|l$nt rn tha
propo3ro fLd ltatarbt urG nott, lbr rrempr. 0rrt rn a lrclil lac.ns. .rn ndm.nt proceeding'
rhc prcriding C)ffccr dcdand it lrnply 'impos*bb'for him lo':ulqrurn drc balr br ftc Snff
ctctcfrnination nat ua maria B no[ trazartnrs.' tmamaioner Ureni-m (usAl cor?- (lMrao
Mesa Ur.num Mrll). LBP.97-12, $NRC 1. 5 (1997). SimilarU, in ano$cf cat'licf pfoeecOmg'
lnc presrotng offrcer bund th.t uto 'sdfr ncr guitencc for otafinitiltg rtrctficr fccd matenat
_ /.-
l0
rS a mrred [or hazardous! waste app€ars confusrng,' and accordingly Sugge$ed thsre ba more
.specrfic protocol3 to ctetermine rf anemate feec matenals contarn hazardous comPonents"
UMETCO, 37 NRC al 2go-g1. Tne commrSsron concluctes that thrs 6sue tarants funher stafi
refi nement ano $anoarcltzSuon.
ln conclurron. aPPlymg utc commission'a $atulory mefPfEultion of $ 11c'(2) bypoduct
marcrtat. tnC Commission fu, dr mat 01G IUSA licsnsc amrndment properly wils rs3ued and mal
tnc nrrlltartrngs at rssur do constilur ! 11e.(2) byproduct mdrnal From thc infonnetion rn the
reeoct. w€ bctaGrc th.t it *.s reironaolc for th. NRC st ff !o haYG condudat n:& (11
pro€cssing *oulct t.r. pl.ce, and (2) uranium rcdd bc recoverctl fronr thc trG- tjtan ilsdf nat
admowEdgect that'[rtn frrc! Clifbreftr esdmatGs. Uil(Gn from DOE Cbem'mr' dlr rcnqe
uranrum content of urc marnd r.nged froril a hoh d 0 Ostr b a rou d o.m8r.'slg utah'f
Appcat Bng( 14; sec ello utah's Bncf h oppoalion lo lusA'! Liccnr Amcndmrnt (o'c 7'
1998)CUE r'r BriCl in opporrton').t 8. end AnadltnGil at 7€- Utalr'r oln 'xp'llc$imateo
lnat up to $617.000 rcrth of uranium mrgtrt bc rccovcrcrt from orc AatlLtld 2 merriel- Sce
Ufan's Britf in Oppo$ton af t, end Atracttmcflt a g. utill'l'! ptimtry argumrnt dl 'bng
has
D.Gn 16.t fie mondary valr of th. rlcoverEd rrranrum woulo ba mucrr lmr $rn 013 4 mtllon
dotlrr p.yment lusA uoulc nc.hra. !9I fi31 no tours! macnal would b' ncot'tlttd hrough
troorssrng. sll, is., !dr, AEachmcnt at 9 $,n fl Lltlh'l crpcrr lt'Gt$d th'l utc valuc of the
uranrum.23! [rr could Er rxredad fron rhc A.hLn6 2 mrnrirl 'liPtttsll3 r hclirn (1 6 to
15 pefcenrl d tt t4.oso.Om $d ttus l mll rtcarr f?sn ud.n l l{rnclli'lg t Di|pad
Scrvk-s f€G3'): utrn't Rrpty B.irf .t 11 (tt 'di.Pa.l f.l nc.i',td Dy tll''s l "' b 'lmal 60
tmes uc valrrc ol tha urrnirm rccovgryl'
Not only mr n raaronablc to cmch*lc ura uranaum cordal ba racovlttd from rta
Asht.nd 2 marna. brrl i3 uraa .lto Geaonabh to corrduh drSt 0lc ptocaslne Uould in""cl
2l
take place. IUSA haO a contractual @mmltment lo cto So, rts contract wrlh lhe Army Corps of
Engrneers rggyired IUSA tO process me mater'al Pnor to ctrsposdl -Le ]USA Bnef at 18' 25 ln
actctfron, as 16e presrcting officer noted, 'rusA na3 a nisbry ol successfully €nrading uranrum
from alternare feed macrialand has clcvclopett credibrlity wrul thG NRC '.. for fulfilling ilS
proposat3 tO recoy€r uranium from a[CmaE fGGt!-' 49 NRC at 112' Thrs was not an instance'
then. wnere there w.s no reasonaDlG Grpadaton iltat tlre mill operator worllct in fact Process
met.rr.l through lhG firllto .rtr.ct rGcovcr3Dlc uranium' MOTCOCT' I i3 aho thr Commrs36n s
understanctrng thst rhG Ashrancr 2 mareriartrSt in fact oeen pocrs:rtl in thr luSA mrll.nd rhat
approximately 6,000 poundi of uranrurn flCrC tnractGd- VfiL ul|l qu'ntlty of urmium w35 on
rhe tow cm of luSA.t rrtimetcl, il nGvcnhGLaa r.prG.ntr mot" th.n a mnuts a neglgtblc
rtcovety of uranrum-r
! Moreover. evcn if wc n.d admrcd to end lor€m to apply tnc Gurdanol'! tcar for
hccnsec.mohvG3.- thr record does not 3nfl trltt rusA procrsscrt tr'. A.hr.rld 2 matenal as a
mcans ro chan$t !g!:rr".(z) miilcn.t inro 5 t tr (2) mrln t tuSA sa: amrc utai mc NRC
stafl h*t acc.prect iOOg iaoncanon Ordinng 111t Ul€ A$End 2 FUSRAP ma6rial md 111c
I 1. (2) byproctuct ;tt"tin Orfinirron. B.!Gd upon n" FE.canrficaUrn. 01g atafi harl conduoco
rhat.thc matGrrar courrr bc dirposcd or orscrv'in_$a w?lrsa_.luara tarring8 impoundmcntt.'
wrthour .ny need of proccslano at lha mrll. Sl3 Tectrnical Evalrradon RCpOn il 6' auachcd to
Amcnomcnt 6lo Source M.tariC LrCCnr su+rssa (Junc 23, 1908)' Thc $'fiurrr8 dsims Ulat
'sham ctisposaf uaa nol a oilrcln'$ncc tt di, not agf,,a/, Uttt lh' mannd w" b'l'19
proces:ed,o.1-i',It bed rldrrnion, end er 3,dr re3 rLtty Dcilg proo6tcd bf i!3 uranrum
;";6i.;-Sff $.iM. ,j*Gph Holottictt a 7. Ulrilrrrr $c Arhhnd 2 m*rriet rctuellv
alre.dy rr l f lr.(2) byproCucl m.t.ld under UUTRCA Emain8 uncb"' SOgnO al G7
NGv€rtrxlllxll' |tJsiL;;'l,"-ina ooE' 0'' Army corpl d Englncerc' 'nd ulo NRC staff al
had carcgori46 th, tnatattd I rudr, "no
rta 0rr rull ino.o hd $tt'd ullt U1'' w" m'l'n'il
mat coulo na,ro o-n oirpolco ol srtrour any furtlrr Pfocrritrg. ThiS suegctt! 01rl IUSA h'o a
g"n",n" interect in proccb6e 91. malirl t6t Uc uranium arr.l ng1 lamPly an it!"g3t
'n.rcdassoirE'thc malffirl by proccgrng t fha ouDlb.and comPLl n+tn ol0trl rtlquirY'
howry.f,, rcinforccr our r,6rydr1l diScgrirng I licrnrtl't motivco bt a liccfttO amGndflrent
ransacuon a r oilfrcult. vinuelly imposrDe-end. in any avaT u unmelgLly ct'ftit''
Accordrngty. *r "Ortiidin-ni. ai"irion retcct!, utumelc buJnaot rno0Yrli'n"t 'rd'vant
to
the 5 11e.(2) dcfinition.
-- ..;
. .:tI-
22
The Commrsgron concludes. therefore, that the Presrdrng Oflice/s /nterpretalron of lne $
I t e (Z) definrtion reflects r s€rllrbti reacling of me UMTRCA statutE anc, leg'slative hrstory -
one we nereDy Gmbraee - anct tnat thc record overatl suPpofis the issuancr of the li€ense
amsnclment.
lll. Coocluion
For me foregoing rtasont, LBP'9+5 ir effirmrd.
tT tS SO OROEREO
For tm Commrgiqr
Secmry of th. Commirim
Datco at Rochr{f, MlYhttd'
mis 10$ clry ol F:bnray. 2(lm.
UNITED STAIES CF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGUUTORY COMMISSION
tn the Maner of )
)
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) ) Dodrat No. a0-E6El4ItA{
CoRPORAT|ON (ruSA) )
(Recerpt of Materratfrom )
Tonlwanda. NcryYorh) )
CERIIFTCATE OF SERVTCE
I herGDy cenify rhat cop'e! of thc hrcgorng COMMISSION UEUORANOUU ANO ORDER
(cLl4O{1) hsve E€on sarv.C upon Ur followrlrg pcr*tnr D, U s. meil. firtt cbsr. erce$ a3
otnerwrse not.o and in accoroancc with flrc ruqu,rpmcfi! of 10 CFR s.c,.2.712.
Officc of Commis3ron Appllatt Alonrc Sduty.t'rd Li:am.ng Bo.ro PrndAdjucticatron Mail Stop - T-3 F23
U S Nuclaar Reguletory Coamision U.S. Nuctcr Rtgumory Commission
WaihrnEiton. DC 2055ti W.rhangton. DC 20555
Actmrnriralvc Jurtgo Lrta B. Ctartq Elq.
Rrcharu F Colc, Spccid Assirrnr L. Midtect Rafty, Erq.
Atomrc Safety and uc.n.arp 8€r( Prnd Ofica of trc Genrral Counrcl
Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mal Stop - o-15 O2t
U S Nuclcar Regularcry Commisrion U S Nuc;leer RcAumory Commasion
Wasnrngton, DC 20555 W.shangilon, DC 20551t
Davrct J Jordan, Esg. Drnirc Ch.ncallor. Etq.
Jrlt M. Pohlm.n. E3g. Frtd G Nclsorr. Etq.
Stoet Rrvcs tJ.P tmh AOomrU Gcrrcrel': Offict
Onc Urh C.ntcr, 11' Floc tGO Ea[ 300 Sorrh. S Fbor
201 South Mein Surrt P.O. Bor 14Ot73
Satt Latrc co, uT 8a11t S.r L.Ir Ab, UT Etlra
Anmony J. TlunP.on, Elq.
Frectrrcts PhilliF,Eq.
Shew Pinmar
2300 N Srrt. trW
Warningon, DC 2m37
Docket No 40'8681 -Ml-A-4
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER (CL|{Go1)
Oated I Rocloilh, Merylend.
tnit 10' ctay of Fcbruary zmO
ruOffcr of tlte Secnnry of
- -.--