17 January 2003
Eyeballing the Defense Nuclear Weapons School:
http://cryptome.sabotage.org/dnws-eyeball.htm
Eyeballing Kirtland Underground Nuclear Weapons Area:
http://cryptome.sabotage.org/kumsc-eyeball.htm
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register: January 15, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2078-2084]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ja03-86]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 030-28641]
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact related to license amendment to the Department of
the Air Force Master Materials License No. 42-23539-01AF, Department of
the Air Force, USAF Radioisotope Committee, HQ AFMOA/SGPR, 8901 18th
Street, Brooks AFB, Texas, 78235-5217.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
the issuance of a license amendment to the Department of the Air Force
Master Materials License No. 42-23539-01AF to authorize decommissioning
of its Site OT-10 training facility at Kirtland AFB and has prepared an
environmental assessment in support of this action. Based upon the
environmental assessment, the NRC has concluded that a finding of no
significant impact is appropriate, and, therefore an Environmental
Impact Statement is unnecessary.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel S. Browder, Division of Nuclear
Materials Safety, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV, 611
Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas, 76011; telephone (817)
276-6552 or email rsb3@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Finding of No Significant Impact
Pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, NRC has prepared an environmental
assessment related to a license amendment to Materials License 42-
23539-01AF, authorizing decommissioning of the Site OT-10 at Kirtland
AFB. On the basis of this environmental assessment, the NRC has
concluded that this licensing action would not have any significant
adverse effect on the quality of the human environment, and therefore,
an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
Environmental Assessment
1.0 Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the
U.S. Air Force's (USAF's) request for approval of the Kirtland Air
Force Base (AFB) Decommissioning Plan (DP), located in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. The licensee requested that four former Defense Nuclear Weapons
School (DNWS) Radiation Training Sites at Kirtland AFB's be released
for unrestricted use. The four training sites were identified for
remediation under the USAF's Installation Restoration Program as Site
OT-10. The purpose of this environmental assessment (EA) is to assess
the environmental consequences of this license amendment request.
1.1 Background
The DNWS Radiation Training Sites are located in the north central
part of Kirtland AFB. From 1961 to 1990, these sites were used to train
radiological response personnel to detect contamination generated
during simulated nuclear weapons accidents. Known quantities of
Brazilian thorium oxide sludge were applied and tilled into site soils
to simulate dispersed plutonium. The training sites are owned by the
U.S. Government and regulated by the NRC under the USAF Master
Materials License No. 42-23539-01AF. Four inactive training sites (TS5,
TS6, TS7 and TS8) comprise Kirtland AFB's Installation Restoration
Program Site OT-10 and are being decommissioned to meet the NRC
requirements for unrestricted use, as defined in NRC regulations.
The OT-10 training sites consist of approximately 43 acres, in
which approximately 9.2 acres (3.7 hectares) were affected with
elevated thorium
[[Page 2079]]
concentrations at the time of the most recent investigation.
The licensee submitted the DP in July 2000. A revised August 2002
DP was transmitted by cover letter dated November 19, 2002, with the
final site-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs)
submitted on October 2, 2002. In accordance with 10 CFR 40.42, the DP
describes the site conditions, the planned decommissioning activities,
radiation safety program, planned final radiation survey, and the cost
estimate for decommissioning. Decommissioning would occur for
approximately 1\1/2\ years, tentatively from January 2003, and is
expected to continue throughout 2003. Submittal of the final status
survey report to the NRC is planned for early 2004.
The radioactive contaminated soil would be removed in accordance
with the DP and the licensee's standard operating procedures. The
licensee has committed to excavating contaminated soil, vegetation, and
debris and transferring them directly to intermodal containers,
sampling and analyzing the excavated materials, manifesting the waste,
and transporting the waste containers to a licensed disposal facility.
The radioactive material would be packaged, handled and stored
according to the appropriate health and safety procedures. Packaging
contaminated soil would conform to the Department of Transportation
(DOT) regulations and the disposal site requirements. The USAF would
transfer the contaminated soil in intermodal containers by truck to
West Control Specialist (WCS) in Andrews County, Texas, or in
intermodal containers by rail or truck to Envirocare of Utah.
1.2 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to reduce residual
contamination at the site for unrestricted use and removal of the OT-10
training site from the license. NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities
under the Atomic Energy Act to make a decision on a proposed license
amendment for decommissioning that ensures protection of the public
health and safety and environment.
2.0 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
2.1 Proposed Action
The proposed action is to decontaminate and remediate the OT-10
training sites to release for unrestricted use as delineated in 10 CFR
part 20, subpart E, that being 25 mrem/year total effective dose
equivalent (TEDE) to the critical group (i.e., resident farmer
scenario).
The ultimate goal of the decommissioning is to release the OT-10
training sites from the USAF Master Materials License. The general
decommissioning would result in the excavation of the source material
from the OT-10 training sites to meet the unrestricted use criteria.
The excavated material would be transported to a licensed low-level
radioactive waste (LLRW) facility (e.g., Envirocare of Utah) for
disposal. The unimportant quantities of source material, as defined in
10 CFR 40.13, would be shipped to a burial facility (e.g., West Control
Specialist (WCS) facility in Andrews, TX). Following any necessary
remediation, the licensee would perform final status surveys in the
area in accordance with the NRC approved DP.
2.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
There are no alternatives to the proposed actions besides taking no
action.
2.2.1 No Action
NRC considered the no-action alternative relative to USAF's request
for approval of the DP. The no-action alternative would mean that NRC
would not approve the DP and, therefore, would not be able to amend the
license. The no-action alternative is not acceptable because it would
conflict with NRC's requirement in 10 CFR 40.42, ``Expiration and
termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites and Separate
Buildings or Outdoor Areas,'' of timely remediation at facilities or
outdoor areas that have ceased NRC licensed operations. Therefore, the
no-action alternative is not considered to be reasonable and is not
analyzed further in this EA.
3.0 Affected Environment
Eight training sites were established in November 1961 in the
north-central part of Kirtland AFB, which is located in Albuquerque,
New Mexico (USAF, 2001b). Training activities were discontinued at four
of the training sites in 1990. These four training sites, designated as
OT-10 under the USAF's Installation and Restoration Program, are
located south of Pennsylvania Avenue, on Kirtland AFB. TS8 was also
used as a storage site and has two storage bunkers located within its
fenced area. In addition, TS6 contains solid waste management unit
(SWMU) SS-69, a 50-ft by 50-ft fenced area previously used to store
drums of thorium oxide sludge, contaminated soil and waste fuels. SWMU
SS-69 is managed as a separate corrective action unit under Kirtland
AFB's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) part B permit.
The following sections provide detailed information on the specific
environmental resources and subject areas relevant to the nature of the
proposed action.
3.1 Physiography, Geology and Soils
Kirtland AFB is located on a high, semiarid piedmont alluvial plain
and adjacent foothills, about 5 miles east of the Rio Grande. The
alluvial plain is cut by the east-west trending Tijeras Arroyo, which
drains into the Rio Grande. The western portion of Kirtland AFB lies
within the Albuquerque-Belen Basin. The Albuquerque-Belen structural
basin contains the through-flowing Rio Grande and lies within a series
of grabens and structural basins called the Rio Grande Rift. The
deposits consist of interbedded gravel, sand silt, and clay, the bulk
of which are referred to as the Santa Fe Group. The soils types consist
of Tome very fine sandy loam, Gila fine sandy loam, Bluepoint-Kokan
association, Wink fine sandy loam and Tijeras gravelly fine sandy loam.
The Santa Fe Group contains sediments which were deposited as an
alluvial fan, playa and fluvial deposits that filled the subsiding
basin. The thicknesses of most basin-fill deposits are greater than
3,000 feet, although the thickness varies considerably because of
faulting in the basin. The Santa Fe Group contains beds of
unconsolidated to loosely consolidated sediment and interbedded
volcanic rock. The materials range in size from boulders to clay.
3.2 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality
The climate at Kirtland AFB is typical of a high-desert plateau,
with low precipitation, wide temperature extremes and typically, clear
sunny days. The mean annual precipitation is about 8.4 inches and the
mean annual snowfall is 1.25 inches. Summer rains typically account for
nearly half of the annual moisture, in the form of brief but heavy
local thunderstorms. The prevailing wind direction from May through
October is south to southeast, and the mean wind speed is about 8
knots. From November through April, the prevailing wind direction is
north to northwest, and the mean wind speed is 7 knots.
3.3 Water Resources
The four training sites are located in the Hydrogeologic Region of
Kirtland AFB. The estimated hydrologic
[[Page 2080]]
conductivity in this unit ranges from less than 0.3 ft/day to greater
than 30 ft/day. The depth to groundwater is between 300 to 500 ft.
Groundwater is thought to be unconfined in the upper portion of the
aquifer, but this may not be true in all areas. The uppermost aquifer
occurs within the Santa Fe Group.
A shallow saturation zone above the regional aquifer, approximately
200 to 250 ft below ground surface has been identified in the
Hydrogeologic Region. This zone is located adjacent to and northwest of
the Kirtland AFB landfill. It is associated with either a system of
multiple perched aquifers or a groundwater mound. The extent of a
shallower saturation zone has not been defined and it is unknown if it
exists in the vicinity of the four training sites.
3.4 Ecology
The four former training sites that are to be decommissioned are in
the Plains and Great Basin Grasslands. These grasslands are generally
flat and open, lying from 4,900 to 7,500 feet in elevation. Common
vegetation includes needle-and-thread, galleta grass, sand dropseed,
grama grasses, Indian ricegrass, fourwing saltbush, broom snakeweed,
sagebrush, winter fat, and yucca.
According to the Kirtland AFB Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan, there are no known federally listed threatened or
endangered species on the AFB. The western burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia hypugaea) is a federal species of concern that has been
observed on Kirtland AFB. This bird nests in prairie dog towns. The
loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is also a federal species of
concern. Loggerhead shrikes occupy grassland, pinyon-juniper, and
riparian habitats. This species has been observed on the AFB and is
found in the area throughout the year.
The gray vireo (Vireo vicinior) is the only state-listed threatened
species known to be on the AFB. Gray vireos have been observed in
ungrazed juniper woodland at the base of the western foothills of the
Manzanita Mountains at elevations between 5,900 and 6,600 feet. This
area is located in the easternmost portion of the AFB. Site OT-10 would
not present attractive habitat to the gray vireo because of its
distance from vireo nesting areas.
Critical habitats are those areas considered essential for
maintaining or restoring threatened or endangered species populations.
Neither the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish nor the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has designated or identified any critical habitat
on the AFB.
3.5 Noise
The land use for the training sites and surrounding areas is
classified as public or institutional and noise generated by the
proposed decommissioning would not affect residents. Noise is
quantified by decibels (dB), weighted by a day-night average sound
level (DNL). A DNL of 65 dB is often utilized in planning and
represents a compromise between community impact and the need for
aviation and industrial activities. Areas exposed to DNL above 65 dB
are generally not considered suitable for residential use. The DNL in
and around the runways at Kirtland AFB typically exceeds 65 dB.
Therefore, the immediate areas surrounding the base runways, including
the proposed decommissioning area, are not classified for residential
use.
Existing potential noise sources at Kirtland AFB are aircraft,
firing ranges, explosive testing, and motor vehicles. An assessment of
aircraft noise, including Kirtland aircraft operations, was performed
at the Albuquerque International Sunport. The noise baseline attributed
to aircraft noise in the proposed OT-10 decommissioning area is 65-70
dB.
Firing ranges and weapons training ranges contribute to moderate,
localized noise impacts at Kirtland AFB. Harmful noise levels; that is,
those exceeding 140 dB, from weapons testing activities remain within
the boundaries/buffer zone of the Kirtland AFB. However, explosive
detonations with noise levels of this magnitude are limited to 6-10
tests per year.
Off-road vehicle noise sources, including military transport and
military weapons vehicles, are the primary sources of noise from the
training and withdraw areas at Kirtland AFB. The military vehicles
operate well below speeds of street traffic and measurements have shown
that the military vehicles are up to 10 dB noisier than heavy trucks.
Noise generated by motor vehicles is more prevalent in congested
areas of Kirtland AFB. Motor vehicle noise was evaluated in a 1995
Kirtland AFB study in a 24-hour traffic count at Gibson Gate and
resulted in 71 dB, averaged over a 24-hour period.
Noise impact analyses conducted for the current activities at the
Kirtland AFB concluded that there are no adverse impacts to people or
wildlife. Military training activities at the AFB are conducted in
remote areas, buffered by land, and are restricted to authorized
personnel.
3.6 Historical and Cultural Resources
The area directly surrounding the proposed project area was
surveyed for cultural resources and one historic site was located. This
site would not be disturbed by the proposed action. No other historic
properties have been located surrounding the project area.
3.7 Summary of Radiological Conditions
The four training sites which have been discontinued from use and
have been identified by the USAF for decommissioning, were used to
train U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and other federal
and state personnel in the detection of dispersed contamination
resulting from simulated nuclear weapons accidents. Known quantities of
Brazilian thorium oxide sludge were applied and tilled into site soils
to simulate dispersed radiological contamination. The thorium oxide
sludge served as a low hazard analog for plutonium. A total estimated
inventory of approximately 602 kilograms (kg) of thorium-232 was
applied at the inactive sites. The estimated thorium-232 inventory, by
site, is presented in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate area Approximate area
Training site of site in acres contaminated in Estimated thorium-
(hectares) acres (hectares) 232 (kg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TS5.................................................... 13 (5.26) 1.7 (0.687) 215
TS6.................................................... 19 (7.69) 6.7 (2.71) 307
TS7.................................................... 8 (3.23) 0.6 (0.24) 36
TS8.................................................... 2 (0.81) 0.4 (0.16) 44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2081]]
USAF had characterized the OT-10 training sites during four
investigations between 1988 and 2001. The first investigation was a
limited site survey conducted between December 1985 and January 1990.
The first extensive scan investigation was performed between October
1994 and May 1995, which included surface gamma surveys and soil
sampling to delineate the general extent of the contamination. The most
recent investigation was conducted in 1996 and 1998 and included an
assessment of radionuclides and chemicals in the background soil and
contaminated soil in the training sites, geophysical surveys of the
sites, a health physics assessment and radionuclide grain size
analysis. During the 2001 survey, the licensee selected a non-impacted
background area and performed extensive analyses for background data.
Additionally, the licensee performed building surveys of the two
bunkers located in TS8.
The quantities and concentrations of thorium-232 contaminated soil
above background, at the four training sites are summarized in the
following table. The data was taken from the results of the 1994 to
1995 investigation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of Th-
Soil Avg depth of Avg Th-232 232
Training site contaminated contamination concentration concentration
(yd\3\) (in) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TS5............................................. 5,637 16 67.9 2.2-421.6
TS6............................................. 15,599 16 100.8 2.8-683.4
TS7............................................. 60 16 55.4 2.3-466
TS8............................................. 6,223 16 76.4 2.1-1,047.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 9.2 acres (3.7 hectares) of the 43.2 acre (17.48
hectares) site are impacted with Brazilian thorium oxide sludge. The
contaminants of potential concern associated with thorium oxide sludge
include thorium-232 and its decay progeny and to a lesser extent,
uranium-238 and its decay progeny. The extent of contamination is
limited to the immediate vicinity of the training sites and to a
maximum depth of 5 feet (1.524 meters) below ground surface. The
vertical extent of ground contamination is typically 1-2 feet ( 0.61
meters) below ground surface. An estimated 27,500 cubic yards yd\3\
(21,025 m\3\) are radiologically contaminated.
The licensee considered five environmental pathways for the
determination of the DCGL based on the conceptual modeling for Kirtland
AFB. These five pathways include: external radiation, inhalation of
particulates and radon, ingestion of soil and plant foods. There are no
indications of contamination migration into surface water drainages or
groundwater.
3.7.1 Radiological Status of Structures and Equipment
The DP outlines procedures for decommissioning Buildings 28005 and
28010 at training site TS8. The contamination on the interior surfaces
of these storage bunkers exceeds the limits established in 10 CFR
20.1402, for the radiological criteria for unrestricted use for
building surfaces. The interior surfaces of the bunkers would be
cleaned and tested to determine if the remaining contamination level is
acceptable. Demolition and disposal of these buildings would be
performed if the contamination cannot be removed. Additionally, the
licensee has established action levels that would ensure effluent
releases generated during decommissioning activities, such as scabbling
or demolition, are below the levels allowed by 10 CFR part 20. The NRC
would require the USAF to comply with the regulations established in 10
CFR part 20, to ensure the doses would be bounded by 25 mrem.
3.7.2 Radiological Status of Surface and Subsurface Soils
The licensee performed analysis of collected soil samples, scanning
measurements and used historical information to classify soil survey
units. The licensee calculated concentration guidelines for surface
contamination of soils in the impacted areas of the training sites
using RESRAD code, Version 6.1. The DCGLs would define the maximum
amount of residual contamination in soils that would satisfy the NRC's
regulations in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for
License Termination.''
4.0 Environmental Impacts
There are limited potential short-term environmental impacts
associated with the proposed decommissioning activities. The following
sections discuss possible impacts on the environment resulting from
approval of the DP.
4.1 Non-Radiological Impacts
Completion of the decommissioning activities would allow for
unrestricted use of the site. The proposed decommissioning action would
have a positive environmental impact on the area since low-level
radioactive contamination would be removed from the soil above the
aquifer.
4.1.1 Land Use and Socioeconomic Impacts
This action would not have an adverse impact on future land use.
Kirtland AFB has used the training sites since they were established in
1961. Remediation activities would provide a long-term positive impact
to local socioeconomic conditions. Currently, land areas at Site OT-10
cannot be used for activities other than radiological training because
dose rates associated with contamination there can exceed 25 mrem/year.
Removal of radiologically contaminated materials would free the sites
for recreational, residential, and/or industrial use. In addition,
removal of Site OT-10 from administrative controls would release
economic resources for use elsewhere.
4.1.2 Air Quality
There are no expected adverse impacts to air quality as a result of
planned decommissioning activities. There would be a slight increase in
dust emissions during the removal of the contaminated soil; however,
there is little likelihood that airborne radioactive material would be
a problem on the site during any operation conducted for the
remediation. USAF would minimize the potential for airborne effluent
releases by using light water spray to suppress the dust during
activities that could generate significant quantities of dust.
Activities that could generate significant quantities of dust include
the excavation of the soil, processing and packaging of the remediated
soil into the intermodal containers. Heavily traveled, clean areas
would also be sprayed lightly.
4.1.3 Water Resources
This action would not have an adverse impact on water resources.
The Kirtland AFB OT-10 training sites are not located in a flood plain
of any streams or rivers. There are no wetlands located in the project
area. There would
[[Page 2082]]
be no water bodies diverted in order to remediate the training sites.
Accumulating rainwater in affected areas would be dammed, mixed with
contaminated soils, and/or left to evaporate. Only small quantities of
water would be used for dust suppression.
4.1.4 Ecological Resources
No long-term impacts to ecological resources are expected. However,
short term impacts to flora and fauna would occur. The excavated areas
would be graded to match pre-decommissioning topography and replaced
with natural vegetation to blend with the landscape. The shrubs and
grasses removed from radiologically impacted land areas would be
replaced at the end of the project. Burrowing animals would likely
leave the site during decommissioning activities and return when site
vegetation has reestablished.
Kirtland AFB consulted with state and federal caretakers of natural
heritage information. The licensee reviewed the Kirtland AFB Integrated
Natural Resources Management Plan and Threatened and Endangered Species
Survey of Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. According to the Kirtland AFB
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan, there are no known
federally listed threatened or endangered species on the AFB. The New
Mexico Natural Heritage Program (NMNHP) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) were specifically requested to search their records for
information on threatened or endangered species in the geographic areas
where the decommissioning activities would occur; that is, Bernalillo
County, Township 9 North, Range 4 East, Sections 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, and
18. The NMNHP and the USFWS determined that the proposed
decommissioning activities would have no effect on federally listed
endangered or threatened species.
The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) is a
federal species of concern that has been observed on Kirtland AFB.
Kirtland AFB personnel would survey the OT-10 sites immediately prior
to decommissioning activities. If encountered, burrowing owls would be
relocated, as documented in the DP.
4.1.5 Noise Impacts
Because noise levels are expected to exceed regulatory limits, site
contractors would be required to apply hearing protection measures to
protect workers. The storage bunkers which may be demolished, would be
performed using a backhoe equipped with shears and/or jackhammer.
According to the study at the University of Washington, these
activities have a mean 1-minute noise level of 86.1 dB. The noise
generated from the decommissioning activities result from excavating
equipment (front-end loader, dozer, and backhoe), a crane, water
trucks, and light and heavy truck traffic. Soil in hot spots would be
excavated from the surface to an estimated depth of 1 to 2 feet below
the ground surface, using a backhoe. Soil in areas of dispersed
contamination would be removed using a dozer. Front-end loaders or
backhoes would transfer the contaminated soil, surface debris, and
vegetation into steel intermodal containers. A crane would transfer the
intermodal containers to transport trucks. All construction activities
would occur during daytime hours. According to a study conducted by the
University of Washington, the average noise generated at construction
sites during ``site preparation'' is 82.7 affective decibels (dBA).
Site preparation (site grading, debris and vegetation removal) noise
levels are assumed comparable to the activities associated with the
proposed decommissioning. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) set a noise exposure limit for construction sites of 85 dBA,
which is consistent with National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health and U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
limits (90 dBA, 29 CFR 1910.95).
4.1.6 Historical and Cultural Resources Impact
The Site OT-10 decommissioning activities pose no long or short-
term impacts to cultural/historical resources. After surveying for
cultural resources, one historic site was located. However, this site
would not be disturbed by the proposed action. No other historic
properties have been located surrounding the project area. Therefore,
the proposed project would have no adverse effect to historic
properties or cultural resources. If cultural resources, including
Indian artifacts, are found within the project area during
decommissioning, work would discontinue and Kirtland AFB personnel
would follow procedures outlined in the Kirtland AFB Cultural Resource
Management Plan. By letter dated, April 9, 2002, the New Mexico State
Historic Preservation Officer stated that this project would have a no
adverse effect to historic properties.
4.1.7 Visual Resources
Only short-term impacts to site aesthetics would occur.
Construction equipment would obstruct views. However, there are no
homes near the training sites which would be impacted. The shrubs and
grasses removed from radiologically impacted land areas would be
replaced at the end of the project. In addition, removal of debris and
fences and potentially the Bunkers 28005 and 28010 at training site
TS8, would improve site aesthetics.
4.1.8 Transportation
It is estimated there would be 1370 intermodal containers of
contaminated soil and debris shipped offsite. Each truck would carry
one intermodal container loaded with approximately 19 cubic yards of
waste. It is estimated that 10 to 12 trucks will leave the base per
day, 5 days per week for 7 to 8 months. There would be approximately
685 shipments by truck and/or rail to Envirocare of Utah in Clive,
Utah, and 685 shipments by truck to Waste Control Specialists in
Andrews County, Texas. Containers shipped to Envirocare will travel
west on Gibson Boulevard to either Interstate 25 (truck shipments) or
rail siding at 100 Woodward Road (rail shipments). If rail transport is
utilized, the intermodal containers would be loaded onto six-position
railcars with approximately 115 railcars utilized to transport the
intermodals. Containers destined for WCS will travel north on Eubank
Boulevard then west on Interstate 40 and south on State Highway 285.
The addition of 10 to 12 trucks to a documented traffic volume on
Gibson Boulevard of 27,000 to 45,000 vehicles per day poses a
negligible impact to traffic volume (TransCore, 2001). Ten to 12 trucks
add less than 0.03 to 0.04 percent to the daily vehicle load.
Under normal operating conditions there is no expected dose to
vehicle operators and members of the public, since the wastes are of
low activity and would be shipped in U.S. DOT-compliant, strong-tight
containers. The only radiological risks associated with the transport
of the wastes would involve the cleanup of any spilled material. In the
unlikely event that a spill were to occur during transport,
radiological controls would most likely be implemented during the
cleanup of the spilled waste material. Therefore, the risks associated
with the transport of the waste material is minimal.
4.1.9 Occupational Health Impacts
Short and long-term impacts to human health, in terms of industrial
hygiene, are possible. A Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP)
that addresses known and reasonably anticipated health and safety
hazards would be provided to site workers
[[Page 2083]]
(USAF, 2001a). The HSP is intended to provide enough information to
site personnel to prevent and minimize personal injuries, illnesses,
and physical damage to equipment, supplies, and property. The HSP
contains a code of safe practices for oversight activities on this
project. Contractors performing heavy equipment operations would be
required to submit activity hazard analyses covering work means and
methods and the anticipated hazards and controls.
4.2 Radiological Impacts
Occupational doses to decommissioning workers are expected to be
low and well within the limits of 10 CFR part 20. No radiation exposure
to any member of the public is expected, and public exposure would
therefore also be less than the applicable public exposure limits of 10
CFR part 20. In addition, the licensee would install a security fence
around each training site to control access and prevent unauthorized,
untrained or unprotected personnel from entering the site. Therefore,
the environmental impacts from the proposed action are expected to be
small.
Short and long-term impacts to human health due to radiological
exposure are not expected. These include the potential release to the
environment of airborne effluents, which may contain low-levels of
radioactive contamination during certain activities such as excavation,
packaging and waste transportation. NRC regulation 10 CFR part 20
specifies the maximum amounts of radioactive materials that a licensee
can release from a site in the form of either airborne or liquid
effluents. The licensee has described in the DP, the controls
established when these activities are being conducted. The controls
include the use of light water spray to control the emissions of dust
and work area particulate sampling. Site controls would be implemented
to prevent unauthorized, untrained, or unprotected personnel from
entering the site, to limit the spread of contamination, and to reduce
the radiation exposures to safe ALARA levels. A radiation safety
program would be implemented to protect site workers.
The licensee performed analysis of collected soil samples, scanning
measurements and used historical information to classify soil survey
units. The licensee calculated concentration guidelines for surface
contamination of soils in the impacted areas of the training sites
using RESRAD code, version 6.1. The DCGLs would define the maximum
amount of residual contamination in soils that would satisfy the NRC's
regulations in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for
License Termination.'' The NRC would not approve the DP unless it met
the 25 mrem for unrestricted release criteria and the doses would be
bounded by 25 mrem.
Additionally, the interior surfaces of the bunkers would be cleaned
and tested to determine if the remaining contamination level is
acceptable. Demolition and disposal of these buildings would be
performed if the contamination cannot be removed. Additionally, the
licensee has established action levels that would ensure effluent
releases generated during decommissioning activities, such as scabbling
or demolition, are below the levels allowed by 10 CFR part 20. The NRC
would require the USAF to comply with the regulations established in 10
CFR part 20, to ensure the doses would be bounded by 25 mrem.
4.3 Cumulative Impacts
The NRC has evaluated whether cumulative environmental impacts
could result from an incremental impact of the proposed action when
added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions
in the area. The proposed NRC approval of the DP, when combined with
known effects on resource areas at the site, are not anticipated to
result in any cumulative impacts at the site.
5.0 Monitoring
The licensee has described in the DP the controls established when
activities are being conducted which may have the potential of
releasing airborne effluents to the environment. The USAF would
implement an environmental air monitoring program. Daily air monitoring
would be performed to quantify the amount of alpha radiation being
generated by invasive (e.g., clearing, grubbing, excavating and
loading) decommissioning activities. The controls established include
the use of ambient air and exposure monitoring and monitoring of
personnel. The NRC would require the USAF to comply with the
regulations established in 10 CFR part 20, which specifies the maximum
amount of radiological materials that a licensee can release from a
site in the form of either airborne or liquid effluents. The licensee
has established action levels that would ensure that effluent releases
during decommissioning activities are below the levels allowed in 10
CFR part 20. The licensee has committed to implementing a health
physics program for the protection of the workers and the environment.
6.0 Conclusions
Based on its review, the NRC staff has concluded that the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are not
significant, and therefore, do not warrant denial of the license
amendment request. The NRC staff believes that the proposed action
would result in minimal environmental impacts. The staff has determined
that the proposed action of decommissioning Site OT-10 to the
remediation levels would result in reduced residual contamination
levels at Kirtland AFB training sites, enabling release of the areas
for unrestricted use and termination of the area from the Air Force
Master Materials License, is the appropriate alternative for selection.
7.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) with
input from the State of New Mexico's Office of Cultural Affair, by
letter dated April 9, 2002, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by
letter dated March 28, 2002. By letter dated February 7, 2002, after
considering the documentation submitted by the licensee concerning the
location of the decommissioning project, the State of New Mexico's
Natural Heritage Program determined that there were no records of
special interest species affected by the referenced project. In its
letter, the State of New Mexico's Office of Cultural Affairs indicated
that the proposed action would not adversely affect any historic
properties. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, indicated in its
letter, that the described action would have no effect on listed
species, wetlands, or other important wildlife resources. The staff
provided a draft of this EA to the State of New Mexico for review. This
EA was revised to reflect the State's input where appropriate.
Accordingly, it has been determined that a finding of no significant
impact is appropriate.
The Department of the Air Force's request for the proposed action
was previously noticed in the Federal Register on 66 FR 33579, on
Friday, June 22, 2001, along with a notice of opportunity to request a
hearing and an opportunity to provide public comment on the action and
its environmental impacts.
The Department of the Air Force's request for the proposed action
and other related documents are available for inspection at NRC's
Public Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.
The DP may be found in ADAMS at
[[Page 2084]]
Accession Numbers ML011560740 and ML023390060; while other
documentation may be found at ML022490164 and ML022490363. Any
questions with respect to this action should be referred to D. Blair
Spitzberg, Ph.D., Chief, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch,
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington,
Texas, 76011-4005. Telephone: (817) 860-8191, fax number (817) 860-
8188.
Dated in Arlington, Texas, this 8th day of January, 2003.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
D. Blair Spitzberg,
Chief, Fuel Cycle Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials
Safety, Region IV.
[FR Doc. 03-862 Filed 1-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P