Long-Term Surveillance · Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Program 2003 Report This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States

DOE–LM/GJ548–2004

Long-Term Surveillanceand Maintenance Program

2003 Report

U.S. Department of EnergyGrand Junction, Colorado

July 2004

Large front cover photograph:

A site inspector records a global positioning system location at theSherwood, Washington, Disposal Site.

Cover insert photographs (clockwise from top):

Technicians collect ground water samples at the Grand Junction, Colorado,Processing Site.

This site marker, located on the disposal cell at Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico,provides information about the contents of the repository.

Inspectors view the upper end of the Southeast Drainage at theWeldon Spring, Missouri, Site.

Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Program 2003 Report

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United StatesGovernment. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of theiremployees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibil-ity for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, orprocess disclosed in this report, or represents that its use would not infringe privately ownedrights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. Theviews and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of theUnited States Government or any agency thereof.

Page ii


Contents

Acronyms ..................................................................................................... iv

Program Notes .............................................................................................. v

Chronicle of Low-Level Waste: Legacy to Management ........................ vi

Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

Long-Term Management Operations at DOE Sites .................................. 2

Program Planning and Implementation ................................................... 5

Program Initiatives ....................................................................................... 6

Program Accomplishments ......................................................................... 8

Program Sites .............................................................................................. 12

UMTRCA Title I Disposal and Processing Sites ...................................... 12

UMTRCA Title II Disposal Sites ............................................................. 21

FUSRAP Sites ........................................................................................ 23

D&D Sites ............................................................................................ 23

CERCLA/RCRA Sites .............................................................................. 25

NWPA Section 151(c) Site ................................................................... 26

Research Initiatives ..................................................................................... 28

LTS&M Program Disposal Site Characteristics ....................................... 32

Contacts ........................................................................................................ 33

Resources ...................................................................................................... 33

This report was prepared by the S.M. Stoller Corporationfor the U.S. Department of Energy at Grand Junction, Colorado,

under DOE Contract Number DE–AC01–02GJ79491.

Page iii


Acronyms

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

BONUS Boiling Nuclear Superheater [research reactor]

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Actof 1980 or Superfund Program [42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 9601, et seq.]

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

D&D Decontamination and Decommissioning

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

GEMS Geospatial Environmental Mapping System

LM Office of Legacy Management

LTS&M Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance [Program]

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NWPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101, et seq.)

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq.)

UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action [Project]

UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901, et seq.)

Page iv


Page v

Program Notes

I am pleased to present this 2003 Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance (LTS&M) ProgramReport. The LTS&M Program has provided surveillance and maintenance services since 1988for remediated DOE sites that no longer support DOE’s ongoing missions, disposal sitescontaining low-level radioactive material, and other sites transferred to the custody of DOE.During 2003, the LTS&M Program operated as part of the DOE Office of EnvironmentalManagement. As of December 15, 2003, the functions of this program were incorporatedinto the new DOE Office of Legacy Management.

The LTS&M Program was dedicated to addressing issues involved with the long-term careof legacy liabilities of former nuclear weapons production sites following environmentalcleanup, such as sites that are associated with Manhattan Project and early U.S. AtomicEnergy Commission activities. Because hazardous material is contained in disposal cells atmany DOE sites, the Department must ensure continuing protection of human health andthe environment. Even at sites that are released for unrestricted use, DOE must maintainrecords for future custodians.

LTS&M Program activities performed in 2003 included routine tasks such as conductingannual site inspections, performing site maintenance, continuing applied scientific research,and initiating new activities to improve stakeholder services and to broaden the Department’sfoundation for providing long-term management services to more sites in the future.

DOE inspected 31 sites in 2003 and provided environmental monitoring and maintenancefor those sites. As a part of this process, site stewards evaluated monitoring results and siteconditions to define appropriate monitoring and maintenance programs. Summaries of siteconditions and management activities are presented in this report. More detailed informationin fact sheets, compliance reports, environmental monitoring and mapping data, and siterecords is available on our Internet website at http://www.gjo.doe.gov/LM.

Conducting research and participating in projects funded by DOE and other federal agenciescontinued under the LTS&M Program in 2003. These activities provide data and identifylessons learned for designing improved waste impoundments and predicting encapsulationperformance. Information and data management activities accelerated during 2003, and theOffice of Legacy Management began development of a comprehensive post-closure recordspolicy in late 2003.

The Office of Legacy Management is working closely with other DOE organizations to planfor acceptance of sites where remedial action is nearing completion, such as the formerweapons production sites at Rocky Flats in Colorado and at Fernald and Mound in Ohio.The transition process from remediation to long-term management can extend over severalyears. DOE will ensure that essential knowledge of site conditions is captured and that siteactivities will continue seamlessly as remedial action is completed and the site enters thephase of post-closure care.

I am very excited about our future path under the Office of Legacy Management. Establish-ment of this new organization, and the Office of Land and Site Management organizationwithin it, reflects DOE’s commitment and vision for meeting the legacy responsibilities foreffective and enduring care of remediated radioactively contaminated sites.

Donna Bergman-TabbertDirector, Land and Site Management, LM–50Office of Legacy Management

http://www.gjo.doe.gov/LM

1920s—Demand increases forvanadium as a component of

steel. Mines and mills open on theColorado Plateau to produce themetal. Uranium is discarded as a

waste mineral.

1943—The Manhattan EngineerDistrict establishes a refinery atGrand Junction to concentrateuranium from vanadium slimesproduced at mills in the region.

1950s through 1990s—Uranium is produced commercially for the Federal

Government and the private sector. Because ofchanging demands, production is cyclical and tapers

off to almost nothing from 1980 to the present.Many uranium mills are abandoned.

1999—DOE and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersfinalize a Memorandum of Understanding totransfer remediated FUSRAP sites to DOE for

stewardship. DOE Headquarters establishes theHeadquarters Office of Long-Term Stewardship. The

U.S. Congress directs DOE to report on the totallong-term management obligation for all DOE sites.

1974—U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)establishes the Formerly Utilized SitesRemedial Action Program (FUSRAP).

1975—AEC is reorganized intothe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and the Energy Researchand Development Administration,

the precursor of DOE.

1988—DOE establishes theLong-Term Surveillance and

Maintenance Program at theDOE office in Grand Junction.

1982—Passage of the Nuclear WastePolicy Act authorizes DOE to become

custodian of designated civiliannuclear waste sites.

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

1914 to 1928—Western U.S. sandstonesmineralized with both uranium andvanadium oxides are mined for theirradium content. Most of the ore isprocessed in Denver, Colorado, andCanonsburg, Pennsylvania.

1946—Passage of the Atomic Energy Act(superseded by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954)establishes civilian control of nuclear powerproduction and authorizes the U.S. AtomicEnergy Commission (AEC) to possess radioactivematerials and regulate their use.

1964—Passage of the Private Ownership ofSpecial Nuclear Materials Act encouragescivilian development of nuclear electricitygeneration. This action helps create amarket for domestic uranium.

1978—Passage of the Uranium Mill Tailings RadiationControl Act (UMTRCA) specifies remedial actionat abandoned uranium ore processing mills andstewardship of the resulting disposal sites. UMTRCAprovides a mechanism for active millsites to bereclaimed, owner licenses terminated, and the sitesassigned to DOE for long-term management.

1980s—DOE establishes the Defense Decontaminationand Decommissioning Program and Surplus FacilitiesManagement Program to remediate sites contaminatedwith radioactive materials during the ManhattanProject and early AEC activities.

2001—DOE releases thethat provides a comprehensive analysis

of the Department’s long-term site management obligation.DOE and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers establish theFUSRAP Working Group to facilitate transfer of remediatedsites to DOE for long-term management.

National Defense Authorization ActReport to Congress

1947 through 1970—AECoperates a uranium exploration andprocurement program from theGrand Junction Area Office toencourage domestic uraniumproduction. Milling research isconducted by AEC at the GrandJunction Area Office and atMonticello, Utah.

2003—DOE establishes the Office of Legacy Managementto allow for optimum management of DOE’s legacyresponsibilities and to ensure future protection of humanhealth and the environment.

Page vi


Chronicle of Low-LevelRadioactive Waste:

Legacy to Management


Page 1

Introduction

Radioactive waste was created by the FederalGovernment and private industry at locationsaround the country in support of nationaldefense, research, and civilian power-generation programs. If not controlled, muchof this legacy waste would remain hazardousto human health and the environmentindefinitely. Current technology does notallow us to render this waste harmless, sothe available methods to control risk relyon consolidation, isolation, and long-term management of the waste. TheU.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has anobligation to safely control the radioactivewaste and to inform and train futuregenerations to maintain and, perhaps,improve established protections.

DOE is custodian for much of the radioactiveand other hazardous waste under control ofthe Federal Government. DOE establishedthe Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial ActionProgram (FUSRAP) in 1974 and the DefenseDecontamination and Decommissioning(D&D) Program and the Surplus FacilitiesManagement Program in the 1980s. Congresspassed the Uranium Mill Tailings RadiationControl Act (UMTRCA) in 1978. Thesefederal programs and legislation wereestablished to identify, remediate, andmanage legacy waste.

Remedial action is considered complete ata radioactive waste site when the identifiedhazardous material is isolated and the selectedremedial action remedy is in place andfunctioning. Radioactive or other hazardousmaterials remain in place as part of theremedy at many DOE sites.

Long-term management of radioactive wastesites incorporates a set of actions necessaryto maintain protection of human health andthe environment. These actions includemaintaining physical impoundment structuresin good repair to ensure that they performas designed, preventing exposure to thewastes by maintaining access restrictionsand warnings, and recording site conditionsand activities for future custodians. Any

actions, therefore, that will prevent exposureto the radioactive waste now or in the futureare part of long-term site management.

In response to post-closure care requirementsset forth in UMTRCA, DOE Headquartersestablished the Long-Term Surveillance andMaintenance (LTS&M) Program in 1988at the DOE office in Grand Junction,Colorado. The program assumed long-term management responsibility for sitesremediated under UMTRCA and otherprograms. Since its inception, the LTS&MProgram has evolved in response tochanging stakeholder needs, improvementsin technology, and the addition of moreDOE sites as remediation is completed.

The mission of the LTS&M Program wasto fulfill DOE’s responsibility to implementall activities necessary to ensure regulatorycompliance and to protect the public andthe environment from long-lived wastesassociated with the nation’s nuclear energy,weapons, and research activities. Key com-ponents of the LTS&M Program includedstakeholder participation, site monitoringand maintenance, records and informationmanagement, and research and technologytransfer. This report presents summaries ofactivities conducted in 2003 in fulfillment ofthe LTS&M Program mission.

On December 15, 2003, DOE establishedthe Office of Legacy Management (LM) toallow for optimum management of DOE’slegacy responsibilities. Offices are locatedin Washington, DC, Grand Junction,Colorado, Morgantown, West Virginia, andPittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to perform long-term site management, land management,site transition support, records management,and other related tasks. All activities formerlyconducted under the LTS&M Program havebeen incorporated into the Office of Landand Site Management (LM–50), as well asmanagement of remedies involving groundwater and surface water contaminated byformer processing activities.


Page 2

Long-Term ManagementOperations at DOE Sites

hazards at many DOE sites, a savingsin remedy cost may be exceeded manytimes over by increased post-remediationcare requirements.

Site Transition toLong-Term Management

Site transition to long-term managementoccurs when all required short-term responseactivities are complete (e.g., soil excavation,cell construction, building decommissioning);all required long-term response measures,such as ground water treatment systems,are constructed and determined operational;all necessary documentation is in place(e.g., engineering certifications and verifi-cations, post-closure or operating permits,final site condition and configuration records);and the site is administratively transferredfrom the DOE Office of EnvironmentalManagement to the Office of LegacyManagement or another federal, state, orprivate entity.

The LTS&M Program participated in thedevelopment of guidance establishingprotocols for transition of remediated sitesto long-term management. Essential siteknowledge is transferred along with manage-ment responsibility for the site. An efficienttransition process has been developed andcontinues to evolve through more than adecade of site transition experience.

Development of site-specific transitionprocedures may start years before comple-tion of remedial action so that essentialinformation is captured while knowledgeableremediation personnel are still available.Necessary records are identified and obtainedto develop a long-term surveillance andmaintenance plan or a long-term manage-ment plan for the site.

The LTS&M Program personnel, incoordination with the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers for some sites, supervised realproperty transfers or acquisition of site access.Site-handoff inspections allowed program

The U.S. Congress has identified environ-mental cleanup of contaminated DOE sitesas one of the Department’s fundamentalroles. In many cases, historic operationsinvolving radioactive ores and refined materialcontaminated individual sites. DOE hasidentified those sites where low-level radio-active contamination exists, and cleanupat many of those sites is under way or hasbeen completed.

If a site can be remediated to a conditionthat poses no residual risk under any usagescenario, DOE can release it for unrestricteduse. However, hazardous material must beleft at many sites because of technologicalor economic constraints. At some sites, theprocessing areas are cleaned for unrestricteduse and waste is placed in on-site disposalcells. For these sites, DOE establishes a long-term program of post-remediation care toprotect human health and the environmentfrom the hazards that remain. Such aprogram may include restricting certain futureuses of the site, controlling access to the site,and keeping the public informed of remainingcontaminants and associated hazards.

Contaminated DOE sites were remediatedunder different environmental restorationprograms, each with its own regulations andstandards. In each case, specific regulations,general environmental laws, and DOE ordersestablish standards and limits for protectionof workers, the public, and the environment.The scope of long-term management opera-tions for individual sites varies, depending onsite conditions when remedial action wascompleted and on regulatory requirements.All locations that cannot be released forunrestricted use require long-term care.For sites that can be released for unrestricteduse, DOE is responsible for records manage-ment tasks.

All contaminated sites must consider long-term management requirements whenselecting a remedy because the scope andcost to maintain a site are dependent on theselected remedy. Because of the longevity of


Page 3

personnel to gain site knowledge fromremediation personnel and ensure that thesite complies with stipulated requirements.

Maintaining the Remedy

A hazardous waste site remedy is selected thatensures protection of human health and theenvironment and compliance with applicablelaws and regulations. DOE will ensure thatthe sites remain protective and compliant.Systems and activities, formerly conducted bythe LTS&M Program and continuing as partof the Office of Legacy Management, aredesigned to meet those goals.

LTS&M Program Activities

LTS&M Program personnel conducted sitesurveillance and monitoring activities inaccordance with approved site-specific long-term surveillance and maintenance plans.Records of these activities are maintained forthe benefit of future site stewards.

Inspections

DOE conducts periodic site inspections toassess site integrity and the effectiveness ofinstitutional controls; to determine the needfor maintenance, follow-up inspections, orother interventions; and to ensure regulatorycompliance. Inspectors are selected on thebasis of site characteristics and issues. Forexample, engineers will be included oninspection teams at sites with erosion ordrainage concerns. Botanists will helpinspect sites with revegetation or plantencroachment issues.

Inspectors check surficial site characteristicsbecause site concerns are often indicated bychanges in surface conditions. For instance,changes in slope configuration (e.g., settlingor slumping) or new vegetation patterns mayindicate a modifying process to a disposalcell that should be investigated. Inspectorsalso evaluate site access restrictions, erosionresistance of reclaimed surfaces, cell coversand rock durability for erosion control,vegetation status, and the effectivenessof institutional controls.

Site conditions, trends, and regulatoryrequirements drive inspection frequency.Annual inspections are a condition of the

general license under which DOE operatesat UMTRCA Title I and Title II sites. Whennot established by regulation or Departmentpolicy and guidance, determination ofinspection frequency is based on site-specificneeds to maintain protectiveness and security.

Regulators are informed of site inspectionschedules through direct correspondenceand by posting schedules on the Internet athttp://www.gjo.doe.gov/LM. Inspectionresults also are posted on this website foraccess by all interested stakeholders.

Monitoring

Ground water monitoring may be performedto assess disposal cell performance if specifiedin a site-specific long-term surveillance andmaintenance plan. Monitoring may beconducted to evaluate the condition ofvegetation with respect to slope stability orto monitor vegetation encroachment oncell covers and in drainage structures wherevegetation must be controlled to maintaindesign performance. Radon monitoring mayoccur if a cell cover has been disturbed.Additional monitoring, such as rock durabilityor cell settlement, may be conducted inaccordance with a long-term surveillanceand maintenance plan or in response tosite-specific circumstances.

Monitoring data are evaluated in conjunctionwith inspection results to assess the conditionand performance of site containmentsystems or the progress of natural processes.Monitoring results are reviewed to ensureregulatory compliance, distributed tointerested stakeholders, posted on theInternet for public access, and archivedfor reference.

Maintenance

Disposal sites are designed to require onlyminimal maintenance for the duration oftheir design lives. Currently, minor main-tenance is all that is needed because mostsite structures are relatively new. As the sitesage, however, they will require routinereplacement of wear items such as fencingand signs. Several major maintenanceinterventions have been required to repair orimprove erosion-control structures; in no casewas the containment integrity of a disposalcell threatened.



Page 4

Should a disposal site receive severe damageor should a cell sustain catastrophic failure,DOE will undertake the necessary correctiveactions. Contacts with local law enforcementofficials, who will notify DOE in case of anincident or emergency, are maintained neareach site. Signs with the 24-hour phonenumber for contacting DOE’s office in GrandJunction [(970) 248–6070] are posted ateach site.

Institutional Controls

Institutional controls are legal or admin-istrative mechanisms, such as deed restric-tions, restrictive easements, or zoning laws,that limit exposure to site hazards. Typically,these mechanisms place restrictions on theuse of land, ground water, or surface waterat locations that cannot be released forunrestricted use. When invoked, institutionalcontrols are often a critical part of theselected remedy package and must remaineffective to ensure protectiveness. Site-specific institutional controls are assessedfor effectiveness, usually at the time of theannual inspection. Assessment includesperforming field inspections, ensuring thatproperty owners and local officials remainaware of hazards and institutional controls,and keeping local law enforcement agenciesinformed of contact information forDOE personnel.

Records Administration

One of the primary functions of long-termstewardship is to preserve site knowledge bymanaging site records effectively. Activitiesat each site are documented and archived atthe DOE office in Grand Junction for use byfuture stewards. Records with descriptionsof baseline conditions are acquired fromremedial action contractors before sitetransfer. Ongoing surveillance and monitoringresults are preserved so that trends can beevaluated. Records are maintained in NationalArchives and Records Administration-compliant storage areas and are indexed andtracked with an electronic database.

Stakeholder Services

Stakeholder involvement is encouraged.Stakeholders consist of all interested partiesfor a given site, including local residents,regulators, elected officials, federal and stateagencies, Native American Tribes, media,and the general public. Stakeholder servicesinclude responding to requests for informa-tion, providing easy access to informationon the Internet, announcing events or theavailability of key program documentsthrough news releases, distributing keyprogram documents to stakeholders, main-taining a database of stakeholders associatedwith each site, conducting site tours, andholding public meetings and work sessionsduring the development and implementationof stewardship activities. LTS&M Programservices also included participating in nationaland international seminars and symposia andsharing technology and information withforeign stewardship programs.

Applied Research

More than 15 years of field experience with awide variety of disposal sites has offered anopportunity to observe and monitor changesin site conditions over time, to study theinteractions of disposal sites with theirenvironments, and to evaluate existing andprojected long-term performance of remedies.Access to full-scale containment systemsprovides a valuable source of lessons learnedthat can be incorporated into improved sitemanagement methods or designs for newdisposal impoundments. This facet of long-term site management is presented in“Research Initiatives” on page 28.

Administrative Support

Accumulated cost and performance historiesfor site management and support of sitetransition activities since 1988 allowed theLTS&M Program to provide empirical datato DOE for development of long-term sitemanagement cost estimates, site transitionprocesses, and policy and decision guidance.


Page 5

Program Planning and Implementation

These responsibilities, in addition to groundwater monitoring and remediation, willcontinue at these and future sites underthe Office of Legacy Management.

By the close of fiscal year 2007, the Officeof Legacy Management expects to providelong-term management services for 96 sites(see table below). At least 20 more sitescould be transferred to the Office of LegacyManagement after 2007. Descriptions ofthe remedial action programs and the sitesgoverned by their respective regulations areprovided in this report.

Calibration facilities for surface and downholeradiation detection instruments are alsomaintained and inspected annually. Thesefacilities include borehole models at theDOE office in Grand Junction; calibrationpads at Walker Field Airport in GrandJunction; and field calibration facilities inCasper, Wyoming, Grants, New Mexico,and George West, Texas.

Program Budget

Funding for long-term management of sitesis acquired through an annual DOE budgetrequest. Fulfillment of LTS&M Programactivities cost approximately $6.6 millionin fiscal 2003.

Program Management

LTS&M Program activities were conducted inaccordance with the Long-Term Surveillanceand Maintenance Program Plan (Program Plan)and site-specific plans. The Program Planpresents mission and objectives, establishesresponsibilities, identifies regulatory require-ments, and defines strategies for achievingprogram goals. Guidance for routineoperations and extraordinary circumstancesare presented. The Program Plan is posted onthe Internet. With the assignment of LTS&MProgram activities to the DOE Office ofLegacy Management in December 2003, thescope of long-term site management activitieswill be expanded to include ground watermonitoring and remediation tasks formerlyconducted by the Uranium Mill TailingsRemedial Action (UMTRA) Ground WaterProject at UMTRCA Title I processing sites.

Scope

Through 2003, the LTS&M Program wasresponsible for annual surveillance, monitor-ing, and maintenance of 34 sites remediatedunder UMTRCA Title I and Title II; theComprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA);the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA)Section 151; the D&D Program; and FUSRAP.

Projected Schedule for Transfer of Sites

Fiscal Year

Program or Site 2003a 2004 2005 2006 2007

UMTRCA Title I Sites 21 21 21 21 21

UMTRCA Title II Sites 3 11 15 20 21

FUSRAP Sites 2 29 30 32 32

D&D Sites 5 5 5 5 5

CERCLA/RCRA Sites 2 3 11 12 16

NWPA Section 151(c) Site 1 1 1 1 1

Total 34 70 83 91 96

aLTS&M Program sites.


Page 6

Program Initiatives

One tool of the website is an interactivemapping and data format referred to asthe Geospatial Environmental MappingSystem (GEMS). Users can selectively querya database containing site-specific geographicinformation and data. Data layers that canbe displayed on GEMS include the site anddisposal cell boundaries, roads, fences,existing monitor wells, streams and ditches,bodies of water, annual site inspectionphotographs, aerial photographs, andU.S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps.Updated water quality and water level dataare available for monitor wells, and the usercan display and print these data in bothtable and graph formats.

A records tool for sites is also available. Userscan search a suite of records and can selecta document of interest to view, print, ordownload. Documents that cannot be viewedon the website can be requested during thesame interactive session.

Monitor Well Documentationand Decommissioning

Monitor well information has been enteredinto an electronic database to managewell access, permit, and status information.DOE began decommissioning unneededmonitor wells in 2000 and will continue todecommission wells as regulators approveground water compliance plans for processingsites and as cell performance monitoringrequirements are reduced. Approximately900 unneeded monitor wells are expected tobe decommissioned, which reduces liabilityfor DOE and results in cost savings whereground water sampling and analyses areno longer required and access fees are nolonger paid.

National Contribution

LTS&M Program personnel have reviewedguidance and policy documents andagreements in support of DOE Headquarters.The Program has hosted national workshopsand field demonstrations for American andforeign regulators and stakeholders involvedin the long-term care of low-level radioactivedisposal sites and former processing andweapons sites.

Long-Term SurveillancePlan Revisions

As conditions change at a site, the site-specificlong-term surveillance plan must be revised toimplement new or to eliminate unnecessarysurveillance and monitoring requirements.Revisions to a plan require concurrence byregulators before implementation. TheLakeview, Oregon, Disposal Site long-termsurveillance plan was revised to incorporatea recalculated minimum rock diameter forthe protective riprap cover; this plan is beingreviewed by the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) for concurrence. Long-term surveillance plans are also being revisedto incorporate recommended ground watercompliance strategies for disposal sites atCanonsburg, Pennsylvania (see page 13),Falls City, Texas (see page 14), and GreenRiver, Utah (see page 15), and to discontinuecell performance ground water monitoringas a measure of cell performance and changevegetation control requirements on the cellat the Lowman, Idaho, Disposal Site (seepage 16).

Public InformationThrough the Internet

DOE posted the initial Internet website forthe LTS&M Program in 1999 and continuesto incorporate new information as itbecomes available. The website, located athttp://www.gjo.doe.gov/LM, is designedto provide essential site information directlyto stakeholders, along with several methodsfor contacting personnel for additional infor-mation and answers to specific questions.



Page 7

Noxious Weed Control

In recent years, DOE has implemented anumber of weed management programs atits sites that contain noxious weeds to meetthe requirements of Executive Order 13112,“Invasive Species” (February 3, 1999). Thisorder applies to federal agencies whoseactions may affect the status of invasivespecies and includes authorization for theuse of relevant programs and authorities to“. . . detect and respond rapidly to andcontrol populations of such species in acost-effective and environmentally soundmanner.” All states have adopted lists ofnoxious weeds specific to each state andhave passed laws that require control of theweeds. When noxious weeds are identified ata site, state and local agencies and specialistsare consulted to determine the best methodsof control (see sidebar).

DOE TDOE TDOE TDOE TDOE Tararararargets Noxious Wgets Noxious Wgets Noxious Wgets Noxious Wgets Noxious Weedseedseedseedseeds

Noxious weeds are non-native plants that have no naturalenemies, spread rapidly, crowd out native plant species,and resist control. The spread of noxious weeds has becomea national problem and a concern at many DOE disposalsites. A goal of site maintenance is to eradicate or limitthe spread of noxious weeds at each site and to supportcounty and state programs in preventing loss of valuableagricultural and wild lands to noxious weed infestations.

Weed Identification

When weeds are identified at a DOE disposal site, the stateDepartment of Agriculture is contacted to determine if theweeds are considered noxious in that state. If a site containsnoxious weeds, local weed scientists, extension specialists,or county weed boards are consulted to determine thebest methods of control. Once weed growth has beencontrolled, the affected area may need to be reseededwith desirable plant species.

Weed Control Methods

Mechanical (mowing), chemical (herbicides), and biological(insects) methods are used to target specific plant species.Often, a combination of methods is selected for weedcontrol. For example, at the Canonsburg and Burrell,Pennsylvania, sites and the Parkersburg, West Virginia,site, mowing programs were implemented to help controlweeds such as poison hemlock, spotted knapweed, andCanada thistle. Spot spraying with herbicides is alsonecessary for weeds that are resistant to control bymowing or are not accessible by mowing equipment.

At the Durango, Colorado, and Sherwood, Washington,sites, biological methods are being used to control noxiousweed populations. Noxious weeds are dispersed amongdesirable plants in large areas at both sites, making chemicalcontrol expensive and impractical; neither site is easilyaccessible by mowing equipment. Two species of insectswere released at the Durango site in 2002 and 2003 tocontrol musk thistle. Six species of insects were released

at the Sherwood site in 2003 to control diffuseknapweed, spotted knapweed, and Dalmatiantoadflax. All released insects have been studied andapproved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture toensure that they target only the specific host plantand have no effect on other plant species. A programto monitor the effectiveness of biological controlmeasures at the Sherwood site will be implementedin 2004.

A botanist demonstrates to site inspectors andregulators how spotted knapwood at theSherwood, Washington, Disposal Site will becontrolled by the release of knapweed root weevils(shown in bottom photograph).


Page 8

Program Accomplishments

The LTS&M Program has been responsiblefor providing site management services forremediated DOE sites. All sites assigned to theDOE office in Grand Junction for long-termmanagement continue to be protective ofhuman health and the environment and incompliance with applicable laws, regulations,and policies. The following accomplishmentsare highlights of LTS&M Program activitiesin 2003.

Routine Inspection,Maintenance, and Monitoring

• Inspected 31 sites and prepared reports ofsite conditions. Conducted monitoring ofground water quality, ground water levels,vegetation, precipitation, radon, andpermit compliance as required by long-term surveillance plans or according tobest management practices.

• Performed routine maintenance at25 sites, including replacing signs,repairing or replacing damagedmonuments, repairing fences, cuttingencroaching vegetation, mowing grass,and controlling noxious weeds.

• Repaired erosion damage to two drainageditches at the Grand Junction, Colorado,Disposal Site.

• Repaired and stabilized erosion damageat several locations at the sites in GreenRiver and Monticello, Utah.

• Repaired and stabilized erosion damagein reclaimed areas at the Weldon Spring,Missouri, Site.

• Conducted radon monitoring at theSlick Rock, Colorado, Disposal Site afterremoval of two standpipes from the celland at the open cell at the Grand Junction,Colorado, Disposal Site.

• Continued to operate treatment cells atthe Durango, Colorado, Disposal Site totest the effectiveness of using zero-valentiron to remove uranium and other contam-inants from transient drainage water.

• Released insects for biological controlof noxious weeds at the disposalsites at Durango, Colorado, andSherwood, Washington.

Nonroutine Maintenance

• Removed a damaged access gate at theBurrell, Pennsylvania, Disposal Site becauseit was no longer needed for site security.

• Removed a silt fence at the Lowman, Idaho,Disposal Site because a reclaimed area hadstabilized.

• Reconstructed the storm-damaged outflowchannel and replaced a washed-outboundary monument and a section ofthe security fence at the Shiprock,New Mexico, Disposal Site (see sidebaron page 19).

• Constructed a removable roof for atemporary storage facility located nearthe repository at the Monticello, Utah,Disposal Site.

• Seeded 150 acres to establish a nativegrassland prairie environment adjacent tothe Weldon Spring, Missouri, Disposal Site(see sidebar on page 27).

Erosion repair was necessary to protect a perimeter sign at the GreenRiver, Utah, Disposal Site.


Page 9

Colorado Students ParticipateColorado Students ParticipateColorado Students ParticipateColorado Students ParticipateColorado Students Participatein Win Win Win Win Wetland “Pole Planting”etland “Pole Planting”etland “Pole Planting”etland “Pole Planting”etland “Pole Planting”

In April 2003, some western Colorado high school studentsreceived a hands-on science lesson in wetland vegetationas they worked side by side with representatives fromthe DOE office in Grand Junction, Colorado, plantingcottonwood and willow cuttings in the wetland areaat a remediated uranium ore-processing site near Rifle,Colorado. The activity provided high school students fromRifle and nearby DeBeque the opportunity to learn aboutwetlands and some history of the remedial action at theRifle site.

Members of the River Watchers Club at Rifle High Schooland some of their parents spent an afternoon cuttingcottonwood and willow shoots from another part of thesite. The following morning, after a field lecture aboutwetland reconstruction and planting instructions, the highschool students planted approximately 1,200 willow and150 cottonwood cuttings, or “pole plants,” in a 34.2-acrearea along the south boundary of the Rifle site. The areawas set aside to replace a wetland lost during theremediation of the processing site.

DOE plans to have the students from the Rifle RiverWatchers Club help monitor the wetland vegetationgrowing at the site. Anthony Rossilli, science teacher atRifle High School, is pleased that his students will continueto be involved in the wetland project. “This is a wonderfulopportunity for students to practice science applications,to contribute to the community, and to begin what I amhoping will be a project that students can continue tomonitor and study for years to come,” said Rossilli.

Rifle and DeBeque, Colorado, high school studentsplant cottonwood and willow cuttings for restorationof a wetland area.

Transition of New Sitesto Long-Term Management

The LTS&M Program continued to provideassistance in transferring sites for long-termmanagement. Significant activities in 2003included assisting UMTRCA Title II sitelicensees in final preparations for expectedtransfers in 2004 of the former uraniumore-processing sites at Shirley Basin South,Wyoming, Bear Creek, Wyoming, and L-Bar,New Mexico; preparations to transferapproximately 27 FUSRAP sites in 2004;and preliminary work to transfer 3 formerweapons production sites in the nextfew years.

Stakeholder Services

The LTS&M Program involved stakeholders inthe process of transitioning sites to long-termmanagement. Some of these stakeholderinvolvement activities include preparing site-specific fact sheets, issuing news releases,conducting public meetings, and postinginformation on the Internet. In 2003, publicmeetings and/or briefings with local andstate officials were held at numerous sites.Occasionally, DOE has the opportunity toinvolve stakeholders in a more unique andinteractive way that can have long-termeffects, such as the “pole planting” con-ducted at the remediated uranium ore-processing site near Rifle, Colorado (seesidebar). Other services performed during2003 include

• Conducted a third focused public worksession to discuss stakeholder commentson the draft long-term stewardship planfor the Weldon Spring, Missouri, Site.The previous two work sessions wereheld in 2002.

• Posted 47 documents in the WeldonSpring, Missouri, Site Ground WaterAdministrative Record as viewabledocuments on the Internet.

• Published notices and issued a fact sheetexplaining the partial deletion process fordeleting 22 of 34 properties from OperableUnit II of the Monticello, Utah, Mill TailingsSite from the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency’s (EPA’s) National Priorities List.


Page 10

• Published a Notice of Availability for theProposed Plan for the Surface and GroundWater Operable Unit of the Monticello, Utah,Mill Tailings Site.

• Maintained the Internet website(http://www.gjo.doe.gov/LM).Maintenance of the website includesposting site-specific information, such asfact sheets, long-term surveillance plans,annual inspection reports, and 5-yearreview reports (as appropriate), andmaintaining the electronic records systemand GEMS. Visitors to the website can alsoobtain inspection schedules, programplans, annual compliance reports, technicalreports, and news releases and can accessDOE Headquarters websites. New webpages are created for sites as they aretransferred to long-term management.

Replacement of a sign at the Durango, Colorado,Disposal Site is part of the routine maintenanceperformed at remediated sites.

Applied Research

• Continued collaboration with the EPAAlternative Cover Assessment Programthrough the EPA National Risk Manage-ment Laboratory on analysis of waterbalance data from caisson lysimeters anda 7.5-acre repository cover lysimeter atMonticello, Utah.

• Continued collaboration with EPA Region 8on a study of evapotranspiration covers andcapillary barrier designs using smallweighing lysimeters at Monticello, Utah.

• Completed field investigations for a studyof the soil water balance, ecology, andlong-term performance of the cover atthe Lakeview, Oregon, Disposal Site.

• Completed a study of phytoremediationand bioremediation of contaminated soilsat the former Monument Valley, Arizona,uranium millsite in collaboration with theEnvironmental Research Laboratory,University of Arizona.

• Completed a study of ground waterphytoremediation using desertphreatophytes at the former MonumentValley, Arizona, uranium millsite incollaboration with the EnvironmentalResearch Laboratory, University of Arizona.

• Completed a study of the permeability ofthe cell cover at the Tuba City, Arizona,Disposal Site.

• Contributed to the DOE Science andTechnology project, Monitored NaturalAttenuation and Enhanced PassiveRemediation, by participating in aNational Technology Working Groupfocused on providing scientific and policyguidance for implementing appropriatepassive remediation and cost-effectivemonitoring strategies.

• Contributed design and site environmentaldata for a probabilistic, risk-based model ofcurrent and potential future performance ofthe cell at the Lakeview, Oregon, DisposalSite in cooperation with DOE SandiaNational Laboratories.



Page 11

• Began an evaluation of potentialdetrimental as well as beneficialconsequences of woody plantestablishment and succession on therock cover of the cell at the Shiprock,New Mexico, Disposal Site.

• Began a study of plant root intrusion intoand permeability of the cell cover at theGrand Junction, Colorado, Disposal Site.

• Began an investigation of passivephytoremediation as a component of theremediation strategy for the ground waternitrate plume at the Tuba City, Arizona,Disposal Site.

Publications, Presentations,and Reports

• Co-authored “Engineered Containmentand Control Systems: Nurturing Nature”in the journal Risk Analysis.

• Co-authored “Chapter 20: EcosystemRestoration” in the textbook EnvironmentalMonitoring, Academic Press.

• Submitted for publication“Phytoremediation of Nitrate-Contaminated Ground Water byDesert Phreatophytes” (co-author).

• Submitted for publication “Rapid Nitrateand Ammonium Loss from a ContaminatedDesert Soil” (co-author).

• Presented “Design and Monitoring of anEvapotranspiration Cover at the Monticello,Utah, Superfund Site,” at the FifthEnvironmental Technology Symposiumand Workshop, Interstate TechnologyRegulatory Council.

• Presented “Evolution and Performanceof Disposal Cell Covers for Uranium MillTailings” at a workshop on alternativecovers organized for the Hanford(Washington) Advisory Board.

• Prepared the technical reportCharacterization of the EnvironmentalEnvelope for the Design of Long-TermCovers (TTP ID02SS21): Closeout Report.

• Presented a seminar on “Ecology,Design, and Long-Term Performance ofEvapotranspiration Covers” to EPA Region 8personnel and consultants working onremedies for the Rocky Mountain Arsenalnear Denver, Colorado. Presented a similarseminar to a graduate school class fromUtah State University.

• Participated in the National TechnologyWorking Group that authored “Naturaland Passive Remediation of ChlorinatedSolvents: Critical Evaluation of Scienceand Technology Targets.”


Page 12

Program Sites

UMTRCA Title I Disposaland Processing Sites

For Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation ControlAct (UMTRCA) Title I disposal sites in theLTS&M Program, DOE becomes a licensee tothe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC). Inspection, reporting, and record-keeping requirements are defined in Title 10Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 40.27,“General License for Custody and Long-TermCare of Residual Radioactive Material DisposalSites.” The general license for long-termcustody is indefinite in duration. Usually, titlefor the land is assigned to an agency of theFederal Government, and the land isadministratively withdrawn from unrestrictedpublic use. Sites located on tribal land revertto tribal control, and DOE obtains a siteaccess agreement with the tribe that allowsDOE to fulfill its custodial responsibilities.

Title I of UMTRCA designated 22 inactiveuranium ore-processing sites for remediation.Remediation of these sites resulted in thecreation of 19 disposal cells that contain

Locations of UMTRCA Title I Sites

encapsulated uranium mill tailings andassociated contaminated material (seepage 32). Approximately 40 million cubicyards of low-level radioactive material iscontained in engineered UMTRCA Title Idisposal cells.

Standards for UMTRCA remedial action,cell performance, and ground water qualityare established by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) in 40 CFR 192“Health and Environmental ProtectionStandards for Uranium and Thorium MillTailings.” Upon NRC concurrence thatremedial action has been completed andacceptance of the site-specific long-termsurveillance plan, each disposal site comesunder the general license for long-term careby DOE. If ground water at a particular sitewas contaminated by former site activities,NRC will accept only the surface improve-ments under the general license; the sitewill not be fully licensed until ground waterquality meets the applicable regulations. TheNRC license mandates annual inspections ofthe disposal cells.


Page 13

Burrell, Pennsylvania

Mill tailings were hauled to this location fromthe Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, site for use asfill. Because of the large volume of tailings onthe Burrell site, a disposal cell was constructedon that site and is protected by a rock cover.The disposal site was accepted under theNRC general license in 1994. In 2003, DOEremoved a damaged access gate that wasno longer needed for site security and begandeveloping a weed control plan for newinfestations of noxious and undesirable plants(see sidebar on page 7).

Canonsburg, Pennsylvania

DOE encapsulated low-level radioactivematerial from a former millsite and163 vicinity properties in an engineereddisposal cell in 1985. NRC accepted thesite under the general license in 1996.NRC approved the application of alternateconcentration limits to contaminated groundwater beneath the site in 2000, and limitedground water and surface water monitoringcontinues. Layers of rock and soil protectthe radon barrier of this urban disposal cell;the cover surface was seeded with grass.Custodial maintenance at the CanonsburgDisposal Site includes fertilizing and mowingthe grass within the site boundary, thusensuring the success of the grass cover and

All but one of the Title I disposal sites areunder the general license. A portion of thecell at the Grand Junction, Colorado, DisposalSite will be left open to receive additionalcontaminated materials and is managed bythe LTS&M Program.

Residual radioactive material was removedfrom some of the Title I processing sites to off-site disposal locations. NRC does not require alicense for remediated processing sites that donot have disposal cells but is the regulator ifcontaminated ground water remains.

Ground water compliance action plans, withcompliance strategies that range from naturalflushing to active remediation, have been orare being developed by DOE for processingsites that have contaminated ground water.These plans require approval by NRC andconcurrence by the state and Native Americantribe (when applicable). To date, groundwater remedies have been approved andimplemented at several former uraniumore-processing sites.

A summary of the status of each UMTRCATitle I site is presented in this report;annual compliance reports and factsheets are available on the Internet athttp://www.gjo.doe.gov/LM or fromthe DOE office in Grand Junction.

Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico

Contaminated material was consolidatedand encapsulated on the existing tailings pile.The riprap-armored disposal cell was closedin 1995 and came under the general licenseissued by NRC in 1998. NRC concurredthat ground water quality conforms to therequirements of 40 CFR 192 through theapplication of supplemental standards;ground water monitoring is not requiredto determine compliance or cell performanceat this location. At the request of the Stateof New Mexico, however, DOE samples twomonitor wells once every 3 years and reportsthe analytical results to the state; samplingwas not required in 2003. DOE is monitoringa small shallow depression on the cell top;to date, the depression is not affecting theperformance of the cell.

Access to the Burrell, Pennsylvania, Disposal Site was improved byremoving a damaged and unneeded gate.



Page 14

helping to prevent erosion. DOE identifiednoxious weeds and other undesirable plantspecies at the site in 2003 and is developinga plan to control them (see sidebar onpage 7).

A remediated parcel of land between thesite and the adjacent Chartiers Creek, knownas Area C, is owned by the Commonwealthof Pennsylvania but is monitored by DOEbecause of historically contaminated groundwater and two locations of thorium contam-ination left in place at depth. Area C is forsale by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,and DOE is working with the Commonwealthto ensure that the property transfer carriesa deed restriction prohibiting use of thecontaminated ground water, limiting exca-vation to avoid encountering the thorium-contaminated soil, and preventing the parcelfrom being used for residential purposes. Saleof the property requires NRC concurrence.

Durango, Colorado

DOE removed tailings, contaminated buildingdebris, and soil from a former uranium ore-processing site located near the Animas Riverand from associated vicinity properties. Thelow-level radioactive material was encap-sulated in the cell at the Durango Disposal Sitein 1990. NRC accepted the disposal site underthe general license in 1996. A vegetatedrock-and-soil matrix layer protects the topslope of the cell; the side slopes are coveredwith riprap to protect against wind and watererosion. Deep-rooted plants are removed toprevent damage to the radon barrier under

the cell cover. Chemical and biologicalmethods are being employed to controlnoxious weeds at the site. Insects that targeta specific weed were released for the secondconsecutive year (see sidebar on page 7).

Ground water is monitored annually toconfirm cell performance, and DOE continuesto operate treatment cells at the site to testthe effectiveness of using zero-valent iron toremove uranium and other contaminantsfrom disposal-cell transient drainage water.Treatment cell results have been used todesign and install permeable reactive barriersat the former mill tailings site at Monticello,Utah, and at Travis Air Force Base inCalifornia. Ground water at the formerprocessing site was contaminated, and acompliance strategy is under development.A portion of the processing site has beentransferred to the City of Durango and is usedfor a park, and another portion is being usedfor a major irrigation project that is underconstruction in the area.

Falls City, Texas

Tailings from seven locations were combinedin a disposal cell on the original millsite. NRCconcurred that this disposal cell conformed toEPA standards, and the surface improvementswere brought under the general license in1997. The cell top is grass covered and ismowed each year to discourage growth ofdeep-rooted plants on the cover. Vegetationon the riprap-armored side slopes iscontrolled by cutting and applicationof herbicides.

NRC fully licensed the site in 1998 afterconcurring with DOE’s ground watercompliance plan for the contaminated aquiferbeneath the site. Compliance was attainedby applying supplemental standards to siteground water that is contaminated by naturaluranium ore-bearing strata and by formeruranium exploration and milling operations.Monitor wells are sampled to assess cellperformance and the extent of a processing-related contaminant plume.

Grand Junction, Colorado

Uranium mill tailings and associated millbuilding debris and ore-processing wasteswere removed from the former uraniumore-processing site located along the

This bridge across the Colorado River provides access to a trailsystem that crosses a remediated area that was formerly a uraniumore-processing site in Grand Junction, Colorado.


Page 15

Colorado River in Grand Junction andtransported to the Grand Junction DisposalSite located south of the city. The processingsite was also the staging location for uraniummill tailings-contaminated material removedfrom more than 4,000 vicinity properties inthe Grand Junction area. Removal of stagedmaterials and surface remediation activitieswere completed in 1994. The 114-acre siteis now owned by the City of Grand Junction.

The uppermost aquifer at the formerprocessing site is of limited use because ofnaturally occurring uranium and selenium andcontamination from former uraniumore-processing activities. DOE expects theprocessing-related contaminants in theground water to attenuate through naturalflushing. The contaminated ground wateris managed through application of supple-mental standards, institutional controls, andmonitoring to ensure the protection ofhuman health and the environment. NRCconcurred with this ground water compliancestrategy in 1999. The site is inspectedannually to ensure that institutional controlshave not been violated.

A portion of the cell at the Grand JunctionDisposal Site will remain open until as lateas 2023 to receive additional radioactivematerial from Grand Junction vicinityproperties, other UMTRCA locations, andthe Monticello, Utah, CERCLA sites. Thisaction was taken to provide a disposallocation for incidental low-level radioactivematerial, such as might be removed fromutility trenches and from beneath streets asthose structures are rebuilt. Approximately2,450 cubic yards of material from GrandJunction and Monticello removal actions andwater treatment activities at the Tuba City,Arizona, Disposal Site was placed in the cellin 2003. Additional material from Monticellowas stockpiled and stabilized at the site latein the year because the Monticello TemporaryStorage Facility was nearly full.

Weekly inspections of the Grand JunctionDisposal Site are conducted to verify thatthe site is secure, and radon is monitoredcontinuously to ensure that the cell isprotective of human health and the environ-ment. Provisions of the long-term surveillanceplan address all aspects of the Grand JunctionDisposal Site except the open portion of the

cell. Ground water monitoring has notdetected any seepage from the cell. Theencroachment of deep-rooted plants on therock-armored cell cover is controlled throughcutting and treating with herbicides. Minorerosion damage to two drainage ditches wasrepaired in 2003.

Green River, Utah

Tailings, contaminated soil, and buildingdebris were encapsulated in an on-sitedisposal cell in 1989. NRC accepted theGreen River Disposal Site under the generallicense for UMTRCA Title I sites in 1998. Inaddition to annual inspections, ground wateris monitored to evaluate cell performance,trends of contaminant levels, and therelationship between local precipitation andground water flow. The underlying aquifercontains naturally elevated levels of seleniumand is not used as a drinking water source;however, the aquifer was also locally contam-inated by former uranium ore-processingoperations at the site. A ground watercompliance strategy has been developed andis being reviewed by the State of Utah.

Gunnison, Colorado

Uranium mill tailings and contaminatedmaterial from demolished mill structuresformerly located near the Gunnison River andfrom vicinity properties in Gunnison wererelocated to the Gunnison Disposal Site in1995. NRC licensed the site in 1997. Groundwater monitoring is required at six point-of-compliance wells; analytical results of ground

The vegetative cover is documented at a test ploton a reclaimed haul road near the Gunnison,Colorado, Disposal Site.


Page 16

water samples continue to confirm thatthe cell is performing as designed. Riprapdurability is monitored at key locationsaround the base of the cell because of freeze–thaw conditions; no degradation of the riprapis evident. The expansion of an adjacentcounty landfill is monitored to ensure that noactivities adversely affect the disposal site.Monitoring of revegetation success continueson portions of two reclaimed haul roads thatwere used during disposal cell construction.

NRC concurred that surface remediationat the former uranium ore-processing sitewas complete when the cell was licensed;however, contaminated ground waterremains at the site. DOE has proposed aground water compliance strategy for thecontaminated aquifer consisting of naturalflushing, monitoring, and institutionalcontrols. Currently, DOE is negotiatinginstitutional control requirements withlocal government entities.

Lakeview, Oregon

Surface remedial action was completed atthe Lakeview Processing Site in 1989, andNRC placed the off-site disposal cell under thegeneral license in 1995. The disposal cell side

slopes are armored with riprap, and the topslope is covered with riprap, overlain with soil,and planted with native grasses. The riprap ismonitored annually for signs of acceleratedweathering and consequent reduction in size;the riprap continues to protect the cell fromerosion. Ground water beneath the disposalcell is sampled once every 5 years to verifythat contaminants are not leaching fromthe cell; sampling was not required in 2003.DOE continues to investigate the effects ofdeep-rooted plants on the permeability ofthe cell cover.

Ground water at the former uranium-oreprocessing site remains contaminated fromprocessing activities and from geothermalactivity in the area. DOE has proposedapplication of supplemental standards,monitoring, and institutional controls as theground water compliance strategy for thesite. Part of the compliance strategy includesan upgrade to the local municipal waterdistribution system and implementationof ground water use restrictions.

Lowman, Idaho

In 1992, DOE consolidated radioactivematerial from processing operations and fromvicinity properties onto existing radioactivesand piles and encapsulated the materialbeneath an engineered cell cover. NRClicensed the disposal site in 1994. Groundwater monitoring is required to confirm cellperformance. On the basis of analysis of theground water quality and the chemistry ofthe encapsulated material, DOE will requestconcurrence from NRC to discontinuemonitoring the ground water. Control ofthe encroachment of vegetation on thecell, which allows surface water to infiltratethe cell, is also required. However, theencapsulated material generally is insolubleand resistant to leaching, and natural plantcommunity succession could proceedwithout increased risk to human healthor the environment. DOE will also requestconcurrence from NRC to discontinuecontrolling vegetation on the cell except tocut large trees to prevent damage that wouldoccur to the cell cover if the trees were blowndown and their root systems were unearthed.Because of successful erosion stabilization, asilt fence was removed from the site in 2003.

A pine forest is encroaching on the disposal cell at Lowman, Idaho.


Page 17

Maybell, Colorado

Tailings and process-related waste wereconsolidated on the existing tailings pile andwere encapsulated in 1998. NRC concurredthat remediation was complete and acceptedthe site under the general license in 1999.The site is situated in a former uranium-mining district and several abandoned minesand a remediated UMTRCA Title II processingsite are located nearby. Because a largequantity of moist material was encapsulatedin a portion of the cell, settlement platesinstalled on top of the cell are surveyedannually to detect potential differentialsettlement. No significant settlement hasoccurred, and surveying requirements areexpected to be completed in 2004.

Local ground water was contaminated byuranium mineralization and from miningactivities. DOE achieved compliance withground water standards in 40 CFR 192through the application of supplementalstandards; therefore, ground water qualityis not monitored at the site. DOE monitorswater levels upgradient and downgradientof the cell to assess disposal cell performance.

Mexican Hat, Utah

The cell at the Mexican Hat Disposal Sitecontains mill tailings and waste from formeruranium ore-processing facilities at MexicanHat, Utah, and at Monument Valley, Arizona.NRC accepted the Mexican Hat Disposal Siteunder the general license in 1997. The NavajoNation retains title to the land. Processingoperations at the site did not affect theground water in the uppermost aquifer;however, water containing processing-relatedcontaminants remains in shallow perchedzones at this site. The perched zones arerecharged by local precipitation and arenot used as a water supply. On the basis ofthe quantity and quality of the water thatemerges from these perched zones as seeps,the seeps do not pose unacceptable humanor ecological risk. However, DOE monitorssix seeps on an annual basis to assess cellperformance as required by the long-termsurveillance plan.

Monument Valley, Arizona

The Monument Valley Processing Site, locatedon 90 acres along Cane Valley Wash onNavajo Nation land, is the former locationof uranium mining and milling operations.Contaminated material, consisting of twouranium mill tailings piles, mill buildingfoundations, and contaminated soil, wasrelocated to the Mexican Hat Disposal Site.Surface remedial action was completed in1994, and no residual soil contaminationremains on site. Former milling operationscontaminated ground water in the alluvialaquifer beneath the site; the contaminantsof concern are nitrate, sulfate, and uranium.DOE is developing a plan to remediate thecontaminated alluvial aquifer.

Naturita, Colorado

Contaminated soil and building debrisfrom a former uranium ore-processing siteadjacent to the San Miguel River nearNaturita, Colorado, were relocated toa sandstone quarry near an UMTRCA Title IIsite at Uravan, Colorado, and were encap-sulated beneath an engineered cover. NRClicensed the repository as the NaturitaDisposal Site in 1999. Laboratory analysesof ground water samples from shallowwater-bearing formations at the disposalsite confirm that the cell is performing asdesigned. U.S. Bureau of Land Managementright-of-way permits for the two disposal cell

The Mexican Hat, Utah, Disposal Site contains mill tailings fromprocessing activities at the site and from the Monument Valley,Arizona, Processing Site.


Page 18

toe-drain outlets (the drains extend beyondthe property boundary), originally set toexpire in 2004, were modified as perpetualeasements in 2003.

Ground water is contaminated at this formerprocessing site but water in the San MiguelRiver has not been degraded. DOE hasproposed natural flushing of the aquifer,continued monitoring of ground waterquality, and institutional controls untilcompliance is attained. Regulator approvalis pending.

Rifle, Colorado

In 1996, DOE relocated wastes from twoformer uranium and vanadium ore-processingsites near the Colorado River and waste fromremediated vicinity properties to the RifleDisposal Site located north of Rifle. NRCaccepted the disposal site under the generallicense in 1998. The cell design preventsprecipitation from infiltrating through thecover, but the waste materials were saturatedwhen placed into the cell. Water has beenmigrating out of the waste materials to thelow point in the cell in a process calledtransient drainage.

Two wells installed in the deepest part of thecell have been used to monitor the accumu-lation of transient drainage water. To preventthis water from rising high enough to saturatethe cell embankment, water is being pumped

from one of the wells to an evaporation pondthat was constructed in 2001. The solar-powered pumping operation halted the riseof water and has kept the water level belowthe action level stipulated in the long-termsurveillance plan. Pumping will continue untilthe water level in the cell stabilizes at aspecified elevation, indicating that dewateringof the cell contents is complete.

Contaminated ground water remains in thealluvial aquifer beneath the former processingsites. Ground water compliance strategy willbe a combination of natural flushing andapplication of alternate concentration limitsfor contaminants that exceed EPA standardsor pose a health risk. DOE will continue tomonitor ground water quality and controlground water use, drilling, and other intrusiveactivities. DOE funded an extension of themunicipal water system to serve propertiesaffected by the contaminated ground water.

Riverton, Wyoming

Uranium and vanadium mill tailings andassociated mill building debris and ore-processing wastes were removed from theformer millsite located near Riverton andtransported to the UMETCO Gas Hills,Wyoming, UMTRCA Title II site. Surfaceremedial action was completed in 1989, andno residual soil contamination remains onthe site. The 140-acre site is privately ownedand is located within the Wind River IndianReservation. Milling operations contaminatedthe shallow alluvial and bedrock aquifersbeneath the former millsite. Contaminants ofconcern include chromium, molybdenum,radium, selenium, and uranium. NRCconcurred with natural flushing as the groundwater compliance strategy in 1999; a long-term management plan is being prepared toensure that institutional controls, such asrestricting ground water use, remain effective.

Salt Lake City, Utah

The State of Utah completed remedial actionof the former uranium and vanadium ore-processing site in 1987 under the directionof DOE. A local wastewater treatment districtowns the former processing site. In 2000,NRC concurred with the ground watercompliance strategy for the site, andDOE transferred site responsibility to theLTS&M Program.

Transient drainage water is pumped from the Rifle, Colorado, DisposalCell to an evaporation pond.


Page 19

Contaminated ground water and smallpockets of contaminated soil remain at theformer processing site. Ground water inthe uppermost aquifer is not a current orpotential source of drinking water becauseof naturally poor water quality and becausethe processing-related contamination cannotreadily be remediated using conventionalmethods. The soil contamination does notpose an unacceptable risk to human health orthe environment. Ground water complianceand control of the contaminated soil areachieved through application of supplementalstandards and deed restrictions. DOE annuallymonitors ground water and surface water atthis location and verifies that site develop-ment activities are in accordance withdeed restrictions.

Mill tailings and associated contaminatedmaterial were relocated from the Salt LakeCity Processing Site to the Salt Lake CityDisposal Site. The disposal site, located about80 miles west of Salt Lake City, is surroundedby an active commercial low-level radiologicalwaste disposal facility. NRC licensed thedisposal site in 1997. The existing groundwater is classified as limited use because ofits naturally poor quality; therefore, groundwater monitoring is not required. Access tothe site is coordinated through the commer-cial operator of the nearby waste disposalfacility that also provides an escort along theaccess route because of ongoing haul anddisposal activities adjacent to the site.

Shiprock, New Mexico

Cleanup of the former Shiprock uraniumore-processing site was completed inNovember 1986 by consolidating andstabilizing mill tailings in an on-siteengineered disposal cell. NRC licensed theShiprock Disposal Site in 1996. The NavajoNation retains title to the land. Annualmaintenance activities include controllingdeep-rooted weeds and tamarisk, a noxiousshrub, through cutting and application ofherbicides. The outflow channel for runofffrom the cell was redesigned and constructedin 2003 to repair damages caused by runofffrom severe storm events in 2001 and 2002(see sidebar). A section of the security fenceand a boundary monument that weredamaged or washed out by the storm runoffwere replaced.

ErErErErErosion Repair at Shiprosion Repair at Shiprosion Repair at Shiprosion Repair at Shiprosion Repair at Shiprock, New Mexicoock, New Mexicoock, New Mexicoock, New Mexicoock, New Mexico

Runoff from the disposal cell at Shiprock, New Mexico,eroded the outflow channel and damaged propertyadjacent to the site during a severe rainstorm in 2001.Temporary repairs were made while the channel was beingevaluated and redesigned. Another severe storm in 2002washed out the temporary repairs and caused additionalharm, including damage to the security fence anddisplacement of a concrete-encased boundary monument.

The outflow channel was redesigned to divert and confineflow to an engineered channel down the edge of a terraceto a natural drainage channel (Bob Lee Wash) that runsalong the west side of the disposal site. The new channel,repositioned about 200 feet north of the original channel,is armored with rock-filled gabions (wire-mesh enclosures)and ends at a gabion-lined energy dissipation basin at theconfluence with Bob Lee Wash. Other repairs includedrebuilding a portion of the security fence and installinga new boundary monument. Reconstruction work wascompleted in early 2003. Although no severe stormsoccurred at the site during 2003, the new channelsuccessfully diverted runoff during 2003 rainfall events.

Storm damage to an outflow channel at the Shiprock, NewMexico, Disposal Site (top photograph) resulted in redesigningand repositioning the channel (bottom photograph).


Page 20

Monitoring of the aquifer beneath the cell isnot required by the long-term surveillanceplan because of its low yield and naturallypoor water quality. However, the terrace andSan Juan River floodplain alluvial aquiferswere contaminated by former uranium ore-processing operations. In 2003, DOE beganremoving ground water from the terraceaquifer to lower the water level and reduceseepage into a nearby drainage and from thefloodplain aquifer to reduce the contaminantmass at that location.

Slick Rock, Colorado

Tailings from two former uranium ore-processing sites adjacent to the Dolores Rivernear Slick Rock, Colorado, were relocatedto the Slick Rock Disposal Site in 1996. Thesite was accepted under the NRC generallicense in 1998. The cell contains tailings,contaminated debris, and soil from thedemolished mill structures and vicinityproperties. The riprap-armored cell is sitedon a small mesa on unsaturated sedimentaryrock. Ground water monitoring is notrequired at the disposal site. In 2002, DOEdecommissioned two standpipes that hadbeen used to monitor water levels in thecell because water levels were continuouslybelow the datum specified in the long-termsurveillance plan. Radon was monitored atthe site during 2003 to verify that removal ofthe standpipes did not affect the performanceof the radon barrier; results indicate thatradon was not released and the cell continuesto perform as designed.

Contaminated ground water remains in thealluvial aquifer at the former processing sites.Ground water at both sites will be remediatedthrough natural flushing, and DOE willcontinue to monitor ground water qualityuntil it conforms to EPA standards stipulatedin 40 CFR 192, Subpart B.

Spook, Wyoming

The Spook Disposal Site formerly consistedof a small open-pit uranium mine, orepiles, mine adits, ore-processing structures,and associated tailings. DOE placed allcontaminated material in the pit on a low-permeability soil layer and constructed anengineered cover over the waste. Under theSurface Mining Control and Reclamation Act,stockpiled overburden was compacted to60 feet thick over the encapsulated material.The surface was graded to provide drainageaway from the site and to match surroundingtopography. Because of the successful sitegrading and revegetation efforts, only thesite markers and perimeter signs distinguishthe site from the surrounding land. The sitewas accepted under the NRC general licensein 1993. Ground water monitoring is notrequired because the existing ground watercontains widespread and naturally occurringdissolved uranium and is classified aslimited use.

Tuba City, Arizona

DOE encapsulated mill tailings in place overthe existing tailings pile at this site in 1990.The disposal site was accepted under theNRC general license in 1996. The NavajoNation retains title to the land. Accumulationof blowing sand and associated minorvolunteer vegetation growth on the rockcover continue to be studied to assess ifthe plants are affecting the water-barrierproperties of the cover system. Until the studyis completed, maintenance activities includecutting deep-rooted plants and treating themwith herbicide.

Former milling operations contaminatedground water at this site; DOE began activeground water remediation at the site in 2000.The long-term surveillance plan specifiesground water sampling at seven monitorwells to assess cell performance.


Page 21

UMTRCA Title II Disposal Sites

Uranium processing sites addressed by Title IIof UMTRCA were active when the act waspassed in 1978. These sites were commerciallyowned and are regulated under NRC license.For license termination, the owner mustconduct an NRC-approved reclamation ofany on-site radioactive waste remaining fromformer uranium ore-processing operations.The site owner also must ensure full fundingfor inspections and, if necessary, ongoingmaintenance. DOE then accepts title to thesesites for custody and care. DOE administersthe sites under the provisions of the generalNRC license granted under 10 CFR 40.28,“General License for Custody and Long-TermCare of Uranium or Thorium ByproductMaterials Disposal Sites.”

DOE managed three UMTRCA Title II sitesin 2003; this number is expected to increaseto 21 sites by 2007 as ongoing site reclama-tions are completed. Ultimately, as many as27 UMTRCA Title II sites may be managedby DOE.

Three sites were expected to be transferredto DOE in 2003, but circumstances have

delayed the transfers. NRC approved thecompletion of surface reclamation at theShirley Basin (South) and Bear Creek sites inWyoming and at the L-Bar site in New Mexicoand granted alternate concentration limitsas the ground water compliance strategy foreach site. Nearly all the site managementissues have been resolved between DOE, NRC,state regulatory agencies, and the licenseesto complete the final site transfers to DOE.Transfer of these sites to DOE should occurin 2004.

A summary of the status of eachUMTRCA Title II site managed by DOE ispresented in this report. Annual inspectionreports and fact sheets for these sitesare available on the Internet athttp://www.gjo.doe.gov/LM or fromthe DOE office in Grand Junction.

Bluewater, New Mexico

ARCO Coal Company stabilized mill tailingspiles in place and completed engineeredcovers in 1995. NRC accepted the site underthe general license in 1997. The radon barriercovering the wastes is protected by riprap.The Bluewater Disposal Site incorporatesother stabilized disposal areas, including a

Locations of UMTRCA Title II Sites



Page 22

small riprap-armored disposal cell containingpolychlorinated biphenyl-contaminated by-product material that was permitted by EPAand is in compliance with the Toxic Substan-ces Control Act. Several years of active groundwater treatment did not succeed in loweringground water contaminant levels to back-ground concentrations. Subsequently, NRCgranted alternate concentration limits for thesite. Ground water monitoring is conductedat the Bluewater site to verify continuedcompliance with the approved limits.

Edgemont, South Dakota

The Tennessee Valley Authority relocatedtailings from the former millsite at Edgemontto an engineered disposal cell in 1989.Material from Edgemont vicinity propertieswas co-located in the disposal cell withmaterial from the millsite. NRC concurredwith placing this disposal site under thegeneral license for long-term custody in 1996.Ground water monitoring is not required forthis site because the uppermost confinedaquifer lies below an impermeable bedrocklayer. The top of the cell has a grass coverand is managed by controlled livestockgrazing to promote the long-term healthof the turf.

Sherwood, Washington

The Sherwood Disposal Site is situated on theSpokane Indian Reservation. Western Nuclear,Inc., completed encapsulating the tailingsand contaminated materials from mining andmilling operations in an engineered disposalcell in 1996; NRC included the site undergeneral license in 2001. Native plant specieswere established on the soil cover of thedisposal cell. The encapsulated waste remainssaturated by design to prevent metals in thewaste from chemically altering to forms thatmight leach into the underlying bedrock.Ground water sampling and analyses areconducted in accordance with the site-specificlong-term surveillance plan; 2003 samplingresults show that all measured parameters arewithin acceptable ranges. The cell embank-ment has been classified as a dam, requiringsafety inspections to ensure compliancewith the Federal Dam Safety Act. A smallpercentage of the riprap on portions of thedam face has crumbled and several plots wereestablished in 2003, at the request of NRC,to monitor rock durability annually. During2003, DOE released six different insect speciesto control noxious weeds that have infestedthe site (see sidebar on page 7).

Locations of FUSRAP Sites


Page 23

FUSRAP Sites

DOE established the Formerly Utilized SitesRemedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1974 toremediate sites where radioactive contamina-tion remained from Manhattan Project andearly U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)operations. DOE assessed more than500 candidate facilities and determinedthat 46 sites required remediation. DOEremediated 25 sites by 1998; thereafter, theU.S. Congress directed the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers to remediate the remaining21 designated FUSRAP sites. Remediationof FUSRAP sites follows CERCLA protocols.

The initial 25 sites remediated by DOE werereleased for unrestricted use and will beassigned to the DOE office in Grand Junctionfor records management and stakeholdersupport. DOE personnel currently arecoordinating transfer of records for thosesites to program archives. DOE transferredsome of the records to the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers in 1998 and will obtain accessto those records that are now in a FederalRecords Center.

In 1999, DOE negotiated a Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers to transfer responsibility for FUSRAPsites to DOE for long-term care 2 years afterremedial action has been completed. Tworemediated sites were transferred to DOE in2002. Those sites, located at Madison, Illinois,and at Buffalo (Bliss and Laughlin facility),New York, were released for unrestricted use.DOE responsibilities for these sites consist ofmanaging records and responding to requestsfor information. In 2003, DOE began postingrecords for these sites on the Internet.

Site transition activities in 2003 focused onacquiring and managing records, finalizingagreements and protocols, and trackingissues and schedules for individual sites.LTS&M Program personnel participated ina stakeholders’ meeting for FUSRAP sites inthe St. Louis, Missouri, area and answeredquestions about providing for the long-termsurveillance and maintenance needs ofremediated sites.

D&D Sites

The LTS&M Program managed five DOEDefense Decontamination and Decommis-sioning (D&D) Program sites in 2003: Piqua,Ohio, Hallam, Nebraska, Site A/Plot Mlocated near Chicago, Illinois, Grand Junction,Colorado, and Rincón, Puerto Rico. The firstthree sites were transferred from the custodyof the DOE Chicago Operations Office in1998. The Grand Junction Site was transferredto the LTS&M Program in 2001.

DOE began transition activities for the decom-missioned Boiling Nuclear Superheater(BONUS) research reactor in Rincón, PuertoRico, in 2002. DOE manages this facility as afifth D&D site because AEC constructed andentombed the reactor under a programsimilar to the one used for the reactors atPiqua and Hallam.

Piqua, Ohio, and Hallam, Nebraska

The Piqua and Hallam sites are former nuclearreactor facilities that were built for the AECPower Demonstration Program during themid-1960s. In both cases, the reactors wereoperated in cooperation with, and on theproperty of, local electric utilities. Bothreactors were decommissioned in the late1960s; after removal of fuel assemblies andremovable contamination, the reactor vessels

Radiological measurements are collected annually at thePiqua, Ohio, Site.


Page 24

were sealed with concrete and steel. Annualinspections and monitoring are conducted toverify encapsulation integrity.

Site A/Plot M, Illinois

The Site A/Plot M area is the former locationof Argonne National Laboratory and itspredecessor, the University of ChicagoMetallurgical Laboratory. Site A containsburied contaminated building debris andthe biological shield for Enrico Fermi’sCP–2 and CP–3 reactors. Plot M containsburied radioactive waste that was generatedfrom the mid-1940s to 1949. Site A/Plot Mwas decommissioned in 1956. DOE isresponsible for surface maintenance andenvironmental monitoring of this area andinforming stakeholders of site conditions.

Grand Junction, Colorado

The Grand Junction Site, a site formerlyowned and operated by DOE, was establishedby the Manhattan Project to purchaseuranium ore concentrates. AEC conductedpilot uranium ore-milling studies at the sitebetween 1953 and 1958. Contaminated soilsfrom the pilot milling operations were

removed except for deposits under portionsof two buildings; this contamination willbe remediated when DOE vacates anddemolishes the buildings. All the otherbuildings that were contaminated duringsite milling operations were decontaminatedor demolished. Contaminated water remainsin the underlying alluvial aquifer, two ponds,and wetlands on the site and is being reme-diated through natural flushing of the aquifer.Ground water and surface water quality isexpected to meet standards by 2080. TheGrand Junction Site was transferred to theLTS&M Program in 2001. Institutional con-trols and water-quality monitoring will benecessary until all remediation is completed.

BONUS, Puerto Rico

The BONUS research reactor operated from1962 until 1967. Decommissioning wascompleted by 1970. The reactor was defueledand the radioactive pressure vessel andinternal components were entombed in place.DOE is responsible for the radioactive materialat the site; the Puerto Rico Electric PowerAuthority owns the land and improvements.

Locations of Other Sites


TTTTTransition Activities for BONUS Reactorransition Activities for BONUS Reactorransition Activities for BONUS Reactorransition Activities for BONUS Reactorransition Activities for BONUS Reactor

The Boiling Nuclear Superheater (BONUS) reactor, nearRincón, Puerto Rico, was decommissioned in 1970 byentombing the defueled reactor and internal componentsin place. Most support systems, such as control roominstrumentation and fuel handling systems, remain intact.Because of the unique design of the reactor, the Puerto RicoElectric Power Authority, which owns the property andimprovements, decided to preserve the structure and openit to the public as a museum.

An Environmental Assessment concluded that there wasno risk of exposure to museum visitors once minor surfacecontamination is fixed in place. The remainder of the planthas been decontaminated, and remediation of the site isplanned for completion in 2004. The Puerto Rico ElectricPower Authority and DOE are negotiating a Memorandumof Understanding that defines roles and responsibilities forlong-term management of the site. DOE responsibilitiesare expected to include annual review of radiologicalsurvey monitoring results, periodic inspection of theentombment structure, records management, andstakeholder interaction.

In February 2003, a representative of the DOE office inGrand Junction, Colorado, traveled to Puerto Rico to identifyand copy records that would be useful for long-term surveil-lance and maintenance activities. More than 800 cubic feetof records, documenting reactor design, construction,operations, and decommissioning, were stored at the site.Selected records were shipped to Grand Junction.

The U.S. Department of Energy has initiated transition activitiesfor the decommissioned Boiling Nuclear Superheater (BONUS)research reactor in Puerto Rico.

Page 25

Long-term management requirementsinclude inspections, radiological monitoring,records management, and stakeholderservices. Site transition activities commencedin 2002, including a review of the 2002radiological survey report for the decommis-sioned reactor and acquisition of site records.The transition will be finalized when severalsmall remediation activities are completed(see sidebar).

CERCLA/RCRA Sites

DOE has long-term management responsi-bilities for remediated sites with one ormore components that were placed on theNational Priorities List by EPA. Federal milling,processing, and/or weapons manufacturingoperations radiologically contaminated thesites. Site remediation is conducted in accor-dance with Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA) and Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA) regulations. DOE isrequired by statute to conduct 5-year remedyperformance reviews at these sites becauseremaining contamination prevents theirrelease for unrestricted use.

In 2001, the LTS&M Program assumedresponsibility for the Monticello, Utah, Sites.Transfer of the Weldon Spring, Missouri, Siteoccurred in 2002. Fourteen more sites areprojected to be transferred to the Office ofLegacy Management by the end of 2007,including the former weapons productionsites at Mound and Fernald in Ohio and atRocky Flats in Colorado.

Monticello, Utah

EPA listed the Monticello RadioactivelyContaminated Properties Site (also knownas the Monticello Vicinity Properties Site)and the Monticello, Utah, Mill Tailings Siteon the National Priorities List in 1986 and1989, respectively. The former uranium andvanadium ore-processing millsite and morethan 400 peripheral and vicinity propertieswere remediated, and the material was placedin a disposal cell on DOE-owned propertysouth of the former millsite. Constructionof the disposal cell was completed in 2000.


Page 26

Supplemental standards were applied tolimited occurrences of radioactive materialthat were left in place in the Monticello areabecause the material posed no risks andremediation would be technically unfeasible,unjustifiably expensive, or harmful to theenvironment. The supplemental standardsareas include subgrade portions of streetsand buried utilities.

Annual inspections of the Monticello Sites andsupplemental standards areas, which DOE willconduct in perpetuity, were initiated in 2001.Inspections are conducted in accordance withlong-term surveillance and maintenanceoperating procedures that incorporate EPA’scomprehensive 5-year review guidance underCERCLA. The second post-closure 5-yearreview report will be prepared following the2006 annual site inspections.

Personnel assigned to the Monticello Sitesmonitor and maintain disposal cell systemsand arrange for disposal of mill tailingsencountered during construction activitiesin supplemental standards areas. Activitiesin 2003 included repair of erosion features;control of undesirable plants; radiologicalmonitoring of excavations of Monticello citystreets and utilities; shipment of contaminatedsoil and debris to the Grand Junction,Colorado, Disposal Site; and constructionof a removable roof for a temporary storagefacility located near the repository.

Weldon Spring, Missouri

The Federal Government operated theWeldon Spring Uranium Feed Materials Plant

A removable roof was constructed for a facility near the Monticello, Utah,Disposal Site that is used for temporary storage of mill tailings excavatedfrom supplemental standards areas.

(referred to as the chemical plant) between1955 and 1966 on a site previously used bythe U.S. Army to manufacture explosives.Operations consisted of purifying uraniumoxide and other concentrates into uraniummetal or into feedstock for enrichmentoperations at other locations. Both theU.S. Army and DOE disposed of wastematerials in a nearby quarry.

The chemical plant and quarry sites wereadded to the National Priorities List in 1987and 1989, respectively. Remedies wereselected and remediation has been completedat three of four designated operable units.Approximately 1.48 million cubic yards ofcontaminated soil and debris was encapsu-lated in a disposal cell at the former chemicalplant site. Selection of the remedy for theGround Water Operable Unit, involvingremediation of contaminated ground waterassociated with the chemical plant site, isexpected in 2004. Institutional controls formanaging areas with contamination left inplace and to complete CERCLA closeoutdocumentation are expected to beimplemented in 2004.

The Weldon Spring Site was transferred tothe LTS&M Program in 2002. Long-termsurveillance and maintenance requirementsinclude conducting annual site inspections;performing CERCLA 5-year reviews;maintaining the cell leachate collectionsystem; monitoring ground water, surfacewater, and institutional controls; andcontinuing stakeholder services. During 2002and 2003, approximately 150 acres of DOEproperty at the former chemical plant areaadjacent to the disposal cell were seeded todevelop a prairie grassland. DOE conductedfertilizing, mowing, and noxious-weed controlactivities during 2003 to establish andmaintain the prairie (see sidebar on page 27).Erosion control activities were performed atseveral reclaimed areas. The first annual siteinspection was conducted in 2003 inaccordance with a draft long-termsurveillance and maintenance plan.

NWPA Section 151(c) Site

Certain sites with low-level radioactivecontamination remediated by the ownerunder the NRC Site Decommissioning


Prairie ReturPrairie ReturPrairie ReturPrairie ReturPrairie Returns to Wns to Wns to Wns to Wns to Weldon Springeldon Springeldon Springeldon Springeldon Spring

A prairie is being reestablished in Missouri where early settlers, thenexplosives production workers, and then uranium ore processorsonce worked. Native plants, such as Prairie Blazing Star and LittleBlue Stem, will once again cover an area of 150 acres surroundingthe completed disposal cell at the Weldon Spring Site that islocated about 30 miles west of St. Louis.

Settlers homesteaded the land surrounding the Weldon Spring Sitein the early 1800s, including a group led by Francis Howell. Nativeprairie grasses and wildflowers dominated an area that becameknown as the Howell Prairie. But farming and the development ofsmall towns in the area eventually caused the prairie to disappear.

DOE is committed to restoring the site to a native prairieecosystem. Because less than 1 percent of the 15 million acres ofprairie that once covered Missouri remains today, restoration of theHowell Prairie reflects DOE’s long-term commitment to identify,protect, and conserve environmentally significant parcels of land inpartnership with federal and state agencies. An established prairiewill help prevent erosion for the long term and offers an idealsolution for revegetation of the 150 acres surrounding thedisposal cell.

DOE formed an advisory group—the Howell Prairie Council—ofinterested individuals to discuss issues and ideas associated withthe Howell Prairie. Council participants include representatives ofthe Missouri Department of Conservation, the Missouri BotanicalGarden, the Missouri Prairie Foundation, and other local citizenorganizations and prairie advocates.

The first seeding of Howell Prairie took place in spring 2002,followed by two additional seedings. Currently, more than80 species of prairie grasses and wildflowers have been planted.Also planned for development at the site is a 5-acre garden ofplants that are native to the state of Missouri to complementthe adjacent prairie. The garden will feature walking paths andeducational signs to enhance visitors’ appreciation of nativeplants and to help them identify particular species in the largerprairie area.

Page 27

Management Program can be trans-ferred to the Federal Government underSection 151 of the Nuclear Waste PolicyAct (NWPA). Section 151(c) of NWPArequires that if low-level radioactivewaste is the result of a licensed activityto recover zirconium, hafnium, and rareearth metals, DOE shall assume title andcustody of the site if requested by thesite owner.

NRC will terminate the site license onlyafter concurring with the implementedremedial action, determining that theowner has obtained approval of DOEto accept responsibility for the site, andensuring future funding for long-termsurveillance and maintenance. Only oneNWPA Section 151(c) site, located atParkersburg, West Virginia, has beentransferred to DOE.

Parkersburg, West Virginia

Radioactive zirconium ore was pro-cessed at this site under contract to AECfrom 1957 to 1968, resulting in wasteaccumulation and soil contamination.Remediation of the site and construc-tion of the NRC-approved disposal cellwere completed in 1983. AmericanMetals Climax, the site owner and NRClicensee, transferred the site to DOEin 1994.

The grass-covered disposal cell coversan area of approximately 12 acres.Custodial maintenance for theParkersburg Disposal Site includesmowing to discourage the establish-ment of shrubs or trees that maydegrade the cover. Regional droughtstressed the turf on the cell cover,allowing encroachment of noxiousand invasive weeds. DOE initiated avegetation control program at the siteto eradicate undesirable plants andrestore the turf to good health (seesidebar on page 7).

Site ground water quality, which ismonitored by DOE at 5-year intervalsand was sampled in 2003, complieswith the Federal Safe Drinking WaterAct and State of West Virginia groundwater standards.


Page 28

Research Initiatives

LTS&M Program scientists and engineerscontinued to participate in research initiativesto study disposal techniques, impoundmentdesigns, and disposal cell cover-performanceevaluation methods. The disposal sitesmanaged by DOE provide case studies of theperformance of existing designs. Evolvingdesign guidance will incorporate the resultsof investigations into future contaminant-isolation systems constructed by DOE andother government and private entities.

Issues of immediate interest are also beinginvestigated, including the effect of vege-tation on disposal cell cover performance,water movement within disposal cells, slopestability and erosion control, and effects ofpotential long-term environmental changes.Research into naturally occurring processesthat will influence the performance ofcontainment and closure systems mustcontinue for many years before conclusiveresults are evident. Significant results havealready been reached in some areas ofresearch, as indicated by the publicationsand presentations described in the “ProgramAccomplishments” section (see page 8).

Investigators from many agencies andinstitutions are working together on sitemanagement research. In 2003, LTS&MProgram researchers teamed with colleaguesfrom the EPA Region 8 Federal FacilitiesProgram, EPA National Risk ManagementLaboratory, DOE Science and TechnologyProgram, DOE Sandia National Laboratories,DOE Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,DOE Savannah River Technology Center,Desert Research Institute, and University ofArizona on studies of the design and long-term performance of engineered covers andapplications of phytotechnologies (usingplants to remediate ground water).Highlights of some of the studies follow.

Analogs of theLong-Term Performanceof Engineered Covers

Engineered cover systems are needed thatwill limit risks to human health and theenvironment from encapsulated contaminantsfor hundreds to thousands of years. This taskis an unprecedented engineering challenge.To compound the issue, many current designapproaches do not take into considerationthe influences that the inevitable long-termchanges in the environmental settings mayhave on the covers and the encapsulatedmaterials.

In 2003, the LTS&M Program concludedcollaboration with the DOE Science andTechnology Program, Desert ResearchInstitute, and Washington State Universityon a demonstration of methods derivedfrom the natural sciences for incorporatingprojected environmental change in theengineering design process. The demonstra-tion involved the characterization of naturalanalogs (locations with natural soils similar tothe cover materials) that represent likely long-term changes in the climate, soil hydrology,and ecology of engineered covers.

Lysimeter Studies ofEvapotranspirationCover Designs

The LTS&M Program continued to collaboratewith EPA Region 8 at the Monticello, Utah,Lysimeter Test Facility on studies of alternativeengineered cover designs. The alternativedesigns depart from conventional UMTRCAand RCRA designs. Two studies using smallweighing lysimeters and large drainagelysimeters are ongoing.


Page 29

The small weighing lysimeters consist of30-centimeter-diameter tubes filled withdifferent cover design materials. The studycompares designs consisting of different soiltypes and layer thicknesses overlying capillarybarriers. In 2003, a study was initiated todetermine the water storage capacity of eachdesign and to evaluate the probability thatwater storage will exceed the capacity,causing drainage from the various designcomponents.

Two large drainage lysimeters consisting ofsteel caissons lined with high-density poly-ethylene were installed in 2000 to evaluatethe hydrological and ecological performancesof the cover constructed on the disposal cellat Monticello, Utah. Results to date indicatethat seemingly subtle differences in soiltypes, sources, and compaction can producesignificant differences in performance. Successin establishing a diverse, seeded communityof predominantly native perennial specieson the lysimeters during the recent 3-yeardrought highlights the importance of asound understanding of the local ecologyand of implementing methods of disturbed-land revegetation.

Grand Junction, Colorado,Cover Permeability

The effects of woody plant establishment onthe permeability and water content of thecell cover at the Grand Junction DisposalSite were evaluated. The roots of four-wingsaltbush, a native shrub, are growing throughthe compacted soil layer in the cover. Afterexamining root growth patterns and soilstructure in the compacted soil layer, it issuspected that roots follow flow paths ofconstruction-related soil moisture and pathsof least resistance. The water content of thecompacted soil layer approaches saturationin the spring where plants have not estab-lished, but the soil layer was drier beneaththe few scattered saltbush. As with otherarid sites, evapotranspiration from plantsestablishing on rock covers may help preventsaturation from occurring and, therefore,limit the amount of water passing into theunderlying tailings.

Results of air-entry permeameter tests conducted at the Lakeview,Oregon, Disposal Site were used to evaluate the permeability of thedisposal cell cover.

Lakeview, Oregon, CoverPerformance Modeling

Observations during routine inspectionsof woody plant encroachment on the soil-covered top slope of the cell at the LakeviewDisposal Site led to an evaluation of coverperformance. Measurements with air-entrypermeameters have shown that the perme-ability of the cover where woody plants haveestablished exceeds the design specificationand is highly variable. Further evaluationsrevealed that water moves through smallfractures in the compacted soil layer in thecover that are artifacts of the natural structureof the borrow soils. However, the results ofa vegetation analog study suggest that anincrease in plant abundance on the coverand associated increases in evapotranspirationover time could help offset infiltration. In2003, LTS&M Program scientists begancollaboration with Sandia National Labora-tories personnel to model the hydrologicperformance of the disposal cell and associ-ated changes in risk for a range of existingand possible future conditions at the site.


Page 30

Monticello, Utah, CoverPerformance Monitoring

In 2003, LTS&M Program scientists andengineers continued participation in theAlternative Cover Assessment Program fundedby the EPA National Risk ManagementResearch Laboratory. The goal of this programis to develop new guidance for cheaper, moreeffective covers for municipal and hazardouswaste landfills in arid and semiarid westernstates that currently are regulated underRCRA Subtitle C or D. Researchers use fieldstudies and modeling to acquire data neededto evaluate alternative covers.

In 2000, a team of scientists and engineersfrom the EPA National Risk ManagementResearch Laboratory, Pacific NorthwestNational Laboratory, Desert Research

Institute, and the LTS&M Program installedinstrumentation and telemetric devicesto begin a 5-year monitoring study of theperformance of a portion of the cell cover atMonticello, Utah, creating one of the largestwater-balance lysimeters in the world.

LTS&M Program and Desert Research Institutescientists continue to monitor the waterbalance and plant ecology of the lysimeter.The measured water flux rate from thecapillary barrier has been several orders ofmagnitude below the EPA standard sincemonitoring began in 2000. Despite 3 yearsof drought at Monticello, a diverse plantcommunity has established on the cover.A sustainable plant community is a keycomponent of the cover design.

Monument Valley, Arizona,Desert Phytoremediation

LTS&M Program scientists have beencollaborating with University of Arizonapersonnel since 1999 on studies using plantsto remediate nitrate-contaminated soil andground water at the former Monument ValleyProcessing Site located on Navajo Nationland. Field and greenhouse experimentsconducted since 1999 evaluated twophytoremediation options for the groundwater nitrate plume: passive phytoreme-diation and land farming. The first phaseof the project was completed in 2003.

A field study using small ungrazed enclosuresdetermined that two native deep-rootedshrubs, black greasewood and four-wingsaltbush, were rooted in and extracting waterand nitrate from the alluvial aquifer. Resultsindicate that passive phytoremediation, whereroots of the shrubs contact the ground water,can remediate the nitrate plume withoutextraction wells because the plants extractthe contaminated ground water and usethe nitrate as a nutrient.

Soil samples were collected at the former Monument Valley, Arizona,processing site to measure ammonia and nitrate concentrations in aphytoremediation test plot.


Page 31

Results of a soil phytoremediation studyindicate that an irrigated planting of four-wing saltbush is extracting ammonium andnitrate from the plume source and preventingrecharge and leaching of nitrogen into thealluvial aquifer. Larger amounts of nitratewere removed from the soil than could beattributed to plant uptake alone. Becauseno downward flux of water was detected,microbial activity is suspected to be primarilyresponsible for the transformation of nitratein the soil. Analyses of soil samples collectedin 2003 suggest that irrigation may be re-sponsible for an increase in microbial activity.

University of Arizona personnel conducteda greenhouse study to test the concept ofplanting a phytoremediation farm to clean upthe nitrate plume. The remedy would involvepumping plume water from wells drilled intothe aquifer and using the plume water toirrigate and fertilize crops. In the greenhousestudy, most plants accumulated nitrate orhydrocyanic acid at levels above the highestamount considered safe for cattle feed.Considering these results, researchers recom-mended not growing forage crops withplume water. An alternative would be to useplume water to irrigate plants that can begrown for seed. This seed could then be usedin mine land reclamation and rangelandimprovement on Navajo Nation land.

Tuba City, Arizona,Infiltration Control Study

A water-balance model for the Tuba CityDisposal Site indicated that enhancedrecharge occurring along the southerntoe slope of the disposal cell could be

A scientist uses global positioning system equipment to map the locationof a large stand of New Mexico olive, a candidate species for passivephytoremediation at the Tuba City, Arizona, Disposal Site.

contributing to increased flow and contam-inant transport in the ground water beneaththe cell. The disposal cell cover consists of acompacted soil layer that is overlain by agravel drainage layer and a basalt riprapcap. Evaluation of the design and neutronhydroprobe monitoring of soil water indicatethat precipitation rapidly infiltrates the basaltriprap, flows laterally in the underlying graveldrainage layer to the southern toe slope, andthen recharges the aquifer.

A study was initiated in 2000, in collaborationwith University of Arizona personnel, todetermine if planting deep-rooted nativespecies with relatively high evapotranspirationrates could control recharge along the toe ofthe disposal cell. Nine pairs of test plots wereestablished; each pair consists of one plot oftransplanted four-wing saltbush and one plotwith no vegetation. Neutron hydroprobeports were installed in the center of eachplot. Evaluation of the survival and growthof transplants was completed in 2003; areport on investigation results will be finalizedin 2004.

LTS&M Program Disposal Site Characteristicsa

aSites managed in 2003 that do not have disposal cells are Bliss and Laughlin, New York; BONUS,

Puerto Rico; Grand Junction Site, Colorado; Hallam, Nebraska; Madison, Illinois; Monument Valley,

Arizona; Piqua, Ohio; Riverton, Wyoming; and Site A/Plot M, Illinois.

A portion of the cell at Grand Junction, Colorado, continues to receive radioactive material.

The precise quantity of radioactive material in the cell at Parkersburg, West Virginia, is unknown;

therefore, the total activity is unknown.

b

c

Disposal SiteSite Area

(acres)

Cell Area

(acres)

Cell Volume

(1,000 cubic

yards)

Total Activity

of Radium-226

(curies)

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title I

Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico 290 91 5,162 1,850

Burrell, Pennsylvania 72 4 73 4

Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 34 6 192 100

Durango, Colorado 120 60 2,533 1,400

Falls City, Texas 231 127 6,019 1,277

Grand Junction, Coloradob 360 60 4,034 Undetermined

Green River, Utah 26 6 382 30

Gunnison, Colorado 115 29 796 175

Lakeview, Oregon 40 16 944 42

Lowman, Idaho 18 8 126 12

Maybell, Colorado 250 66 4,100 455

Mexican Hat, Utah 119 68 3,483 1,800

Naturita, Colorado 27 10 399 79

Rifle, Colorado 205 71 3,757 2,738

Salt Lake City, Utah 100 54 2,710 1,550

Shiprock, New Mexico 105 77 2,800 746

Slick Rock, Colorado 62 12 857 175

Spook, Wyoming 14 5 315 125

Tuba City, Arizona 145 50 1,631 940

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title II

Bluewater, New Mexico 3,300 320 18,000 12,330

Edgemont, South Dakota 360 100 3,000 527

Sherwood, Washington 380 100 2,150 470

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Monticello, Utah 119 86 2,600 2,780

Weldon Spring, Missouri 217 41 1,480 6,570

Nuclear Waste Policy Act Section 151(c)

Parkersburg, West Virginiac 15 12 Less than 20 Unknown

Page 32



Page 33

Resources

Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation: This organization isworking to foster a broader and deeper understanding of risk-related issues that concern wastecleanup. This initiative involves multiple areas of investigation. http://www.cresp.org

Energy Communities Alliance: The role of local governments in long-term management ofDOE sites is addressed in this website. http://www.energyca.org

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP): This website includes theFUSRAP sites assigned to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for remedial action. These siteswill be transferred to the Office of Legacy Management after completion of remedial action.http://hq.environmental.usace.army.mil/programs/fusrap/fusrap.html

Land Use Controls: Current information on land use controls, also known asinstitutional controls, for federal facilities and Superfund sites is provided at this website.http://www.lucs.org

Legacy Management at Grand Junction Website: This website contains fact sheets, long-term surveillance plans, and compliance reports for DOE Office of Legacy Management sites; linksto related websites and applicable or relevant and appropriate regulations; and other relatedinformation. http://www.gjo.doe.gov/LM

National Governors’ Association: This website contains information about long-termmanagement activities being implemented across the DOE nuclear weapons complex andcontains links to other DOE sites. http://www.nga.org/nga/

State and Tribal Governments Working Group: This stakeholder organization, sponsoredby DOE, has been active since 1989 in promoting sound long-term management practices forDOE sites after remediation is complete. http://www.em.doe.gov/stgwg/

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management:This website provides descriptions of many of the DOE remedial action programs and hasinformation on individual sites. http://www.em.doe.gov/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Alternative Cover Assessment ProgramActivities Summary: Summaries of the work of the Alternative Cover Assessment Program areavailable at this website. http://www.rtdf.org/public/phyto/minutes/altcov/default.htm

Contacts

Donna Bergman-Tabbert, Director,Land and Site Management, LM–50Office of Legacy Management2597 B ¾ Road, Grand Junction, CO 81503(970) 248–[email protected]

Art Kleinrath2597 B ¾ Road, Grand Junction, CO 81503(970) 248–[email protected]

Mike Tucker2597 B ¾ Road, Grand Junction, CO 81503(970) 248–[email protected]

Emergency contactU.S. Department of Energy at Grand Junction(970) 248–6070 (monitored continuously) or(877) 695–5322 (toll free)

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.cresp.org

http://www.energyca.org

http://hq.environmental.usace.army.mil/programs/fusrap/fusrap.html

http://www.lucs.org


http://www.nga.org/nga/

http://www.em.doe.gov/stgwg/

http://www.em.doe.gov/stgwg/

http://www.em.doe.gov/

http://www.rtdf.org/public/phyto/minutes/altcov/default.htm