[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23742-23748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10840]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 40-9083; NRC-2018-0084]


U.S. Army Installation Command

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Director's decision under 10 CFR 2.206; issuance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a 
director's decision in response to a petition dated March 16, 2017, 
filed by Dr. Michael Reimer (the petitioner), requesting that the NRC 
take enforcement-related action with regard to the U.S. Army 
Installation Management Command (the licensee). The petitioner's 
requests and the director's decision are included in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

DATES: The director's decision was issued on May 15, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0084 when contacting the 
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You 
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document 
using any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0084. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-
9127; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this 
document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Snyder, Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555[dash]0001; telephone: 301-415-6822, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the director's decision is 
attached.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of May, 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen Koenick,
Chief, Materials Decommissioning Branch, Division of Decommissioning, 
Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards.

Attachment--Director's Decision DD-18-02

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS

Marc L. Dapas, Director

    In the Matter of United States Army Installation Management 
Command

Pohakuloa Training Area

License No. SUC-1593

Docket No. 40-9083

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206

I. Introduction

    By letter dated March 16, 2017,\1\ as supplemented on April 
10,\2\ May 21,\3\ June 25,\4\ July 24,\5\ August 16,\6\ August 
18,\7\ October 11,\8\ October 12,\9\ October 15,\10\ and November 
10, 2017,\11\ and January 15, 2018,\12\ Dr. Michael Reimer (the 
petitioner) filed a petition pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 2.206, ``Requests for action 
under this subpart,'' with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC or the Commission).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
Accession No. ML17110A308.
    \2\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17250A248.
    \3\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17143A165.
    \4\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
    \5\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17249A091.
    \6\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17248A524.
    \7\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17249A075.
    \8\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17297A372.
    \9\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17292A690 (Pkg.).
    \10\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18011A202 (Pkg.).
    \11\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17346B028.
    \12\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18022A567.
    \13\ Copies of the petition and other publicly available records 
are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS Electronic Reading 
Room on the NRC's Web site at http://ww.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS should contact 
the reference staff in the NRC Public Document Room by telephone at 
1-800-397-4209 or 301-413-4737, or by email to [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner requested that the NRC reconsider the issuance of 
Amendment No. 2 to Source Materials License No. SUC-1593 
(license),\14\ for the U.S. Army Installation Management Command's 
(licensee's) Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). As the basis for the 
request, the petitioner asserted that the Environmental Radiation 
Monitoring Plan (ERMP)\15\ for the licensed depleted uranium (DU) 
that is located in the radiation control areas (RCAs) at the PTA is 
inadequate

[[Page 23743]]

to detect DU leaving the RCAs. In the petition and its supplements, 
the petitioner stated specific concerns about the lack of air 
monitoring and soil sampling at the PTA; the appropriateness of the 
sediment sampling location at the PTA; the number of sediment 
samples to be collected; the frequency of sediment sampling; the 
appropriateness of analytical techniques, including sample analysis 
methods; the geologic sampling procedures for sediment collection, 
including the appropriateness of data evaluation methods; the 
applicability of a guidance document used by the NRC to evaluate the 
location and frequency of sediment sampling; the sufficiency of the 
Davy Crockett DU inventory conducted for the PTA; the lack of 
evaluation of DU oxides; the lack of transparency in the 
implementation and reporting of the licensee's environmental 
radiation monitoring results for the licensed DU; the lack of 
transparency in the NRC's licensing of Davy Crockett DU at the PTA; 
and the licensee's use of ranges at the PTA for high explosive fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A164.
    \15\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter to the petitioner dated April 25, 2017,\16\ the NRC 
staff (staff) acknowledged receipt of the petition. The petition was 
assigned to the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 
(NMSS) for review and appropriate action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. A 
petition review board (PRB) was formed to evaluate the petitioner's 
concerns following the 10 CFR 2.206 process per Management Directive 
8.11, ``Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions'' (MD 8.11).\17\ 
The petitioner was offered an opportunity to meet with the PRB 
before the PRB's first meeting, but declined this opportunity.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17116A083.
    \17\ ADAMS Accession No. ML041770328.
    \18\ ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17159A83, ML17177A703 and 
ML17177A688.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRB recommended that the petition be partially accepted for 
review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process. The NRC shared its 
preliminary recommendation \19\ with the petitioner and offered the 
petitioner a second opportunity to address the PRB.\20\ The 
petitioner accepted the opportunity and requested a teleconference 
with the PRB.\21\ The petitioner met with the PRB via teleconference 
on October 11, 2017, to clarify the basis for the petition. The 
transcript \22\ of this teleconference was treated as a supplement 
to the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A757.
    \20\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A759.
    \21\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A761.
    \22\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17297A372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner provided additional information on October 
12,\23\ October 15,\24\ and November 10, 2017,\25\ and January 15, 
2018,\26\ to supplement the petition. At the petitioner's request, a 
third party provided information on his behalf \27\ to supplement 
the petition. The licensee provided comments and information on the 
petition by e-mails dated July 31 \28\ and October 13, 2017,\29\ and 
in the October 11, 2017, teleconference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17292A690 (Pkg.).
    \24\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18011A202.
    \25\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17346B028.
    \26\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18022A567.
    \27\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18011A202 (Pkg.).
    \28\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17240A219.
    \29\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17290A307 (Pkg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By letter dated November 9, 2017,\30\ the NRC informed the 
petitioner that the following concerns raised in the petition were 
accepted for review under 10 CFR 2.206: (1) inappropriate number of 
sediment samples; (2) inappropriate frequency of sediment sampling; 
(3) inappropriate and poorly described analytical techniques (sample 
analysis methods); (4) inappropriate geological sampling procedures 
for sediment collection; and (5) inappropriate data evaluation 
methods (leading to dilution of samples) to determine the presence 
of depleted uranium outside the ranges (or RCAs) associated with the 
PTA. In this letter, the NRC also informed the petitioner that the 
other concerns raised in the petition were not accepted for review 
under 10 CFR 2.206 and stated the basis for this determination. The 
PRB used the criteria for petition evaluation found in Part III of 
MD 8.11 to disposition the petitioner's concerns for acceptance or 
rejection for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process. On November 29, 
2017,\31\ the NRC provided notice that the PRB would address the 
petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A300 (Pkg.).
    \31\ 82 Fed. Reg. 228 (Nov. 29, 2017), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-11-29/pdf/2017-25830.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By letter dated November 29, 2017,\32\ the NRC requested that 
the licensee provide a voluntary response to the petition. By 
letters dated December 15, 2017,\33\ and January 19, 2018,\34\ the 
licensee provided its voluntary response, and the information 
provided was considered by the PRB in its evaluation of the 
petition, as explained in the proposed director's decision.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17297B403.
    \33\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18009A456.
    \34\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18023A991.
    \35\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17341A126 (Pkg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to the 
petitioner and to the licensee for comment on February 20, 2018.\36\ 
The petitioner responded with comments on the proposed director's 
decision on March 13, 2018.\37\ The licensee did not provide 
comments on the proposed director's decision. The petitioner's 
comments and the staff's responses to the comments are included as 
an attachment to this director's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17340A697 and ML17342A395, 
respectively.
    \37\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18087A134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the staff's evaluation of the petitioner's March 13, 
2018, comments, and the information presented in Section II, 
Discussion, and Section III, Conclusions, of this director's 
decision, the final director's decision has not changed from the 
proposed director's decision.
    The petition and other references related to this petition are 
available for inspection in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at 
the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC 
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do 
not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR reference 
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301[dash]415-4737, or by e-
mail to [email protected].

II. Discussion

    Under 10 CFR 2.206(b), the Director of the NRC office with 
responsibility for the subject matter shall either institute the 
requested proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke a license, or 
take any other action as may be proper, or advise the petitioner who 
made the request in writing that no proceeding will be instituted, 
in whole or in part, with respect to the request and the reasons for 
the decision.
    The petitioner raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the 
ERMP for the licensed DU that is located in the RCAs at the PTA (PTA 
ERMP).\38\ The PRB analyzed the information provided by the 
petitioner in support of his concerns and the results of those 
analyses are discussed below. After consideration of the petition, 
including the supplemental information supplied by the petitioner, 
the NRC denies the petitioner's request to modify, suspend, or take 
other action with respect to Source Materials License No. SUC-1593 
under 10 CFR 2.206. The decision of the NMSS Director is provided 
with respect to each of these concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concern 1: The PTA ERMP allows for an inappropriate number of sediment 
samples in that a single sediment sampling location is inadequate.

    The petitioner states that the single sampling point as detailed 
in the PTA ERMP \39\ is not sufficient. The petitioner specifies 
that ``multiple sampling sites should be selected adjacent to each 
of the four RCA boundaries and each should be in a water way that 
has had observed intermittent water flow sufficient to carry a 
sediment load that is deposited at the sample collection site.'' 
\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A231.
    \40\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the staff's safety evaluation report (SER) for Amendment No. 
2,\41\ the staff concluded that the site-specific ERMPs were 
``consistent with the previously approved [Programmatic ERMP] 
approach for preparation of site-specific environmental monitoring 
plans,'' as well as with license conditions in Source Materials 
License No. SUC-1593, Amendment No. 1.\42\ The approach to selecting 
sediment sampling locations specified in the Programmatic ERMP \43\ 
is to sample sediment in water ways that flow from the RCAs. In 
sites with multiple water ways, multiple sediment sampling locations 
are used. The PTA has a single sampling site because the staff 
considers it a ``dry site'' with no perennial water ways flowing 
from the RCAs. The PTA ERMP states that ``[D]ue to low rainfall, 
porous soils, and lava

[[Page 23744]]

substrates, no perennial surface water bodies are located on, or 
immediately adjacent to, [PTA]. The closest known surface water body 
is located 4.5 miles upgradient of [PTA]. There are no perennial 
streams within 15 miles of [PTA], but there are intermittent streams 
located northeast of [PTA] and only one intermittent stream, Popoo 
Gulch, drains the northern portion of [PTA]. Despite occasional 
flow, water in the intermittent stream channels infiltrates rapidly 
once precipitation stops and the streams become dry.'' \44\ In the 
staff's SER for Amendment No. 1,\45\ the NRC approved the 
Programmatic ERMP. The staff found that due to the small doses 
anticipated from environmental transport pathways, a limited 
environmental monitoring program is justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
    \42\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A234.
    \43\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A218.
    \44\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A231.
    \45\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In short, the water in the channel, where the sediment sampling 
point is identified in the PTA ERMP, flows only occasionally after 
heavy rainfall events with the water in the intermittent stream's 
channel infiltrating rapidly once precipitation stops, resulting in 
the stream channel becoming dry. The sediment sampling location was 
selected by the licensee based on the ``surface water hydrology and 
potential for DU contribution [migration].'' \46\ The license 
requires the licensee to collect a sediment sample in a designated 
area in the only intermittent stream downstream from the RCAs. This 
location and the number of sediment samples were found to be 
acceptable by the staff in the SER for Amendment No. 2 \47\ because 
the approach was consistent with the Programmatic ERMP and limited 
sampling for the PTA is appropriate based upon the small risk posed 
by the material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A231.
    \47\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the staff concluded in its SER for Amendment No. 1 \48\ 
that the dose from airborne contamination is considered to be highly 
unlikely to exceed a potential 1 mrem/yr dose.\49\ The dose from all 
other environmental pathways, as bounded by a resident farmer 
pathways analysis using RESRAD,\50\ is projected to be less than 4 
mrem/yr. Furthermore, actual doses would be further limited because 
actual exposure durations are expected to be far less than 
subsistence farming residence times. In addition, in the SER for 
Amendment No. 1,\51\ the staff independently verified the RESRAD 
calculations provided by the licensee and found the use of those 
scenarios, parameters, and assumptions to be reasonable and 
appropriate. The results from the RESRAD analysis supported the 
staff's decision \52\ to require a limited amount of environmental 
monitoring outside of the RCA under certain conditions, as required 
per Section 4.3 of the Programmatic ERMP, and as required by the PTA 
ERMP. Sampling locations at the site are limited; however, this 
approach was found to be acceptable by the staff because it is 
consistent with the Programmatic ERMP and limited sampling is 
acceptable based upon the small risk posed by the material. The 
staff found the proposed frequencies, analyses, and actions 
sufficient to ensure DU migration outside of the RCA is adequately 
monitored while not exposing personnel to undue risk due to 
accessing unexploded ordnance areas. Accordingly, the staff 
concluded in its SER for License Amendment No. 2 that the PTA ERMP 
is adequate for monitoring for transport of DU from the RCAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
    \49\ See the SER for Amendment 2 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML16343A163, pages 5 and 6 regarding the significance of 1 mrem/year 
as related to License Condition 19.
    \50\ RESRAD, or RESidual RADioactivity, is a computer code for 
evaluation of risk posed by radioactively contaminated sites. The 
NRC has approved RESRAD for dose evaluation by licensees involved in 
decommissioning, and for staff to assess waste disposal requests and 
dose evaluations.
    \51\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
    \52\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set forth above, the staff finds that the PTA 
ERMP does allow for an appropriate number of sediment samples in 
that a single sediment sampling location is adequate.

Concern 2: The PTA ERMP allows for an inappropriate frequency of 
sediment samples.

    The petitioner states that the licensee should be required to 
sample more frequently than quarterly, and that ``sampling several 
times a year is not sufficient.'' \53\ The PTA ERMP commits the 
licensee to performing sediment sampling on a quarterly basis. This 
quarterly sampling frequency exceeds the semi-annual sampling 
frequency for sediment sampling recommended in NUREG-1301, ``Offsite 
Dose Calculation Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent 
Controls for Pressurized Water Reactors,'' \54\ April 1991. Because 
no guidance exists that is specific to DU in the form of spent 
rounds present in the environment, the staff used NUREG-1301 to 
inform its review of the licensee's proposed sampling methods and 
frequency. Although the PTA RCAs do not produce effluents, as do 
pressurized-water reactors, the guidance in NUREG-1301 is 
conservative for reviewing the licensee's proposed sampling methods 
and frequency because the expected risks from the presence of DU at 
the PTA are significantly less than those associated with 
radiological releases from an operating nuclear power plant. The 
sediment sampling frequency for the PTA is considered by the staff 
to be conservative, and therefore adequate because it exceeds the 
sampling frequency recommended for effluents from pressurized-water 
reactors, for a site with a much lower potential all pathway dose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17110A308.
    \54\ ADAMS Accession No. ML091050061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set forth above, the staff finds that the site-
specific ERMP for the PTA is adequate with respect to the frequency 
of samples taken at the PTA.

Concern 3: The PTA ERMP provides inappropriate and poorly described 
analytical techniques for the sediment sample analysis methods.

    The petitioner states that for the PTA ERMP, the licensee's 
``sediment monitoring program is improperly configured.'' \55\ The 
petitioner states that there is an ``[i]ncomplete description of 
laboratory preparation methods for alpha spectrometry'' and explains 
that ``[c]hemicals used in preparation, exchange resins, internal 
standards, concentration methods for uranium, preparation of sample 
on planchet (electrodeposition or precipitation), counting times, 
reference standards, etc. must be identified.'' \56\ Further, the 
petitioner states with regard to the PTA sediment monitoring 
program, that there is an ``[i]nadequate description of technique of 
alpha spectrometry'' and inquires, ``[w]hat is the sensitivity and 
what energies will be used for isotope determination? Can other U 
isotopes be detected (U-236) and transuranics (Pu, Np, Am)?'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
    \56\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
    \57\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the context of the analytical techniques for the ``sediment 
sampling program for the PTA,'' the petitioner states that there are 
``[i]nadequate analyses for isotopes to identify DU (U-236 and Mo, 
the alloy material, and transuranics would be of paramount 
interest)'' \58\ and explains that ``[t]he samples should be 
analyzed also by an ICP [inductively coupled-plasma] technique that 
can identify other isotopes including U-236, and isotopes of Pu, Np 
and Am. Such would give a specific indication of reprocessed fuel 
rods. These are important for conclusive DU presence.'' \59\ 
Further, the petitioner disagrees with the NRC statement that 
``[t]he methods for sample analysis are commonly utilized methods . 
. . '' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
    \59\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
    \60\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17110A308.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an initial matter, the staff notes that the licensee is not 
required to submit information on laboratory preparation methods 
beyond the information presented in the Quality Assurance Plan 
(Annex 19 to the Programmatic ERMP). \61\ However, the staff may ask 
to review documentation regarding the analysis of sediment samples, 
such as laboratory procedures and methods, during NRC inspections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff disagrees with the petitioner that the proposed 
analytical methods are not commonly used methods. Alpha spectrometry 
(US DOE HASL method 300) \62\ and inductively coupled-plasma mass 
spectrometry (ICP-MS) are commonly used methods for sample analysis 
to determine uranium isotopic activity or mass and have sufficient 
detection capability to accomplish the stated objectives of the 
monitoring activity.63 64 As described in the license at

[[Page 23745]]

Annex 19, the ``Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality 
Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP)'' for the Environmental Radiation 
Monitoring Program,\65\ ICP-MS will be used to supplement alpha 
spectrometry in samples in which the alpha spectrometry results 
indicate a U-238/U-234 ratio above 3.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ HASL-300 EML Procedures Manual at https://www.orau.org/ptp/PTP%20Library/library/DOE/eml/hasl300/HASL300TOC.htm
    \63\ J. Sabine Becker, International Journal of Spectrometry, 
``Inductively coupled plasms mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and laser 
ablation ICP-MS for isotopic analysis of long-live radionuclides,'' 
Volume 242, Issues 2-3, 1 April 2005, Pages 183-195, Elsevier.
    \64\ Carvalho, F.P. & Oliveira, J.M. ``Performance of alpha 
spectrometry in the analysis of uranium isotopes in environmental 
and nuclear materials,'' J Radioanal Nucl Chem (2009) 281: 591. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-009-0046-2.
    \65\ ADAMS Accession No.ML16265A233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner states that the current method of evaluation is 
not sensitive enough to distinguish DU from natural uranium, and 
that using a technique that could detect radionuclides that are 
present in trace quantities in DU, but are not naturally occurring, 
would provide better evidence of DU transport. Specifically, the 
petitioner states that using ICP-MS on each sample, or using it to 
detect radionuclides other than U-234, U-235, or U-238, is 
necessary. However, as indicated in Annex 19, the minimum detectable 
concentration (MDC) for the licensee's proposed alpha spectrometry 
technique is 0.1 picocuries per gram (pCi/g). That value is far 
below the NRC soil screening values of 13 pCi/g, 8.0 pCi/g, and 14 
pCi/g, for U-234, U-235, and U-238, respectively.\66\ Those 
screening values, given in Table H.2 in NUREG-1757, Volume 2, Rev. 
1, ``Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance,'' \67\ are 
concentrations of individual radionuclides in surficial soil that 
staff has determined to be protective of public health and 
safety.\68\ The staff determined in its SER for Amendment No. 2 \69\ 
that the two-step analysis method (i.e., using ICP-MS only as a 
confirmatory technique for samples with a U-238/U-234 ratio above 
3.0) is appropriate. Based on the comparison of the MDC of the 
licensee's proposed method to the NRC soil screening values, the 
staff continues to find the licensee's proposed use of alpha 
spectrometry to be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The NUREG-1757 Volume 2, Rev. 1, Table H.2 values for the 
individual radionuclides were used instead of the values that 
account for progeny (i.e., the ``+C'' values) because the enrichment 
process that creates DU typically removes most of the progeny with 
an atomic weight less than U-234 from the DU.
    \67\ ADAMS Accession No. ML063000243.
    \68\ Soil screening values represent surficial surface soil 
concentrations of individual radionuclides that would be deemed in 
compliance with the 25 mrem/y (0.25 mSv/y) unrestricted release dose 
limit in 10 CFR 20.1402.
    \69\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner raises a related point about the effects of the 
natural variation of the U-238 to U-234 ratio in the environment, on 
the licensee's ability to detect DU. The petitioner states that 
``[t]he heterogeneity of the sample ROC [radionuclide of concern] 
will likely provide dilution effects for analysis and minimize 
threshold concentrations. This issue has not been addressed by the 
Army or the analytical laboratory.'' \70\ Also, the petitioner 
states that ``[g]iven the probable dilution factors of sediment 
sourcing and mixing multiple collected samples, any ratio of U238/
234 greater than one should be considered indicative of DU. This was 
seen in a contractor report (Cabrerra), where soil samples often 
showed uranium 238/234 increased activity ratios.'' \71\ As 
discussed in further detail in the staff's disposition of Concern 5, 
the staff found that the natural variation in the U-238 to U-234 
ratio in the environment did not affect the staff's conclusion about 
the adequacy of the licensee's proposed method of evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18017A784.
    \71\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commitments that the licensee makes in its Programmatic 
ERMP, which is tied to the license, require the licensee to 
periodically review its Programmatic ERMP and each site-specific 
ERMP for revisions that it believes should be made related to 
changes in the understanding of risk associated with exposure to DU 
in the environment; changes in local/regional land use; changes in 
environmental transport characteristics or environmental conditions 
that violate the conservative assumptions of the bounding RESRAD 
analysis of the Programmatic ERMP in such a way that the RESRAD 
analysis is no longer bounding; trends in sampling results 
indicating increased mobilization of DU, but at levels below the 
bounding RESRAD analysis of the Programmatic ERMP or other 
regulatory thresholds; and any other new information that indicates 
a need to adjust the site-specific ERMP. Further, the Programmatic 
ERMP requires that if the licensee determines that changing site 
conditions result in environmental transport or exposure hazards 
that exceed those used in the bounding RESRAD calculations, the 
licensee must notify the NRC license program manager within 30 days. 
The staff found the licensee's commitments reasonable given the 
expected level of risk.
    The licensee's strategy for routine, as well as periodic, 
environmental radiation monitoring at the PTA was addressed in its 
applications for Amendment Nos. 1 and 2. In its SERs for Amendment 
Nos. 1 and 2, the staff determined that the Programmatic ERMP and 
PTA ERMP, respectively, would ensure adequate protection of public 
health and safety. The staff previously determined in the SER for 
License Amendment No. 2 \72\ that the methods described in the PTA 
ERMP and UFP-QAPP were sensitive enough. Through inspection, the 
staff may inspect the data collected from implementation of the PTA 
ERMP to verify that the sensitivity remains appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set forth above, the NRC finds that the 
licensee's description of its analytical methods in the PTA ERMP is 
adequate and the licensee's analytical methods for sediment analysis 
are appropriate.

Concern 4: The PTA ERMP allows for inappropriate geological procedures 
for sediment collection.

    The petitioner expresses concern about the geological procedures 
for sediment collection methods, stating, ``[w]hat is presented, if 
given to any reasonable person familiar with geologic sampling 
procedures, is so egregiously defective and disparate from accepted 
sampling procedures, it must be deemed fatally flawed.'' \73\ The 
petitioner asserts that the licensee's specific sampling techniques, 
method of sample collection, and training are inadequate.\74\ The 
petitioner states ``[f]urther, there is no indication that the 
samplers will have had specific training in the simple and common 
aspects of sampling. Can they distinguish the difference between a 
sediment sample and a soil sample or a slump deposit?'' \75\ The 
petitioner specifically notes issues with the composite sample 
method employed by the licensee. The petitioner also states that 
``organics and water'' should be sent for separate analysis and 
suggests that core sampling would be beneficial.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17110A308.
    \74\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17110A308.
    \75\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
    \76\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The types of procedures for sediment collection are identified 
in each site-specific ERMP and in the Programmatic Quality Assurance 
Plan for ERMPs, which are tied to the license.\77\ In the SER for 
Amendment No. 1,\78\ the staff found that ``. . . each ERMP contains 
prescribed general methods for sample collection and sample analysis 
. . .'' Annex 19, ``Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality 
Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP),'' for the ERMP includes 
worksheets stating the licensee's action levels for sample 
evaluation and what actions the licensee is required to take should 
the sample data exceed these action levels. The license requires the 
licensee to use the type of sampling procedures specified in the 
UFP-QAPP.\79\ During inspections, the staff will review site-
specific procedures, such as sediment sampling procedures, as 
determined by inspection plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A221 (Pkg.).
    \78\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
    \79\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner expresses concerns about the adequacy of the 
licensee's geological training for individuals tasked with 
implementing the environmental monitoring program, but does not 
specify why geological training is necessary to take samples 
sufficient for the purposes of the PTA ERMP or the Programmatic 
ERMP. The NRC does not require geological training to implement the 
PTA ERMP. In its SER for License Amendment No. 1,\80\ the staff 
found the licensee's commitments regarding training acceptable. In 
its application for Amendment No. 2, the licensee made training 
commitments with regard to implementation of the ERMP in its UFP-
QAPP \81\ and Programmatic Radiation Safety Plan,\82\ and the staff 
found them acceptable as detailed in its associated SER.\83\ The 
licensee did not commit to requiring geological training to 
implement the PTA ERMP or the Programmatic ERMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230.
    \81\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16265A233.
    \82\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16004A369.
    \83\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its SER for Amendment No. 2,\84\ the staff concluded that the 
findings described in the SER support the issuance of a license 
amendment requiring the use of the site-specific ERMPs and the 
associated UFP-QAPP applicable to each military

[[Page 23746]]

installation. The UFP-QAPP addresses the quality assurance, quality 
control, and additional technical activities that must be 
implemented to ensure that data collected during ERMP activities at 
the Davy Crockett installations are of sufficient quality to support 
the NRC requirements. The petitioner did not support the claim that 
specific geological training is necessary to take samples sufficient 
to meet NRC requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ ADAMS Accession No. ML16343A163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner has not provided information to support his 
assertion that ``organics and water'' should be sent for separate 
analysis. The concentrations of the radionuclides of concern are 
obtained from the analysis of the total sample. The analysis 
procedure does not require such a separation, nor does the license 
require the licensee to separate organics from water for separate 
analysis before sediment samples are analyzed. With respect to his 
statement that core sampling would be beneficial, the petitioner 
states that core sampling would provide historical information. 
However, obtaining historical information is not one of the purposes 
of the PTA ERMP. Scoping \85\ and characterization surveys were 
performed by the licensee in the past,\86\ and the staff, as 
documented in the SER for Amendment No. 1, found that they were 
sufficient to determine the extent and depth of Davy Crockett DU at 
the PTA. In its application for Amendment No. 1, the licensee 
reported that the average soil concentrations of uranium inside the 
RCA are less than the default NRC screening level for license 
termination. The NRC does not require additional characterization 
for the PTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ ADAMS Accession No. ML092950352.
    \86\ USACE, 2007. Archives Search Report on the Use of 
Cartridge, 20MM Spotting Round M101, Davy Crockett Light Weapon M28, 
Schofield Barracks and Associated Training Areas, Islands of Oahu 
and Hawaii. Prepared by USACE, St Louis District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set forth above, the NRC finds that the site-
specific ERMP for the PTA is adequate with respect to its 
description of procedures for sediment collection methods.

Concern 5: The PTA ERMP allows for inappropriate data evaluation 
methods to determine the presence of DU outside the ranges associated 
with PTA.

    The petitioner states that there is an ``[i]nadequate definition 
of the activity ratios used to define DU presence,'' explaining that 
``[g]iven the probable dilution factors of sediment sourcing and 
mixing multiple collected samples, any ratio of U238/234 greater 
than one should be considered indicative of DU. This was seen in a 
contractor report (Cabrerra), where soil samples often showed 
uranium 238/234 increased activity ratios.'' \87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its evaluation of this concern, the staff requested 
information\88\ from the licensee, regarding how it intends to meet 
the 3-to-1 ratio of U-238 to U-234 in License Condition 17 when 
compositing sediment samples. In its response to the request,\89\ 
the licensee clarified that the ``composite'' samples were all taken 
in essentially one location and a provision for taking 10 sub-
samples was included to ensure sufficient sample volume was 
collected. Based on the licensee's clarification, the staff 
determined that dilution is not a concern as the sub-samples are 
more representative of a single sample than a ``composite'' sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17297B403.
    \89\ ADAMS Accession No. ML18009A456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff verified that the 3-to-1 ratio of U-238 to U-234 is 
appropriate. DU used for military purposes typically has a U-238 to 
U-234 activity ratio of approximately 5.5.\90\ If that DU is mixed 
with natural uranium in the environment, that ratio will be lower 
because natural uranium has a U-238 to U-234 activity ratio of 
approximately 1.0.\91\ Pursuant to License Condition 17, the 
licensee is required to notify the NRC of any uranium detected with 
a U-238 to U-234 ratio of 3 or more. Based on the assumption that 
the DU has a U-238 to U-234 ratio of 5.5 and natural uranium has a 
U-238 to U-234 activity ratio of 1.0, an activity ratio of 3.0 
reflects a mixture of approximately 28 percent natural uranium and 
72 percent DU (percent by activity).\92\ Background levels of 
natural uranium in soil from PTA are approximately 0.4 pCi/g.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ IAEA, Depleted Uranium, retrieved at https://www.iaea.org/topics/spent-fuel-management/depleted-uranium on January 29, 2018.
    \91\ U-238 and U-234 in secular equilibrium have an activity 
ratio of 1.0; however, that ratio is only approximate in the natural 
environment because of differences in how U-238 and U-234 are 
retained in rock and soil.
    \92\ Because DU has a lower specific activity than natural 
uranium, that mixture would be 19 percent natural uranium and 81 
percent DU by mass.
    \93\ ADAMS Accession No. ML12265A173 (Table 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A sample with 72 percent depleted uranium (by activity) and 0.4 
pCi/g natural uranium would contain approximately 1 pCi/g DU, or 
approximately 0.15 pCi/g U-234, 0.01 pCi/g U-235, and 0.84 pCi/g U-
238, which are well below the NRC soil screening values for 
decommissioning.\94\ Therefore, the licensee's use of the 3.0 
activity ratio is acceptable because it would allow the licensee to 
identify DU at concentrations below values that NRC finds protective 
of public health and safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ The NRC soil screening values for decommissioning are: U-
234: 1.3E+01pCi/g; U-235: 8.0E+00pCi/g, and U-238 1.4E+01pCi/g. 
ADAMS Accession No. ML063000243 (Appendix B, Table B.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner refers to a journal article \95\ that explains 
that the ratio of U-238 to U-234 in natural uranium can vary because 
of differences in how U-238 and U-234 are transported in the 
environment. \96\ However, the background concentrations of natural 
uranium at PTA are sufficiently low that variation in the U-238 to 
U-234 ratio of natural uranium at PTA is not expected to be large 
enough to compromise the licensee's ability to detect significant 
migration of DU in soils or sediments. For example, if the U-238 to 
U-234 ratio of natural uranium in PTA site soil or sediment were 
only 0.5 instead of 1.0 (a relatively large natural variation), a 
sample would have a U-238 to U-234 ratio of 3.0 if it had 19 percent 
natural uranium and 81 percent DU (by activity). Given the natural 
uranium background concentration of 0.4 pCi/g in PTA soil, that 
mixture would have a total activity of 2.1 pCi/g, or 1.7 pCi/g DU. 
As previously indicated, that concentration is well below the NRC 
soil screening values for uranium isotopes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Fleischer, R.L., 2008, Difficulties in using 234U/238U 
values to detect enriched or depleted uranium, Health Physics, v. 
94, p.292-293.
    \96\ ADAMS Accession No. ML17249A091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The environmental processes that cause variation in the U-238 to 
U-234 ratio in natural uranium can also affect the U-238 to U-234 
ratio in DU exposed to the natural environment. However, the effect 
of the alpha recoil process described in the reference \97\ supplied 
by the petitioner is to allow more U-234 than U-238 to be 
transported in water. That process would tend to increase the U-238 
to U-234 ratio in solid samples of DU (i.e., soil and sediment), 
making the U-238 to U-234 ratio in those samples greater (i.e., more 
likely to exceed the threshold value of 3.0). Therefore, the staff 
finds that the previous conclusion that the licensee's proposed 
method to detect DU is adequate, is not challenged by either the 
expected natural variation in the U-238 to U-234 ratio in site soil 
and sediment or consideration of the potential effects of alpha 
recoil on DU at the site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Fleischer, R.L., 2008, Difficulties in using 234U/238U 
values to detect enriched or depleted uranium, Health Physics, v. 
94, p.292-293.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set forth above, the NRC finds that the licensee 
has adequate data evaluation methods to determine the presence of DU 
at PTA.

III. Conclusion

    The NRC fully evaluated the petitioner's concerns and based on 
the results of that evaluation, determined that there was no basis 
for granting the petitioner's request to modify, suspend, or take 
other action with respect to, Source Materials License No. SUC-1593 
under 10 CFR 2.206. Accordingly, the NRC denies the petitioner's 
request to modify, suspend, or take other action with respect to 
Source Materials License No. SUC-1593. As provided in 10 CFR 
2.206(c), the staff will file a copy of this final director's 
decision with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission to 
review. As provided for by that regulation, the director's decision 
will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the 
date of the decision unless the Commission, on its own motion, 
institutes a review of the decision within that time.
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of May, 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

[[Page 23747]]

Marc L. Dapas, Director,

Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards

Attachment:

Petitioner's Comments on the

Proposed Director's Decision and

NRC's Responses

ATTACHMENT: PETITIONER'S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DIRECTOR'S DECISION 
AND NRC'S RESPONSES

    The petitioner provided comments to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) on the proposed director's decision (Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. 
ML17341A126 (Pkg.)) by electronic mail (e-mail) dated March 13, 2018 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML18087A134). In the petitioner's March 13, 
2018 e-mail, the petitioner notes that he has ``rephrased some 
statements to make it clearer to the review panel members who do not 
have full familiarity with the issues.'' For completeness, and where 
appropriate, the NRC staff (staff) provides clarifying remarks on 
its previous evaluation of the petitioner's concerns on the Davy 
Crockett depleted uranium (DU) inventory and the sediment sampling 
outside the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) Radiation Control Areas 
(RCAs).
    The petitioner's comments do not alter the staff's overall 
analyses or conclusions in the director's decision and, therefore, 
do not require modification to the final director's decision.

Comment 1:

    The petitioner asserts that the review process is flawed, as 
evidenced by (1) the selection and expertise of the reviewing staff 
members; (2) an emphasis on administrative review over technical 
review; and (3) the rejection of new and materially relevant facts 
presented in the petition and its supplements. With respect to this 
latter point, the petitioner provided information on an historic 
lava flow and referred to a statement made by the licensee 
previously indicating that sediment samples will not be collected 
because no sediment is present at the PTA.

Response 1:

    The petition was reviewed in accordance with NRC Management 
Directive (MD) 8.11. MD 8.11 describes the composition and role of 
the petition review board and the process for reviewing Title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.206 petitions. A copy of 
MD 8.11 was provided to the petitioner on April 25, 2017 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML17110A299 (Pkg.)).
    The staff considered all of the information provided by the 
petitioner in its review of the petition and its supplements. The 
staff notes that at the time the licensee submitted its initial 
license application for Source Materials License No. SUC-1593, the 
licensee had not identified an intermittent stream at the PTA. Since 
that time, as documented in its application for License Amendment 
No. 2, the licensee has identified an intermittent stream for 
sediment sampling outside of the PTA RCA boundaries. On page 2-1 of 
the Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan (ERMP) in effect for the 
PTA (ADAMS Accession No. ML1625A231), the licensee states: ``The 
sediment sampling location at Pohakuloa TA was selected based on the 
surface water hydrology and potential for DU contribution and is 
located as follows:
     ERM-01--The selected sampling point is located at an 
intermittent stream at the installation's northern boundary, 
downstream from the RCAs. ERM-01 is accessible using the Lightning 
Trail or via Saddle Road.''
    As explained in Enclosure 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A082) to 
the NRC's letter to the petitioner dated November 9, 2017 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML17279A300 (Pkg.)), the licensee submitted a license 
amendment application (ADAMS Accession No. ML17158B356) to correct 
figure sizing/scaling errors in the ERMP annex for the PTA and two 
other sites. Because the petitioner's concern regarding the sediment 
sampling location at the PTA is now under staff's consideration as 
part of its review of this license amendment request, the 10 CFR 
2.206 process is not appropriate for addressing that concern. The 
staff will inform the petitioner of the outcome of this licensing 
review.

Comment 2:

    The petitioner asserts that the amount of DU specified in the 
license for the PTA is grossly underestimated and must be revised. 
In support of this assertion, the petitioner states that the 
component parts of the main warhead show a yellow coating consistent 
with DU oxide and the existence of firing pistons shows the dummy 
Davy Crockett warhead (M-390) was fired. The petitioner states that 
this concern is now supported with ``anecdotal evidence'' that the 
dummy warhead contained DU. The petitioner provides a link to a blog 
and web forum as this anecdotal evidence.

Response 2:

    The petitioner's comments are directed at a concern that was not 
accepted for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process and is not the 
subject of this director's decision. The basis for the rejection of 
this concern under the 10 CFR 2.206 process is described on pages 5 
and 6 of Enclosure 1 to the proposed director's decision, under the 
concern identified as ``Insufficient Davy Crockett DU Inventory.''
    The staff is unable to substantiate the new ``anecdotal 
evidence'' referred to in the petitioner's comment, and is therefore 
unable to conclude that this anecdotal evidence is evidence that the 
license underestimates the amount of DU present at the PTA. As 
explained in Enclosure 1 to the November 9, 2017, letter, the 
sufficiency of the Davy Crockett DU inventory was addressed in a 
previous application and safety evaluation report (SER) (Amendment 
No. 1). The staff evaluated the licensee's estimate of the DU 
inventory and documented its conclusions in the associated SERs for 
the initial licensing of the ranges with DU at the two military 
installations located in the Hawaiian Islands, and for Amendment No. 
1. As part of its evaluations in both SERs, the staff considered the 
information in the licensee's report entitled ``Project Archive 
Search Report Use of Cartridge, 20mm Spotting M101 Davy Crockett 
Light Weapon M28 on U.S. Army Installations January 2008 Revised, 
June 2011.'' In addition, as part of its review of the initial 
license application for the PTA (ADAMS Accession No. ML13259A081), 
the staff previously reviewed the photographs (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML09295032) that were referenced in the petitioner's July 24, 2017, 
supplement (ADAMS Accession No. ML17249A091), as well as other 
reference documents provided by the licensee in its initial ERMP for 
the PTA (ADAMS Accession No. ML12046A506) that support the 
conclusion that the yellow residue on other Davy Crockett weapon 
system components is not DU.

Comment 3:

    The petitioner asserts that the staff improperly introduced 
health-effect possibility as a reason to accept ``corrupt monitoring 
methodologies.'' The petitioner states that, even so, the estimated 
number of dummy warheads from the piston count should be used in 
configuring the RESRAD dose. The petitioner asserts that dose risk 
to the public should be assessed in a different manner from the 
resident farmer scenario.

Response 3:

    The licensee did not include dummy warheads in its dose 
assessment because there is no evidence that dummy rounds contain DU 
at PTA. Source Materials License No. SUC-1593 applies to Davy 
Crockett M101 spotting rounds, which contain DU. As explained in the 
director's decision under Concern 4, scoping and characterization 
surveys were performed by the licensee in the past. The staff, as 
documented in the SER for Amendment No. 1, found that the licensee's 
efforts were sufficient to determine the extent and depth of Davy 
Crockett DU at the PTA.
    The licensee used the resident farmer exposure scenario for its 
dose assessment for the PTA. The resident farmer is one who grows 
her or his own food on the contaminated site and collects her or his 
own water also from the contaminated site. The staff considers this 
scenario to be a bounding scenario for the Davy Crockett M101 
spotting rounds at the RCAs. Once the exposure scenario is chosen, 
the second step in a dose assessment is to predict how the 
radionuclides will move through the environment to where they could 
come into contact with humans. The final step in a dose assessment 
is to then predict what the resulting dose would be. The total 
lifetime dose received by the individual is calculated from a given 
amount of a radionuclide ingested or inhaled (measured in curies) 
multiplied by a dose conversion factor from a related calculation of 
the dose from external penetrating radiation. Given that 
calculations for dose assessments are complex, they are best done on 
a computer.
    The licensee used the computer program or code called RESRAD 
(short for RESidual

[[Page 23748]]

RADioactivity) to carry out the three steps described above using 
the resident farmer scenario. RESRAD is commonly used to make 
regulatory decisions about residual radioactivity levels at nuclear 
sites. This code was used by the licensee, and reviewed by the 
staff, to assess radiation exposures of a human receptor located on 
top of soils contaminated with DU. RESRAD allows users to specify 
the features of their site and to predict the dose received by an 
individual at any time over the next 100,000 years. RESRAD is 
particularly important because it has been accepted for use by the 
NRC in making regulatory decisions and is freely available to the 
public.

Comment 4:

    The petitioner states that the use of NUREG-1301 is improper 
because it does not address stream sediment sampling.

Response 4:

    As stated in the director's decision, while NUREG-1301 is not 
specific to DU in the form of spent rounds present in the 
environment, it is conservative for reviewing the licensee's 
proposed sampling methods and frequency because the expected risks 
from the presence of DU at the PTA are significantly less than those 
associated with radiological releases from an operating nuclear 
power plant. Also, the fact that this guidance addresses sediment 
from [the] shoreline of surface water instead of stream sediment 
does not affect the conservatism of applying the NUREG to 
environmental sampling at PTA.

Comment 5:

    The petitioner challenges the staff's conclusions that the 
analytical methods in the PTA ERMP are appropriate and that the 
laboratory preparation methods are adequately described in the PTA 
ERMP. The petitioner states that the analytical method selected, an 
alpha spectrometer, presumably cannot detect \235\U unless very long 
counting times are used. The petitioner states ``an overwhelming 
number of procedural descriptions are provided with the phrase, `TBD 
(to be determined)''' in Annex 17 and 19.

Response 5:

    As stated in the director's decision under Concern 3, the staff 
disagrees with the petitioner that the analytical methods are not 
commonly used methods. Alpha spectrometry (US DOE HASL method 300) 
and inductively coupled-plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) are 
commonly used methods for sample analysis to determine uranium 
isotopic activity or mass and have sufficient detection capability 
to accomplish the stated objectives of the monitoring activity.
    Furthermore, the petitioner expressed concerns about 
appropriateness of the analytical methods by raising the issue of 
the long counting times for U-235. However, as described in Concern 
3, the licensee has not proposed to count U-235, but instead plans 
to use the U-238 to U-234 ratio, as a surrogate, as required by 
License Condition 17.
    With regard to the analytical procedures being adequately 
described including the use of the phrase ``TBD'', as described in 
the director's decision under Concern 3, the licensee is not 
required to submit information on laboratory preparation methods 
beyond the information presented in the Quality Assurance Plan 
(Annex 19 to the Programmatic ERMP) (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML16265A233). Also, the licensee is not required to submit 
environmental sampling procedures beyond the information presented 
in Annex 19 to the Programmatic ERMP. The licensee has made a 
commitment in its application for License Amendment No. 1 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML16004A369) that:
    ``Each installation-specific ERMP will describe sampling in 
terms of sampling objectives, sampling protocols, analytical 
methods, and data quality assurance protocols. These descriptions 
will conform to commonly accepted practices and reliable sources as 
described in the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site 
Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) (NRC, DOE, EPA, DOD 2000). Acceptable 
analytical methods include those commonly accepted from reliable 
references, as presented in MARSSIM, Table 7.2.''
The staff found this approach acceptable. In the SER for License 
Amendment No. 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230), the staff found 
that, ``. . . in accordance with 10 CFR 40.32(c) . . . that the 
Army's proposed equipment and procedures in the programmatic RSP 
[Radiation Safety Plan] are adequate to protect health and safety 
and minimize danger to life or property.'' Review of specific 
procedures are covered in the NRC inspection process, not licensing. 
The staff may ask to review documentation regarding the analysis of 
sediment samples, such as laboratory procedures and methods and 
sampling procedures, during NRC inspections.

Comment 6:

    The petitioner asserts that an Oak Ridge report (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML13101A090) demonstrates that the analytical methods used by 
the licensee are improper and that the proposed director's decision 
improperly ignores this report.

Response 6:

    As explained in the director's decision under Concern 5, as part 
of the staff's review of the petitioner's concern regarding 
composite sample dilution, the staff requested information (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML17297B403) from the licensee, regarding how it 
intends to meet the 3-to-1 ratio of U-238 to U-234 in License 
Condition 17 when compositing sediment samples. The staff referred 
to the Oak Ridge Report (ADAMS Accession No. ML13101A090) in its 
request letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML17297B403), stating that 
``this guidance indicates that a statistically-informed sampling 
regime should be followed if composite sampling is used over an area 
(i.e., not just at one sample location). The detailed guidance 
referenced above recommends (1) retaining sub-samples in case 
further analysis is needed, (2) establishing an adjusted limit that 
would trigger analysis of individual subsamples, and (3) using sub-
samples of the same volume.'' In its response to the request (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML18009A456), the licensee clarified that the 
``composite'' samples were all taken in essentially one location and 
a provision for taking 10 sub-samples was included to ensure 
sufficient sample volume was collected. Based on the licensee's 
clarification, the staff determined that dilution is not a concern 
as the sub-samples are more representative of a single sample than a 
``composite'' sample.

Comment 7:

    The petitioner states that there are significant barriers to 
flow from the RCAs at the PTA to the proposed sample collection 
site, and that the staff should have used objective programs to 
trace out surface flows. The petitioner states that the staff should 
mandate that the sampling location be adjacent to the RCA, ``not 
miles away with an intermittent lava berm.''

Response 7:

    The petitioner's comments are directed at a concern that was not 
accepted for review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process and is not the 
subject of this director's decision. The basis for the rejection of 
this concern under the 10 CFR 2.206 process is described on pages 3 
and 4 of Enclosure 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A082) to the NRC's 
letter to the petitioner dated November 9, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML17279A300 (Pkg.)), under the concern identified as ``Inappropriate 
Sampling Location.'' As described in the staff's Response 1, above, 
the licensee submitted a license amendment application to the NRC to 
correct figure sizing/scaling errors in the ERMP annex for the PTA 
and two other sites. Because the petitioner's concern regarding the 
sediment sampling location at the PTA is now under staff's 
consideration as part of its review of this license amendment 
request, the 2.206 process is not appropriate for addressing that 
concern. The staff will inform the petitioner of the outcome of this 
licensing review.

[FR Doc. 2018-10840 Filed 5-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P