Jefferson Proving Ground Army Base, IN

• Technology Optimization, Partnering, Property Transfer:
  
  1. Achievements: None at this time..
  2. Issues: EPA did not concur on the Draft FS. The FS does not address U.S. EPA's human health and ecological risk concerns with the Final RI. EPA submitted comments for the Draft FS on April 30, 2003, including documentation of our unresolved concerns with the Final RI Report (dated September 30, 2003). U.S. EPA requested that our RI/FS comments be placed in the Administrative Record.

     U.S. EPA and IDEM informed the Army and its contractors that some of the temporary groundwater monitoring wells at the 3 solvent pit sites (Sites 12A, 12B and 12C) will need to be replaced with permanent wells. U.S. EPA's other concerns regarding JPG potentially not having enough groundwater monitoring wells for some of the sites south of the firing line are included in an appendix of the Final RI Report (dated September 2002) and our current discussions on the Draft FS.

• Community Activities (e.g., RAB and statutory community involvement activities):
  
  1. Achievements: At the U.S. EPA RPM's request, the RAB TAPP consultant participated in the BCT's conference call held on June 26, 2003, to discuss unresolved comments on the Draft FS. The community RAB Co-Chair, RAB TAPP consultants, some members of Save The Valley, U.S. EPA RPM and U.S. EPA's technical oversight contractor participated via teleconference in a public meeting held at NRC HQ in Rockville, MD. NRC's public meeting was held on July 1, 2003, with the Army regarding the proposed depleted uranium (DU) license amendment for JPG. The community RAB, Save The Valley, RAB TAPP consultant and U.S. EPA were successful in raising a number of concerns and proposing recommendations for JPG's proposed DU license amendment.
  2. Issues: See above item IV.b.1 Community Achievements. Some of the concerns and recommendations raised by the community and U.S. EPA RPM include better characterization of the soil types and groundwater in the area north of the firing line, performing uranium flyovers with a helicopter, reevaluating the JPG Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan and who has regulatory authority over health and ecological issues in the DU impact area. NRC agreed with U.S. EPA and the community that perhaps a MOU between NRC and U.S. EPA may need to be initiated. Also, the community's issues include the specific issues that were reported during the last reporting period regarding DU and UXO.
     

Any other relevant installation issues not covered elsewhere: None at this time.