ML18309A061
| ML18309A061 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/19/2018 |
| From: | Richard Chang Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs |
| To: | Dunesia Clark US Dept of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), HI |
| R CHANG DUWP | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18309A059 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML18309A061 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 November 19, 2018 Dave Clark Lead Remedial Project Manager Former Naval Station Treasure Island Naval Facilities Engineering Command Navy BRAC PMO West 33000 Nixie Way Bldg 50, 2nd floor San Diego, CA 92147
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM REQUEST FOR UNRESTRICTED RADIOLOGICAL RELEASE OF SELECT OPEN SPACES INSTALLATION RESTORATION SITE 12
Dear Mr. Clark:
I am writing to provide you with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) comments and request for additional information regarding the U.S. Navys Draft Technical Memorandum Request for Unrestricted Radiological Release of Select Open Spaces at Installation Restoration Site 12 at the former Naval Station Treasure Island (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number ML18277A072). The comments are summarized below and are discussed in further detail in the enclosure.
The NRCs role at this site is consistent with the monitoring approach defined within the NRC and U.S. Department of Defenses Memorandum of Understanding (ADAMS Accession Number ML16092A294). Under this approach, at this site, the NRC staff will review select documents and provide comments regarding NRCs dose criterion of 25 millirem per year.
During the NRC staffs review of the Draft Technical Memorandum, the NRC identified three areas where the NRC staff is seeking additional information. It is requested that you please provide: 1) additional discussions on Final Status Survey decision points, confidence levels, the number of samples, site classification, and survey (decision) units; 2) additional details on the survey scan coverage and area classification; and 3) a discussion on how the historic site grading has been confirmed. For Comment 1, the NRC staff would also consider dose assessments that would bound reasonable foreseeable future uses as a way to address NRCs comment. Additional discussion on the NRC staff comments is available within the enclosure to this letter.
The NRC staff is requesting responses to these comments, but the NRC staff recognizes that the U.S. Navy does not necessarily need to modify the Technical Memorandum to address these comments.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRCs Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders, a copy of this letter will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component
of NRCs Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
I will contact you in the near future to answer any questions you may have regarding these comments, but if you have any immediate questions, please contact me at (301) 415-5888 or at Richard.Chang@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Richard Chang, Project Manager Low-level Waste and Other Projects Branch Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information REGISTERED LETTER - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED