ML19256E970
| ML19256E970 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/24/1979 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256E971 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-28 NUDOCS 7911160275 | |
| Download: ML19256E970 (2) | |
Text
m, m
TTN
' = -
a arog'o m
Q{s k,
UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
3 o
%,..... /
OCT 2 41979
-h*
'a WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~
E hb MEMORANDUM FOR:
The File FROM:
Hubert J. Miller, Section Leader Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch Division of Waste Management
SUBJECT:
CLEANUP CRITERIA FOR CHURCHROCK URANIUM MILL TAILINGS DAM FAILURE On October 11, 1979, members of the WMUR staff met with members of the Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) of USEPA to discuss cleanup criteria established by the WMUR staff for the subject cleanup and supporting radiological assessments.
Present at the meeting were:
WMUR-NRC ORP-EPA H. Miller F. Galpin G. Eadie W. Ellett G. Gnugnoli H. May (by phone from USEPA Region 6, Dallas, TX)
The meetino was held in EPA offices, Crystal Plaza, Arlington, Virginia.
Mille. explained the cleanup limits requesting EPA agreement with them.
Galpin stated that USEPA, being in the process of establishing criteria for mill tailings related contamination under P.L.95-604, could not concur in the cleanup limits as this would prejudice or prejudge their standard setting efforts.
A radiological assessment of the Churchrock incident performed by Hank May of USEPA Region 6 statec that the NRC cleanup limits are reasonable; a copy of this would nou be released by EPA.
Miller requested a copy and EPA is checking management for release.
The draft radiological assessment was discussed in some detail. The assessment discussed is attached.
Galpin made the following general comments:
1.
The assessment should address the potential for contamination of surface streamwater by continued leaching of activity from contaminated soils.
2.
The assessment should consider the exposures that might occur if well water were contaminated by the initial slug of concentrated' solutions.
Miller agreed these points should be covered in the NRC radiological assessment noting, however, that more than a qualitative / semi-quantitative discussion was not possible at the present time.
1340 123 c5 7 911160 g> 4.e
The File Miller also noted that the first point was effectively addressed by the cleanup operations; the WMUR limits were aimed at assuring the hot spots in the stream terraces were clearcd up so that there would be no leaching contaminction problem.
Levels in stream water should not become greater than their current levels, which by most recent data appear not to pose significant health risks.
The second does not relate to the cleanup limits as Miller further noted. This point relates to the initial pass of solutioris, and current and future cleanup operations will not affect contamination of groundwater if it exists.
It was agreed that continuing attention must be given to monitoring nearby wells. At the time of the treeting, no analyses of samples taken of these wells was available.
EPA agreed that the cleanup criteria were low enough to assure very low exposures to the maximum exposed individuals as a result of the incident via the airborne pathway.
EPA's only concern seemed to be with the potential exposures from contaminated groundwater, which as noted above, are not related to the cleanup criteria.
Hube t J. Miller, Section Leader Uran
.1 Recovery Licensing Branch Division of Waste Management
Enclosure:
As stated 1340 7,24