ML19324C413
| ML19324C413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/09/1989 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Matthews M ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-72 NUDOCS 8911160271 | |
| Download: ML19324C413 (8) | |
Text
gm. 'y r
,,l.
- f; jt
{$
e $
't p4 DG/SPKSMP f',
-1 fi, ' '
_9 1999 Mr. Mark Matthews,1 Acting Project Manager 1 g' Uranium Mill Tailings Project Office s
Albuquerque' Operations Office.
,U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box'5400 nE
-Albuquerque, NM 87115
Dear Mr. Matthews:
We have' reviewed the draft Surveillance and Maintenance Plan (S&MP) for the Spook UMTRA Site in Converse County, Wyoming transmitted by your letter dated
. September 22, 1989. Enclosed are our comments resulting from the review.
' I would like to highlight one general comment (Comment No.1),which we believe is important to preparation of not only this plan but other surveillance plans e as'well. The surveillance plan, in addition to providing the basis for i
. issuance of'a general license, will also establish the detailed procedures to
, be followed at each site to help fulfill terms and conditions of that license,
[,'
With' this in mind, care should be taken to consider the site-specific
> conditions when making general references to requirements in the DOE generic (f
document, " Guidance for UMTRA Project Surveillance and Maintenance.":
s
,If you have any questions'regarding these connents, please do not hesit' ate to, contact me or Dan'Gillen of my staff (FTS 492 0517).
Sincerely,.
u
\\
ORIGINAL S!GHED BY
^
' Paul H. Lohaus, Chief:
T-Operations Branch
' Division of Low-Level Waste Management and'Deconnissioning, HMSS 1
Enclosure:
- As stated-4 cc:
S. Mann, DOE.Hg.
l
[-
M.Scoutaris, DOE Alb.
.l
- i L.'
' Distribution: <CiWOs1!Fhs%Ms729 NMSS r/f RBangart, LLWM JGreeves, LLWM MBell, LLRB JSurmeier, LLTB y'g L
PLohaus, LLOB MF11egel, LLOB DGillen,'LLOB JJones, LLOB r/f s
..LY_"7 i
PDR YES i
PDR NO
/ / Category: Proprietary./- /~ or CF Only
/~7 L
n
. ACNW YES T7
.NO
/ /
I
)
SUBJECT AB CT:-
REVIEMF IPDUK S&MP L
- See Previous Concurrence 0FC :LLOB'
- LLOB*
- LLOB'
- LLWM
- LLWM
- NM55 l
0 NAME:DGillen/jj
- MFliegel
- PLohaus f
,e 7,'
Date:11/07/89
- 11/07/89
- 11/08/89
- 11/ /89
- 11/ /89 :11/ /89 l
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY gf/q 8911160271 891109 PDR WASTE s
\\
p g f.'
j p' "'T '.. DG/SPKSMP i-L * [:4'l 1
2 L
d Mh. Mark Matthews, Acting Project Manager l
~
- a : Uranium Mill Tailings Project Office
_ ~ Albuquerque Operations Office
+
i 1-
" T;O. U.S.* Department.of Energy e
ijP.O.: Box 54001-q.
1buquerque, NM'87115
~
.r
- <; Dear.
. Matthews:y.
A-3 f. y
.c C',1j
$. WeLhave rite in Converse County, Wyoming transmitted by your letter dated iewedthedraftSurveillanceandMaintenancePlan(S&MP)forthe o
s
?1
. Spook UMTRA e
- September 22, 1989. Enclosed are our comments resulting from the review.
J 4a y
"3,
As a ' genera 1.co sideration in your. preparation of this and other surveillance,
'a ('
andmaintenancephns,wewishtopointoutthat,bycondition'ofthegeneral licence (NRC rulemthing in progress), each of these documents will eventually
'bec'ame the detailed licence requirements. With this in mind, care should be taken to consider thehite-specific conditions when making wholesale references to requirements in the DOE generic document, " Guidance.for UMTRA Project Surveillance and Maintenance."- Further, the final S&MP should be written in terms of post. licensing cohditions, not proposed or present conditions '(see enclosed comment 1).
If you have any questions regaNing these comments, plesse do not hesitate to contact me or Dan Gillen of iny staff (FTS 492 0517).
N Sincerely,
\\
Paul H. Lohaus, Chief x
Operations Branch-Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Dsconnissioning.: NMSS
Enclosure:
As stated
\\
t
\\
cc:
S. Mann, DOE Hg.
g$
M.Scoutaris, DOE Alb.
I Distrib'ution: Central File i WM -
NMSS r/f RBangart, LLWM JGreeves, LLWM MBell, LLRB JSurmeier, LLTB PLohaus, LLOB MF11egel, LLOB DGillen, LLOBs JJones, LLOB r/f
\\
PDR YES LT__7
\\
\\
PDR 'HO
/~~7 Category: Proprietary C or CF Only \\ / ~/
~
\\
i ACNW YES T7 NO SUBJECT AB ACT:
REVIE 5FUUK
\\
f LLOBj
- LLWM
- LLWM g:NM55
-" 0FC.:LLOB g
- LLOB ^2 gA.p,.c..:
..y
- \\
I NAME:DGill n/jj
- MFliegel
- PLotr
\\
',IDate:11/1/89<
- 11/7/89
- 11/3/89
- 11/ /89
- 11/ /89
- 11/ j89
+.;
\\
a "h,s~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY N
s s ye p q p r
i'}l.('.L
{
gr.
,a w:
l --
v ;'
ENCLOSURE NRC COMMENTS ON-DRAFT SURVEILLANCE AND MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR THE SPOOK UMTRA SITE IN CONVERSE COUNTY, WYOMIM h
e 4
d l
i l
l i
I-f 1
i l'
l' L
1 1^
LL-
+
i UMTRA DOCUMENT REVIEW FORM 5EUTIUM 1
'~'
i Site:
Spook, Wyoming Date: November 6,1989 l
Document: Surveillance and Maintenance Plan Commenter: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.1. General - Once the NRC rulemaking is complete, the general license will contain a condition that requires care for the site in accordance vith the provisions of the surveillance and maintenance plan (S&MP), referred to in the proposed rulemaking at the Long-Term Surveillance Plan provisions of the S&MP will become licence conditions., or LTSP. Therefore, the Because of this eventual incorporation of the S&MP into the license, care should be taken to consider the site specific conditions when making wholesale references to requirements in the DOE generic guidance document.
References should be specific, direct, and qualified if necessary.
For example, Section 3.1 of the S&MP indicates, "The inspection procedures, photography procedures, pre-inspection familiarization, and other requirements will be those described in Section 3.3 of the Guidance Document." Section 3.3 has requirements for the inspection team that conflict with statements in Section 3.1 of the'S&MP (see Comment 4).
When revising the draft S&MP, DOE should review all references to the generic' document to insure that all referenced requirements are appropriate for and consistent with the S&MP.
Although it may be appropriate for this early draft to be written in terms of proposed or present conditions, the final form of the S&MP should be written in terms of post-licensing conditions.
In particular, Section 1.2 (Site Descri) tion) should be replaced with a legal description of the site and site owners 11p (not " private property"), and a detailed description of the final site conditions.
Reference to information in the Completion Report is acceptable. Further use of "will be" should become "has been" or "is".
For example, "Two permane,nt survey monuments will be [have been] established..."
and Since the Spook pile will be [is] buried beneath 49 to 65 feet of overburden amterial...".
SECTION Z
Response
Date:
By:
Plans for Implementation:
SECTIUM 3 Confirmation of implementation:
Checked by:
Date:
Approved by:
Date:
[
.3 i
i'-
UMTRA DOCUMENT REVIEW FORM SECTIDM 1 i
Site:
Spook Wyoming Date: November 6, 1989 Document: SurveIllanceandMaintenancePlan Commenter: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 2. Figures 1.3 and 2.1, Attachment 1 - The contours and elevations shown on Figures 1.3 2.1, and Attachment 1 should be revised to reflect the new grading plan that wIll result from the backfill volume modification.
e 5ECTIUM 2
Response
__ By:
Date:
Plans for Implementation:
SEGIION 3 Confirmation of Implementation:
Checked by:
Date:
Approved by:
Date:
4-d i
UMTRA DOCUMENT REVIEW FORM l
5ECTIUM I Site:
Spook. Wyoming Date:
November 6, 1989 Document: Surveillance and Maintenance Plan Commenter: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 3. Survey Monuments - Section 2.1.1 of the S&MP indicates that thure will be two permanent survey monuments established at the Spook site.
However, Section 2.6.1 of DOE's " Guidance for UMTRA Project Surveillance and Maintenance" contains a statement that a minimum of three permanent survey monuments will be established at each site. The Spook S&MP should be revised to be consistent with the guidance document, or to include justification for the reduction to i
only two monuments.
i SECTION 2
Response
By:
Date:
l
.,?
j d
i Plans for Implementation:
SECTIUM 3 Confirmation of Implementation:
Checked by:
Date:
Approved by:
Date:
I
,.--+--c-
--,,..4-,..c
--.--e.-
+~d
6 f
5-t UMTRA DOCUMENT REVIEW FORM 5ECTION I Site:
Spook, Wyoming Date: November 6, 1989 Document: Surveillance and Maintenance Plan Commenter: Nuclear Regulatory Consnission
- 4. Phase I Inspection - Section 3.1 of the S&MP includes a statement that the inspection team will be comprised of an engineer and a degreed professional familiar with the surveillance and maintenance program.
However, Section 3.3.1 of DOE's guidance document states that if only two inspectors are assigned, one will be a geotechnical engineer / geologist and one will be a civil engineer.
The Spook S&MP should be revised to be consistent with the guidance document.
l Requiring only a degreed professional familiar with the program does not ensure l
that the technical expertise necessary to assess the long-term stability status l
will be provided.
l t
SECTION 2 i
Response
By:
l Date:
1 I
(
l i
l Plans for Implementation:
SECTIDH 3 Confirmation of Implementation:
Checked by:
Date:
Approved by:
Date:
,,,,w--
.._.-...m..-_.,_
,,,...,...e,__
_ __. _,,-em
<-~=.-..-
"k 6-UMTRA DOCUMENT REVIEW FORM 3ccTIUn 1 Site:
Spook, Wyoming Date: November 6, 1989 l
- Document: Surveillance and Maintenance Plan Commenter: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. 5. Contingency Plans Section 6.2 of the S&MP includes a statement that DOE will become aware of problems through, for one, detection / compliance
. monitoring. Since there is no planned groundwater monitoring associated with the Spook surveillance and maintenance, this statement should be deleted.
- In addition, this section should be revised to require timely notification of the NRC prior to DOE actually conducting a contingency inspection.
a.r l
l i
5tGTIUM Z l
Response
By:
l-Date:
l l
L Plans for Implementation:
l 5LLIIDM 3 Confirmation of Implementation:
l l
Checked by:
Date:
Approved by:
Date:
1 1
1
- ~.. - - -.
- -. -.--...-..