ML19345E123
| ML19345E123 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/02/1980 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Baca T NEW MEXICO, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345E122 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-28 NUDOCS 8012230224 | |
| Download: ML19345E123 (2) | |
Text
._-
., / * '%,
J.
UNITED STATES N. e (g3g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/] (d7/N/
j WAS HINGT ON, D. C. 20$$$
Mr. Themas E. Baca, Director New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division
- p. O. Box 968, Crown Building Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503
Dear Mr. Baca:
This letter confirms agreements reached in our telephone conversation of Scvember 19, 1980, concerning the revision to criteria that your staff recently developed and is implementing in the clean-up of contamination from the Church Rock uranium mill tailings dam Dreak.
The initial cleanup criteria were developed by our staffs with the cbjective of keeping exposures resulting from the dam break as 10w as reasonably achievable. The criteria were based on site visits by both staffs, review of soils data available at the time and detailed radiological assessments of potential exposure pathways. The criteria were considered appropriate in that they would assure cleanup of areas of concentrated radioactivity and avoid excessive efforts to cleanup the extensive areas (rcre than 60 miles of stream) which were mildly contaminated.
Apparently, based upon the more comprehensive soil sampling data collected since the criteria were established, and your observations of practical difficulties in the cleanup, revision of the criteria is warranted.
It is only through a detailed and careful weighing of prevailing local ccnditions and public perspectives, practical and operational problems encountered in cleanup efforts, local land uses and so on, that relaxation-of the criteria can be supported. As we agreed in our telephone conversation, because of your proximity to the situation and your ability to closely fcilow the cleanup activities over the past year, you are inthe best position to make this kind of cost-benefit evaluation of local issues.
As was previously the case, we do not have the staff resources to perform a fuli review of your supporting evaluation.
However, as I also stated in our telephone conveisation, we have no basis upon which to disagree with the revised criteria. While we cannot take a position on the appropriateness of the specific levels chosen and detailed, statistical aspects of the revised criteria, they do not appear to pose an unacceptable risk to public health and safety on the basis of the brief review we have been able to give them.
w so122so,ttf
Mr. Thomas E. Baca 2-We have provided copies of the draft final report being prepared by our consultant Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (BPNL) on contamination levels in affected streams to your staff for review and comment. We are proceeding to have this report finalized as expeditiously as possible given our staff resource constraints and trust it will be of assistance as you go through the process of determining compliance with the cleanup i
standards.
Sin erely,
~
John B. Martin, Director Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety
+
and Safeguards i
6