ML20004B776
| ML20004B776 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wood River Junction |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1981 |
| From: | Cunningham R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Grant M RHODE ISLAND, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004B777 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106010022 | |
| Download: ML20004B776 (2) | |
Text
f e \\ A l uo
'=
-- o s
- )
( b[
Distribution:FC fl268 A
FC Central File w
d MAY 211981* F6 MSS r/f hA. " WmT
.NPR 6 1981 CU EY5 hum
'Mr. Malcote Grant
'Q Q
$Qf WTCrow RStevenson Policy Associate RGPage LTyson State of Rhods Island TFCarter
'th, R:I State House RECunningham Providence, Rhode Island 02903 BClausser Docket File 820
Dear Mr. Grant:
~
PDR LPDR Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director of NRC's Region I Office has requested that I respond to question Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 8 of your January 14,1981 letter to him concerning the status of several items related to the United Nuclear Plant in Wood River Junction, R.I.
Question No. 4 - Deep Monitoring Well Response: My staff has infomed me that although a ' cable tool" type well is not being drilled, an agreement has been reached among the state, USGS and and UNC as to the type of well that will be drilled and that the well will be drilled at UNC's expense. We also agree with delaying drilling of the well until the winter weather breaks.
I understand that drilling is currently scheduled for some time this month.
2 f[~ ' Question No. 5_- Additional Monitoring Wells Along paucatuck 'i
, ?}'
Response: Our consultant, Dr. Warner has infomed us that there are presently no ' -
technical bases for requiring the additional.witT1s requested; however.; #
additional information will be available from the new deep monitoring well referenced in question No. 4 above. If these data indicate that additional monitoring wells are necessary, NRC will require UNC to drill them.
l Question No. 6 - Hydrologic Modeling
~
Response: Attached is a copy of all correspondence from Dr. Warner. The final results of this study are not anticipated until September of this year.
Question No. 8 - NRC's Draft Soil Decontamination Criteria l
Response: We have received coments on the Draft Criteria frca you and from others.
i These coments are being addressed in the final criteria which will be I
published by May 1, 1981.
l l
I i
l L
T/ oro o 100.RA i'
I nn. - ums.s c,,
v u v u,.
m 2 v v
f t
APR 6 1981 I hope these responses adequately address your concerns.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me or W. T. Crow of my staff.
-- ~
Sincerely,
. 9-Original Signed by i
Schard E. Cunningham j
Richard E. Cunningham Director Division of Fuel Cycle Material Safety
~
Enclosure:
Correspondence from Dr. Warner P
c.;_
cc:,, Boyce H. Grier
,,1 -
.. ~
r
?-
g=
g:.
c -,...
..'.~;.-l
^'
~
g-h,. ~ n -
r m-e
. t,...:
.-< r.
~
~
'.g't -
,5 e
- S.
~
- _y
. = * -
D r
FCUP FCUF FC FC WTCrew RGPage TFCarter RECunningham 4/3/81 4/
/81 4/
/81 4/
/81
U.y q;
_EiC ATOP.y op p g g DON L WARNER. INC.
P. C. B O X 7 81 fi'.L CCpy ROLLA. MISSCURI 65401 -
December 17, 1980
..N
/
S
..( },
((1.,
I S
Oh
- 's.g,,y.'3;3 C:j
- E8 Dr. Edward Shum t
Office of Nuclear Material i
gg O 5 ;gg7 *inl c,;,
gj Safety and Safeguards
\\g
%g,,
t
%,,,,' fi' /
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormiis'sion c\\oc[ed]?
u
,.:./
Washington, D.C.
20555 og g-lj
- g
\\-
~
Dear Dr. Shum:
N.L :YW I am writing concerning Tasks II-b and II-c of NRC Contract 02-08-076 and also to provide my comments with recard to the speci-fications for the one additional deep well to be drilled by UNC.
In an earlier letter, dated November 3, I briefly discussed Task II-b.
Since that time, I have received a copy of the Gold-berg Zoino and Associates, Inc. gechydrological report to United Nuclear Corporation. The major value of that report is in the graphs that it contains of water quality data for 24 observation wells at the UNC plant site.
Data are plotted for specific con-ductivity, pH, nitrates, fluorides, gross alpha and gross beta.
Water level data are also plotted.
Plots are for the period of 1976-early 1980.
Data are not shown for all wells for the entire time period.
Examination of the data for wells T-2, T-3, 76-U,77-B and 77-0 shows that my earlier appraisal (October 13,1980) of trends in water quality was correct as far as can be. determined from the graphs.
Insofar as contaminant transport is concerned, it is apparent that the peaks for each of the major contaminants that are plotted indicator) gross alpha, gross beta) and conductivity (a contaminant (nitrate, appeared in well T-2 in late 1977 or during 1978.
Since that time, an irregular decline in contaminant levels continued up till early 1980, when the last data were plotted.
At that time, water from well T-2 met drinking water standards for those para-meters measured.
Contaminant peaks appeared in well T-3 in late 1977 and early 1978 and concentrations generally declined after that time until early 1980.
However, secondary peaks of concentration occurred at varicus
".%9+
aoma
-+a+==="
elatively high values even at contaminant flushing in the
'ete.
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under:
ANO b h k h
b No. of pages:
[/)
q pq b.q
_,_,v, m
-.m
'i--1
N.
i F.C.
Cg.31. V W 11UNS
'~
.A.-. u,,g.p.. _.. -
,,\\ r,.- ve/
.I Q246:A-
/
ig/.4W,
/
c.
D O N L. WARf4 ER.J N C.
s 3 7,.
w...u. g g **t P. O. 8 0 X 7 81 c-M.
ROLLA. MISSOU RI 65401
- J
=
..:yw '
w e
G?E
- --l
.. c p_9 D a
u
,g,A
+( '
pgeg
..w.
c.gs.~,/ November 3, 1930
,l g,
x.
')'.
. 3, g
s is Q, h,. g,'
~ ' -
g Dr. E6. card Shum y
[,
Office of Nuclear '!aterial Safety J
h-and Safeguards
-i S GV 10 'F'".
^
gA,A y
U.S. Nuclear Regulator,. Commission u,.
.ws-n Nashington, D.,v.
02:a
~
5.s ;
g s
Dear Dr. Shum:
N
... 'ltw' s' y....,. i s " ~
I am writing to respond to Task II-b, under.'aC Contract 02-S')-076, which is:
-s,
@g "b.
How quickly will the grcundwater reservoir purge itself cf radioactive and nitrate contaminatien."
u G
Tg It is not possible for me to respend quantitatively to this task at M
present, because of a lack of water-level and o der data for the site.
I sj expect to have the necessary data scen.
It is apparently contained in the t
report prepared for UNC by Goldberg. Zoino and Associates. Tnis reper:
is supposed to be sent to me shortly by EC. hhen I have the data, I expect to be able to make scme crude estimates of the time for aquifer
- t3 cleanup by natural ficw. An accurate estimate will require the tyce of
.tp effort being considered by the USGS.
e h
I can, however, make seme qualitative observatiens based upon mv h
studies to date and uron ccaments made by U';C and Goldberg Zoino repre-sentatives~at the October 28 meeting.
It dces seem clear that there mus:
S have been a continuing source of grcun6:ater contaminants during 1977-1979,
~d because contaminant concentrations in wells T-2 and T-3 remained too high
.Q during that period withcut seme such scurce. The rapid decline in cen-W taminant levels in well T-2 in late 1979 and in early 1980 ancears to show that the source is new largely depleted. 31ere recen't data shc'us an even
@}
greater cleanup tendency according to U';C and its consultant.
Based en this evidence it would seem tha: the aquifer is new discharging its load of contaminants and that li :le, if any, are being added..
This shculd lead to 5
a natural decline in contaminant levels to within the limits cf the varicus applicable standards in a few years. Tnis is, of course, if no further
' <j centaminants are added as a result of U';C's decommissioning work.
t n
.j Sincerely yours, o
2 t <{
A W
p l d.
Den L. Warner
]
w S
~ -
4 n. i G ".
.M, n 'e
(,s s
,i
/
b l
2 1 0 4'Ol 0 7 4'J I"D R l
I' '.
ir e m.,._..
_f' nous70-82O f
~ n -
..u.: u z.. u FILE ccpy
,),
OctobeJ 31, 1980
.7 I'7 fw.D'~:' r ~C \\
j
-n.J
'gL jy
'd Q [ynuN23>
"u Memorandum To:
^
,, 'D,J7,,,
h'.T. Crow NRC Edward Shum NRC g
A,
=..'t25
/
From:
Don L. h'arner
'/
x
/
p Consulting Geological Engineer
Subject:
Summary of Meeting of October 3,1980, concerning ground water contamination at United Nuclear Corporation site.
Attendecs:
Carlton A. Maine, Rhode I: land D21
,9 cecge79 Pearce Kla:er, Rhode Island DEI ussac Robert P. Calise, Rhode Island HRS
Karl A. Helgeson UNC NASS Steven Pennacchini UNC M. SIacN Michael Powers Goldberg-Zeino 4 Assoc.
c-DCCKET tLi.!C
.i I told the group that I was there to determine some of the details of the concerns of the State that were.not entirely. clear to me from the infomation supplied by the NRC.
I also wanted ccaments en what the State hoped to get as a response to some of these concerns.
A general response was that a series of recommendations had recently been prepared by the DDi, hRB, and USGS for specific actions that they would like to see implemented at the. UNC plant site and that these Those recem-recommendations have been sent to the Governor's Office.
mendations have not yet, however, been sent to the NRC by the Gcrernor's It was then discussed Office and they could be modified by that office.
that the first major recomendation, which is for a deep well near the lagoons doesn't contain all of the necessary technical specifications.
r It was agreed that each involved party (hRB, DBt, USGS, and NRC) would I
for the well and th'at UNC's grcund water con-submit its requirements "N*
~TW-J et of saecifications to be reviewed 9
em E has, wWn
'e DUPLICATE DOCUMENT ris agreed to have this well constructed.
l Entire document previously entered into system under:
~'
f k
C'
)
ANO I
~
f No. of pages:
t w
3
=-
i -
., a n. x, y. -...,..-.n.
oys
.w h
FILE GOpy
,.f f, V cc
- .'tO~)
Q oo N L. WARN ER. I N C.
- '3' I.C
'(-
P. o. sox 7si I.,/
- ,,l n,,- ; ag h RoLLA. MIS SOU RI 65401
) *.,. i ),l,j;~~ ' L*])
.sN-}T'i'%.,f,_
/ :3
- p..
- (,.
tN-h p.,
./p/
October 13, 19SO
,e : g N. ;.;g s.
--c-
~,s y,x y q-,s.a.
s.
,/
'j
- ; i.e
! (.... i
' /.,
. i.:
- a ' - '
', '?,
, y* *,, "., y \\ @
f b
N O\\/ O,.'.pt '
C oi.-
ti A u.s. w.' " A.?
Dr. Edward Shum W
c.
Office of. Nuclear ^:!aterial Safety 4
yJ,,,,
,.7,,
. pp/
fg.
and Safeguards y
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission u, I 9 Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Dr. Shum:
I am writing to respond to Task II-a under NRC Contract 02-30-076, s/nich is:
"a.
Whether or not the residual radioactive and nitrate contamination of the site and underlying groundwater reservoirs compromise public health and the environnent and/or limit future reuse of the site by industry or for public water supply. To be completed two weeks after j
contract award."
i Le contract was awarded September 17, but I did not receive the package of infomation from y :ur office, until the afternoon of Monday, Sepic=ber -29.
Accordingly,-my response da-te to this task is October 13.
Tne task seems to me to contain two parts. Tne first part is the determination of whether or not the residual radioactive and nitrate con-tamination of.the site comprcmises public health and the environment an,l/or li.its future reuse of the site.
I interpret this question to iean con-tamination of the soils underlying the site.
I do not have data to allou me to make such an assessment at the present time.
I will need to have clarification of the intent of this part of the task and, if I an to make any judgments en the nature of residual soil contamination, ar angement will have to be made for me to have data on the present extent and na,c;nitude of such residual contaninatien.
The second part of the task concerns residual radicactive and nitrate contanination of groundwater underlying the site. Abundant grounQcater quality nonitoring data were supplied to me, but not in any chronological or otheneise organized fom. Because of the volume of the infor ation, it was not practical for me to try to organize it at this tine. Therefore, I have used the graphical infomation prepared by your office and attached to a package entitled "3ackground Information on UNC-Kood River Junction Docket No.70-320."
In addition, I have examined the actual values as given in the laborator/- reports for a few months during 1977-1980.
I have compared the values for nitrate, gross alpha, gross beta, radium-226 and radie.-22S, and strontium-90 with the.axi. um conta.inant levels for drinking water as specified by the U.S. Environnental Protection Agency in the National Interim Primary Dri:cing Kater 'legulaticns. Tae respective axi.un y
contamingn:valuesare:
jt IpC a
r :- -
/
t
-f' Tr/ovo/0825 PbR I;L..?
-7,m~ y
Dr. Edward Shum
~
Oc cber 13, 1980 Page Two Maximum Contaminant Centaminant Levels nitrate (as N) 10 mg/l gross alpha 15 pCi/1 gross beta 50 pCi/1 radium-226 + radium-228 5 pCi/1
- strontium-90 8 pCi/l
- These are average annual values based en quarterly samples Tne principal wells that have been used to evaluate the extent of ground-water contamination are wells T-2, T-3, 76-U, 77-3, and 77-D.
For this preliminary evaluation, enly those five wells will be considered. Tne wells are listed in the order of their location relative to the lagoon area. Well T-2 is located immediately to the northivest of the lagoon area wells 77-3 i
and 77-D are farthest from the~1agoon area to the northwest in the direction of grcundwater ficw. Of the five wells, the data for well T-2 seem to exhibit perhaps the clearest pattern of behavior.
In this case, the plotted data for nitrate, gross alpha, and gross beta all appear to show a considerable decline in centaminant level during 1977-1980. -
A sample collected from well T-2 December 17, 1977, exhibited 15 pCi/1 of gross alpha activity and 352 pCi/1 of gross beta activity and contained 400 mg/l of nitrate nitrogen. A sample collected from well T-2 in March 1980 exhibited <2 pCi/1 of gross alpha activity and 9 pCi/1 of gross beta activity and centained 7 mg/l of nitrate nitrogen. On the basis of these three parameters and others included in the March 1980 analysis, water from well T-2 would have met EPA drinking water standards at t'.at time.
It would appear that the majority of the contaminants from the lagocn area that were originally present in the groundwater at well T-2 have been trans-l ported away by natural groundeater flow.
Analyses of water from well T-3 during 1977-1980 shew erratic levels of the indicator parameters, but there does appear to be a general pattern of decline in the concentratien of nitrate and alpha emitting radioisotcpes.
Grcss beta activity does not seem to have permanently declined. A water sa ple taken from well T-3 in June,1977, exhibited 3545 pCi/1 of gross alpha activity and 361 pCi/l of gross beta activity and centained 143 mg/l of nitrate nitrogen. A water sarple taken from well T-3 in March 19S0 exhibited <2 pCi/l of gross alpha activity,174 pCi/1 of gross beta activity, 4
--y e
p-*y--p
.eg.
ge,,+cy y
tg-y e
,e-__
p-. - -n.
y-g
--m----e
.w
r
,wg y
.Dr. E6eard Shum October 13, 1980 Page Three 8.7 pCi/1 of strenti=-90 activity, and 6.7 pCi/1 of radi=-226 and 228 activity. Tne sample centained >100 mg/l of nitrate nitrogen. Ground-water at well T-3 was not suitable for drinking in >! arch 1980, since all of the indicator parameters were present in excess of the maxim m allowable cencentrations.
Tne plots for water analyses frca wells 76-U, 77-3 and 77-D that were prepared by ycur office seem to show an overall decline in levels of gross alpha activity during 1977-1980 for all three wells but the trend of con-centrations for nitrate nitrogen and gross beta activity are less obvicus.
Mcwever, exanination of seme actual values of these parameters for a few selected months du:ing 1977-1980 (see below) does shcw distinctly 1cwer cencentrations for some of the more recent analyses.
It will probably be necessa:y to perfom a statistical analysis of all of the available data to establish a quantitative trend and its level of reliability.
Well 76-U 6/77 9/79 1/S0 3/SO or 8/79 Gross alpha (pCi/1) 72 103 6
26 Grcss Beta (pCi/1) 385 170 95 55 36 Nitrate nitrogen (mg/1) 406 150 Well 77-3 --
Cross alpha 60 64
<2
<2 Gross beta 217 227 206 183
>100 Nitrate nitrogen 837 500 Well 77-D Gross alpha 45 40 17
<2 Gross beta 26 310 206 190 7S Nitrate nitrogen 473 200 In any case, although levels of contanination in groundwater at wells 76-U, 77-B and 77-D arc probably lower than in 1977, the groun6 eater was still too contaminated to be suitable for drinking purposes when sampled earlier this year.
In su=ary, groundwater in the plume of contamination northwest of the lagoin area at the UNC site appears to have improved in quality imediately near the lagocn P.rea to the extent that it met EPA drinking water standards for radicnuclides and nitrogen when sanpled at well T-2 in Starch 1980.
Farther toward :Fe northwest, at wells T-3, 76-U, 77-B, and ~7-D, the qualitf has also prcbably improved since 1977, but the groundwater still contained concentrations of radicluclides and nitrogen in excess of EPA standards in ?! arch 1930.
E
~.
Dr. E6eard Shum Oc:cber 13, 1980 Page Four Insofar as I knew, the groun6 eater contamination discussed above does not pose any imediate threat to public health, since, according to the infomatien I have, none of the centaminated water is being withdrawn for drinking-water supply.
I believe that the reduction in contaminant levels has resulted principally frc= transport of the contaminants tcward the northwest by natural groundwater flow and by their eventual discharge by seepage into the Pawcatuck River.
I would not expect the small. amount of contaminants that would be discharged by seepage to be sufficient to significantly aGect the quality of river water, but I have not specifically examined this questien.
If, as would be expected, the groundeater system continues to flush centaminants from beneath the site and if there is no continuing source of centaminant supply, then the groundwater will eventually be suitable for industrial md/or drinking water use, and the future reuse of the site will not be limited.
As a next phase of the centract, I will proceed to evaluate the rate of transport and resulting cleanup of centaminants in the grcun6 eater system.
I will plan to report en my preliminary findings in that area by November 3.
Sincerely yours, w
Don L. Warner Consulting Gdological Engineer DLW/jk
.:-."* me Ar
.pg
.J s
.k$$-
,,- nW'O
(*h
..\\
.o...,
D O N L. WAR N ER. I N C.
Q UiN-
,. g p[cl 7.},,
P,o. sox :st C),
I'
' I.,D k R O LL A. M15 S O U RI 65401 p..
s.V,,*g....
-- l
\\.q g
w.a g.
e
.};
February 10,19G1 4..
/,s \\; \\, t.,. i @, ~...s s,. ' r. "c....
\\ }>-:/. /
s.
s,.s v
~; h
- q'.., 4t s
-; I-s-
s.
s
?
Or. EdW3Tc dium
, Id f N Office of I'ucicar Material
!N C\\
H!'.Ri 31001 > g
, ],,
u 3,.:.4.,.,.m..,, M Safety and Safeguards U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission i M
-TJ w. /*
':ashington. D. C.
200:o Ls%
u
%7;. _
,\\NS
\\
'.h.
\\
C2ar Dr. Shum g h:1 6 This letter contains my preliminary response to Task II-d under I:RC centract 02-80-076, which states " Describe, if needed, any grcund-water monitoring requirements to be impesed on the licensee." Also contained is.the result of my review of the proposed boring specifica-tions for the deep well to be constructed at the UNC site.
I do not have a complete history of the chronological development of the present menitor-well system, nor 'do I have the specifications for the ccnstructicn of the existing monitcring wells.
It would be helpful to knew how the present system evcived, but accurate reconstruction of the history is probably not possible.
It is, however, necessary to kncu how the existing ulls are constructed in order to evaluate their effectiveness for monit' ring purposes. This information has been re-quested frca Goldberg Zr ino, srcundwater censultant to Ui!C, but it has not yet be.en obtained. _The. construction of exjsting wells will be evaluated in the final report.
i Uater quality data, particularly conductance and nitrate valu:s, bo"" that wells W12, T2, T3, T6, 76U, 77G and 770 are located within
-h e main part of the contaminant plure.
Other wells that should be l
i within the main plume but which have yielded water samples with lower
'evels of contamination are WB and WSA.
The differences in contaminanu levels in water taken frem among these wells probably resulted from the wells beinc completed at different depths.
ihat is, the contaminan,u plu-= is tEree-dimensional a. d wells that are within the lateral location 5=plura may be vertically above or below it.
Dr. David Huntley, in
[#lh77 reo[rt to UNC, previcusly cc :cluded that shallowar wells, such as 3 and WSh, shcw lower levels of contaminaticn than deeper ones. This
"$onclusion is further substantiated by water quality data that have been collected since 1977.
For example. in early 197G, a peak value or aoout 6500 m cremhos conductivity was o'.; served in well T2 while samples from well WB (which is immediately nr.xt to T2 but shallower) s, owad a maximum n
I level of about 600 micremhos conductivity at the sace time.
t a
-gy, vm -n m
3 DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Er. tire document previously I
entered into system under:
B S'.
ANO h W ~ W & S g
$.lur18GW No. of pages:
sa.
~
~.
-, n L
_