ML20006E673

Trip Rept of 900116-18 Visit to Albuquerque,Nm Re Issues on Umtrap QA Plan

ML20006E673
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/09/1990
From:	Fliegel M, Gillen D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 9002260200
Download: ML20006E673 (6)

Text

-- -

DG/P.LOHAUS/2/8 N

1-FEB - 9 1999

.. MEMORANDUM FOR: Paul H. Lohaus, Chief Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decomissioning, NMSS FROM:

Myron Fliegel, Section Leader Urcnium Recovery Section, Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMSS Daniel Gillen, Project Manager Uranium Recovery Section, Operations Branch Division of Low _ Level Waste Managenent and Decomissioning, HMSS

SUBJECT:

REPORT OF MEETINGS WITH DOE IN ALBUQUERQUE, JANUARY 16 18, 1990 Enclosed for your information is a trip report docunenting meetings held in DOE's Albuquerque Office on January 16,17, and 18,1990. The primary neeting on the agenda was one to discuss and resolve remaining issues on the UMTRA Project Quality Assurance Plan (QAP).

In addition, several other meetings were convened to discuss the DOE /NRC Memorandum of Understanding and other UMTRA Project topics.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Myron Fliegel, Section Leader Uranium Recovery Section, Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decomissioning, NMSS Dani isle h M set Manager Uranium Recovery Section, Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decomissioning, HMSS Distribution: CentEal File f'WM-39 3 NMS$ r/f

RBangart' Y JGreeves RBoyle JSurmeier MFliegel DGillen RHall EHawkins JJones r/f PDR NO L~~/ Category:

Proprietary f",7 or CF Only

/ /

ACNW YES /X /

N0

/

/

SUBJECT ABSTRACT: TRIP REPORT; JANUARY 16-18, 1990 ALBUQUERQUE,NM

_s b.....g f........................__........__....______.........

LL OFC :LLO HAME:DGil en/jj

MFliegel DATE: 2/ 8/ 9

7,/7/rv

~~

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 9002260200 0u020~0

'It

[(,l07,]

PDR WASTE T

wM-39 ecc AM[,

I

3 +g

^

+

s y :v.,

f.*y

)

b l9i -

F l

1 l.

j 1 rip Report i

e

-Dates:

January 16 - 18, 1990

. Place:

Albuquerque, New Mexico, DOE Ur'anium Mill Tailings Project l

Office

Purpose:

Meetings on various subjects related to DOE /NRC interaction on L

the UMTRA Project

~ Attendees:

See separate lists below g,

P Januar;~16 l

J Weekly UMTRA Project Telecon

Participants:

_- D. Gillen, M. Fliegel, F. Bos11jevac (DOE), M. Abrams (DOE).

M. Kearney (TAC), E. Hawkins (UDF0)

R. Gonzales (URF0).

,u Discussion:-

Since we (Gillen & F11egel) arrived in Albuquerque in the-i 7

afternoon, we had time to conduct the weekly UMTRA Project-5 L

telecon from DOE's offices.

A' summary of the telecon has been L

provided separately with the January-23,1990, UMTRAP casework log.

p M

January 17-b

+

5

Quility Assurance Plan Meeting j,

NRC NRC Contractor DOE TAC Attendees:

M. Fliegel D. Hedges T. Brazley B. Bearden U

.D. Gillen M. Scoutaris M. Alewine b

L. Pittiglio C. Cormier M. Kearney 4

/m I

c u.

',E A

l (;

I; l y

r,

_.7

- __ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. ~ _ -

./-

)

l DG/P.LOHAUS/2/8 e k

u Discussion:

On Wednesday morning (1/17/90) a meeting was held to discuss and' resolve the remaining NRC comments on the UMTRA Project Quality Assurance Plan (QAP). The working session resulted in J

resolution of all comments, and all planned changes to the QAP

- were summarized.to aid preparation of.the next revision. The most significant-revision will be an ex>ansion of the section on_ organization-to address the overall VMTRA Project Office organization and responsibilities rather than just those related to QA. Thi, change resolved many of the other comments.

t DOE. plans to submit by February 9,1990, a draft Revision 3 of.

the QAP to LLWM staff f or review.

J!

In the afternoon, we briefly discussed 2 items that had been brought up in the November 1,1989, management meeting. DOE L

gave more_ detailed discussion of the ways they instill an appreciation of the importance of-quality to the contractors and workers.- The second item was how DOE looks at the generic implications of site specific problems that are identified.

DOE indicated that-they. would identify where and how in their procedures they address requirements for considering generic implications. This may be submitted with the Spook action' item from the November 1,1989, management meeting.

L

-January 17 (afternoon) i

Radium in saturated soils meeting l

NRC DOE TAC RAC Attendees:

M. F11egel T. Brazley M. Miller J. Briggs D. Gillen C. Cormier W. Glover F. Bataka 1

R. Murphy-H. Hensle D. Bierley Discussion:

By letter dated December 20, 1989 DOE requested tnat we be preparedtodiscussaDOEproposalforapplyingsupplemental standards for Ra-226 contaminated soils:in the saturated zone.

L

' DOE presented the background of the problem and their

j interaction with EPA. DOE has identified several processing I

sites where Ra-226 is above the 15-pCi standard'1n soil below the water table. It would be difficult and expensive to remove the material below the water table. DOE discussed revising the EPA standards with EPA. While EPA said that they agree with DOE's proposal to modify the supplemental standards to address this, a lengthy rulemaking would be required.

L ls J

k W:

+

_f.

}

~

DG/P.LOHAUS/2/8 w s

D DOE discussed using supplemental standards criterion (b), which considers the environmental harm in meeting the primary standard, as a basis for invoking supplemental standards that..

would-allow leaving Ra-226 contaminated soil in place below the water table. DOE understands that invoking supplemental-standards criterion (b) would have to be done on a site-specific.

basis. We pointed out that it might be difficult in some cases to use that criterion.

M. cliegel suggested that DOE first continue _to pursue revising the standard with EPA since this is som what.of a groundwater-related issue, and EPA'is

-presently revising their standards in discuse kms with NRC.

Failing this, NRC would continue to handle tr.is issue on:a 1.

case-by-case basis under the existing supplemental. standards L

options. This meeting served as NRC's. response to DOE's Decenber 20, 1989, letter.

l; o

January 18 (morning) g 1~

Long-tem care rule NRC

-Attendees:

M. Fliegel DOE and TAC site managers D. Gillen a

-Discussion:.

Copies of the NRC's proposed rule for custo(y of long-term care of uranium mill tailings sites were provided to the DOE and TAC management and site managers. At DOE's request, M. F11egel

.gave a brief presentation summarizing the rule and conducted a question and answer session. Main discussion topics included how a general license works, the rule's treatment of L

groundwater monitoring and restoration, and where land t-ansfer fits in the licensing process.

January 18 a

-MOV Revision 2 meeting NRC DOE TAC

-Attendees:

M. Fliegel T.Brazley M. Kearney D. Gillen M. Abrams F. Bos11jevac h; -

,e i

~

. u m.:

c-

- 'DG/P!LOHAUS/2/8: *

Ciscussion:

A meeting was held to discuss changes to the draft Revision 2 of the M0V to reflect the decision to drop streamlining y

agreement 4 The fourth streamlining agreement had been to change-the basis for NRC's concurrence in the completion of DOE n.

remedial. actions from a detailed review of the: DOE completion report, coupled with NRC site inspections, to NRC acceptance of a DOE signed statement that the site has been completed in accordance with the approved remedial. action plan. NRC and DOE.

staff went through each area where the M00 addressed the completion / certification report review process and restored wording reflecting the process without agreement 4.

Wording was also modified.to reflect NRC's intention to conduct.

a periodic inspections.

' l An additional proposed change was raised by DOE. DOE expressed some: concern with incorporating the RAIP into the RAP (per streamlining agreement.2). DOE indicated-that this would'cause difficulties in making timely revisions-to the RAIP. 'It was decided to modify agreement 2 and the MOV to reflect that the

- RAIPcwill be a separate document but willibe su b ittsc with the preliminary final RAP. The RAIP will be revieweA sud.

concurred-in jointly with the RAP. This~will allaw separate documents but still achieve the streamlining gc.el.. M. Fliegel and T. Brazley.will formalize the changes to areement 2 with a

- memotoR.Bangart(NRC)and:R. Whitfield (DOE). DOE will' draft the~ changes to the MOU and transmit'a revised version to NRC for review / approval..

Other items discussed with DOE during the trip-y p

o. tiet.urita -- DOE indicated that the draft remedial action document will be submitted in late May, but will be missing some groundwater information on the deep aquifer. We indicated that at the draft stage, NRC staff will do an informal review and some l

4 missing data will not be cause for rejection.

If th's DOE L

schedule holds, NRC review staff would be involved in a

(

mid-July site visit.

J. Caldwell (TAC) and M. Kearney (TAC) presented an,early(RAS) o Lowman version of'the Lowman Remedial ~ Action Selection docunet i

to get our opinion of its adequacy based on the Sts#.wd Format I

and-Content Guidance..We indicated that the document looks good but could use a little more detail in the body of the document and more explicit referencing.

v mm..

m v -w - - - -- + + I

.v/i' e,*

+

fr

- DG/P.LOHAUS/2/8.

I o Falls City - D. Bierley'(TAC site manager) indicated that DOE / TAC would like l

to have a groundwater strategy presentation at NRC's office in mid-April. She will contact us with further details.

o Grand Junction

-E. Banks (TAC' site manager)-indicated that DOE / TAC would like to brief LLWM staff on the results of the groundwater characterization in preparation for the RAP resubmittal. The -

briefing would take place sometime around the end of February.

. o. Schedules - M. K=arney was asked to provide LLWM with some more detailed scheuule information to assist us in projecting travel for site visits and construction inspections. He agreed.

Y t

l:

L b

'i l..

l l

s h

I l

L' i

?

- -.