ML20039F962
| ML20039F962 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/23/1981 |
| From: | Eadie G NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Wagman W Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039F963 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-B-2216, REF-WM-40 NUDOCS 8201150026 | |
| Download: ML20039F962 (2) | |
Text
rn b; (,1)/ W (L 9f./-y MM-40 DEC 2 31981 FIN B-2216
- /
WM-40/GGE/SB/81/12/21 WMUR r/f
_y_
WM r/f NMSS r/f PD_g WMU4:GGE
- N U" GGEadie WM-40 emngd, l FIN B-2216 BFisher JLinehan DEMartin Dr. N. A. Wogman, Manager RScarano Radiological and Inorganic Chemistry Section REBrownin Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories JBMarti g9 R
P.O. Box 999 g,
24 N<f M
Richland, WA 99352 s
s N,
'\\
O
Dear Dr. Wogman:
'31 4
-?
OEUp,.
I have reviewed your monthly report for the " Environmental Cleanup li T' l
Standards" (B-2216) for November,1981, and have the following comments:
- 1. ) As discussed in my last letter to you dated November 24, 1981, you are authorized to continue to review and develop the Edgemont data.
The discussion and summary table of gamma exposure rate versus radium-226 in soil concentration should be finalized.
From your Table I, it appears that using the background gamma exposure rate at Edgemont of 14.5 pR/hr would result in missing only ten percent of the locations that have radium-226 greater than 5 pCi/g.
From a practical viewpoint, such a consequence; i.e.,
a 90 percent success rate based on the gamma survey, should be acceptable. Therefore, it should be concluded that soil sampling and analysis need only be completed at those locations having contact gamma exposure rates greater than the 95% confidence level (C. L.) of the mean background rate (i.e., mean plus the 95% C. L. standard error of the mean).
Also, your discussion and Table II showing the results of grab versus RPISU radon progeny measurements seems to support the current Erigemont protocol.
This discussion should be finalized.
It is suggested that part of your data review should include graphical Jisplays of the data as summarized in your Tables I and II.
DIST:
TICKET NO:
OFC :
NAME :
DATE :81/12/21 8201150026 G11123 g,i PDP, WASTE WM-40 PDR
r o
WM-40/GGE/SB/81/12/21 DEC 2 3198 2.) Comments by other agencies on your draft report are due by January 1,1982, and such comments will be forwarded to you.
3.
Your Financial Statement for November, 1981 was acceptable.
Enclosed is a copy of the NRC Form-173 (dated December 17, 1981) which provides the balance of funding for this contract.
All other aspects of your November,1981 report were adequate.
The 4
actions taken by this letter are considered to be within the scope of the current contract (B-2216).
No change to costs or delivery of contracted products is authorized.
Please notify me immediately if you believe this letter would result in changes to costs or delivery of contract products.
Sincerely, Crici='. cintA cy Gregory G. Eadie, Project Manager Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch Division of Waste Manageme7t cc:
R. Perkins - PNL J. Young - PNL
Enclosure:
As stated 1
l DIST:
TICKET NO:
I
_ _ _ _ - : _ _ - _ _ _z. ( g.p. _ _ _M_U R_, r' / :
OFC : WMUR
- W
\\01UR
..._______ ____ ___________,__ ___ _ _~__ _ _ _ __ __________
[
_____:____________.________f_ill:
NAME : GGEadip: b *HPetteh RAScarano
[
DATE :81/12/[
- 81/12/M 81/12g