ML20058A400
| ML20058A400 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000925 |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1993 |
| From: | Still E KERR-MCGEE CORP. |
| To: | Fauver D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312010070 | |
| Download: ML20058A400 (5) | |
Text
.
t s'
h) KERR-McGEEOORPORMION F. ERR McGEE CE NTER
- OKLAHOMA CITY OKLAHOMA 73125 Ef4VlftONMFNT AND HEALTH MANAGEMENT D!vlBION EDMN T STILL DVM wcunEsioENmo ninecto" November 17, 1993 Mr. Dave Fauver, Project Officer Decommissioning and Regulatory Issues Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management &
Decommissioning U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555-0001 Re:
Docket No.79-925 License No. SNM-928 Cimarron Corporation
Dear Mr. Fauver:
Cimarron Corporation has analyzed additional Cimarron facility
. soil. samples-for solubility of contained uranium.
The results are attached.
The analyses were done at Kerr-McGee's Technical Center in Oklahoma City.
The samples were split; one set was prepared using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP; Method 1311, SW-846) and the other set was prepared using a simulated lung fluid (NUREG/CR 1428; KMTC-208-EC22, Modified).
The analytical procedures were provided to you in correspondence dated:
October 12, 1993.
The TCLP results verify the. data submitted as long ago as March 1988 in response to NRC's questions about the solubility of 'the uranium in the soil.
The range of solubility for the various samples is from about 5% to about 40%.
The solubility determined with the simulated lung fluid is not greatly different -- the range for the averages'of the two runs is from about 10% to about 50%.
1 We believe the TCLP method should be acceptable for determining.
and confirming any necessary solubility concerns.
The method is EPA I
approved and is reproducible.
The' simulated lung fluid approach, in our experience, is not very reproducible, _ problems -develop 'in maintaining the purity of the fluid over any significan.t time period and we are not aware that the method has any recognized. official acceptance.
9312O20070 931117
"~
PDR -ADOCK 07000925 C
PDR 3
g
d 1
Dave Fauver Page 2 November 17, 1993 In light of the solubility data, Cimarron proposes, and is willing to accept, an average concentration limit of 150-160 pCi of U/g for soil to be disposed on site in accordance with option 2 of the Branch Technical Position Paper.
The rationale is that average solubility is 40% (which the data suggest is conservative); hence the 150-160 pCi/g value is that which is derived by applying the 40%
solubility to the option 2 limits of 250 pCi/g for insoluble enriched and 100 pCi/g for soluble enriched uranium.
A maximum concentration limit of 2 times the 150 pCi/g, or 300 pCi/g, would be acceptable.
Solubility determinations would be based on the EPA TCLP method and the frequency would be at our option.
As we have noted before, we are unable to understand why, after the rigorous review the staff has undertaken and the approval by the Commissioners of our amendment request for onsite disposal of Option 2 material, the staff has yet to issue the amendment.
We offer the i
above approach as a reasonable manner for resolving any concerns that may remain and to enable us to complete this task we have been attempting for some ten years.
Your favorable consideration is requested.
Please call me if you have questions - 405/270-2934.
I Sincerely, l
ETS:lld Attachment copy to:
NRC Glen Ellyn Office J. Kegin/T. Moore /K. Morgan R.
Smith J. Stauter/Cimarron' License File
'Fauver3.ets
TABLE 1 CIMARRON SOIL SAMPLES URANIUM EXTRACTION ANALYSES NOVEMBER 17, 1993
-j i
SAMPLE ID TOTAL U TCLP SYNTHETIC LUNG 3
2 ppm w/w EXTRACTABLE U FLUID SOLUBLE U ppm w/w - %
ppm w/w - t RUN 1 RUN 2 1
124N - 188E 130 42 32 79-61 53-41 2
100N - 132E 30 11 37 14-47 13-43 i
3 250N -
70E 10
<0.5 5
1.1-11 1.5-15 4
45N -
90E 38 4.0 11 11-29 10-26 5
150N - 150E 22 3.0 14 8.2-37 5.4-25 l
'SW 846, Method 1311.
'KMTC-208-EC22, Modified.
i i
Sample ID Locations 1)
Northeast U-yard in area used to stockpile Option ~4 soil
.before drumming.
2)
Scrap Recovery area inside U facilit.y building.
j 3)
Former. burial ground remediated to Option 2
level concentration.
4)
South U-yard in unremediated area.
-_ 5 )
Stockpiled Option 2 soil north and east of U facility building.
3-rauver3..ts
ty.c-
,=
300 200 100 0
,,,,,,,,,.,,i....
.,,ie i,,....
W
/
400 =
3,
\\
/
/
\\
,\\
\\
/
\\
\\
k p.
/
F i
- s
=
300
(
BURIAli
\\
AREA f2
\\
PLUT0NIUM
\\
BLDG.l
'T
~
9,,
x
\\s A
2 0=
\\
l,Y L
i
\\
a y
n.
\\
3 7 h
WAREH00 I
I g
\\
s BL
\\
l
\\
s
(
l 3
\\,
\\
g s
m s
\\
k N
y x
\\
\\
EMERGENCY, I 100-I BLDG.
' ll g
'N j
\\
\\, A
_-a L ww xau - ~~ - "---- -
.;.::xvr m-i t-r ww
~
=
+8n q{-
uswcd
/
,e-i r
j'
\\
y s
/
i 1
\\
\\
l j
i 1
\\
l
\\ ORIGIN FOR METRIC g
(N9730.41072. E10064.1 g
\\
e q
\\
l
~
\\
\\ \\
.~.
iOD 200 300 400
)
,, t,.
-4
,..,,s
\\
i/
/
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
f
/
l l
I
\\
+
-c
=
~
N t
NORTH j
INCINERATOR i
BURIAL AREA f/3 g
/
r' 1
si APFJGN i
b WEST CAlb
{
l
~
l SANITARY
)
I LAGOON
)
+
b d
\\
T NEW LINED rt c
ARY
/
SANITARY I
",r00N
,/
. LAGOON (ABOVE)
I
~
A i
.- PL,UTONIUM
/
[
/
W4STE POND i
s.
'N (BELOW) m=
SE COR
[
N jl I
INCINERATOR SpC0AL n
hh?h s
^
i i
)
E i rrnun iu URANIUM 3
m E EWC /
WilUM V
EERUCY D
3LDG-I POND _
/
[
u fJl Loc d oM Oh So I%
G. M y2A.0 kv fl Sois be'I.'&
- {
l l
&ck -Norr 1993.
=
& CIM4R ON CORPORATION-v i
r 4825) g CIMARR0N PARTIAL FACILITY MAP 1
SD 0
50 I,11/17/d3 m
llo lm xx
" I n
SCALE IN METER $
- i-STILL 93 20 l 0070 O /
~-'
'