ML20058C307
| ML20058C307 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000371 |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1990 |
| From: | Berger J OAK RIDGE ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES |
| To: | Soong S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9011010162 | |
| Download: ML20058C307 (2) | |
Text
u4
% **b 11 Oak Ridge Energy /
Associated Post Offico Box 117 Enwonment c
Universities Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-0117 Systems Division October 12, 1990 Mr. Sean Soong Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Materials Safety & Safeguards Mail Stop 6H3 Washington, DC 20555
SUBJECT:
UNC NAVAL PRODUCTS DECOMMISSIONING PIAN AND SEPTIC FIELD SAMPLING RESULTS
Dear Mr. Soong:
A. ORAU has reviewed the Decommissioning Plan dated June 1,1990, submitted by UNC Inc, for their Uncasville, CT Naval Products Division Facilities.
The following comments are offered:
1.
Page 1:
In section 2.1.1 it is indicated that the 10 arem/y is an EPA guideline.
That value is the proposed NRC guideline; the EPA has not established a dose equivalent level for decommissioning.
2.
Page 3:
In the last sentence the dose limit should be 10 arem/y, not 10 mr/y. This error also is present at several other locations in the plan.
3.
Page 7:
Waste generation is projected into 1992; however, the schedule (page 9) indicates completion of the decommissioning in 1991.
4.
Page A2:
Are the locations nelected for background sampling appropriate?
They appear to be at locations which might contain surface and/or subsurface contamit:ation?
5.
Page A2: Beta gamma measurements on soil surfaces (last paragraph) would be of questionable value because the contaminant was high-enrichment uranium, which has minimal beta radiation.
6.
Page A4: The septic tank should be confirmed as clean at the same time the leach field status is determined.
If the tank is contaminated, the leach field could receive further contaminants after the survey is completed. There is nothing in the plan which t
50 addresses positive actions (e.g. disconnection) to prevent future 7$
use of the septic field.
3 I
ob 7.
Page A5: The instrumentation and procedures-to be used for contamination measurements inside the piping and wells should be described. How will equipment, including pR meter, be calibrated?
58
-c 8.
The plan doses not address surveys of potentially contaminated 3
outside surfaces and facilities such as drainage pathways, storm g%
. oSO drains, settling ponds, roofs, and other surfaces within or outside the plant fence. Also, non< control areas of the building interiors are not discussed.
- ,)frr d 6/b
(
l'
,7.o
'b B. Analytical data for septic field samples (UNC l'etter dated September 28,1990) has also been reviewad and'the water sample _ levels raise some questions.
1.
Location BG 3 and BG 4 are indicated as background sampling sites, However, the samples contain uranium, gross alpha, and gross beta i
levels substantially above typical backgrounel groundwater levels.
The isotopic analyses _provided to date suggest natural uranium.
2.
Water from all of the drywells-which were. sampled--contains-significant uranium levela. This suggests. that groundwater from the septic field may also contain uranium contamination, but apparently no subsurface water samples were obtained from Septic Field 2._ This seems to leave a " hole" in the data as to groundwater s0stus in the septic field vicinity.
3.
ORAU requests portions of the following samples from the September 28 report, for independent analysis:
BG 2 soil 15-17' BG 4 'ssil 13-15' W8 soil 20 22' water W9 soil 24 26' W 10 soil 19-21' soil 23 25' water W 11 soil 23 25' water W-12 soil 23 25' water-0-78 soil 24 26' G 29 soil 12 14' G-36 soil 10 12' Jerry Roth (Region I) has indicated he will request these samples from UNC. - ORAU will identify additional samples from later UNC data reports.-
If there are any questions I may be reached at"FTS 626-3305 Sie.srely yours, 6
James Berger, Director-Environmental Survey and Site Assessment Program JB:amr cc: J. Roth: NRC/ Region I P. Cotten: ORAU D. Tiktinsky: NRC/NMSS 6A4
-