ML20059J336

Forwards Signed Lowman,Id Draft Remedial Action Plan Site Visit/Meeting Minutes,Per .Minutes & Draft Plan Acceptable

ML20059J336
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/18/1990
From:	Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Matthews M ENERGY, DEPT. OF
References
REF-WM-43 NUDOCS 9009190267
Download: ML20059J336 (15)

Text

_

.v

,y

• J j

+

.SW/ LOW /MTG MIN

- l' -

i d

Mark L. Matthews i

Project Manager i~

Uranium Mill' Tailings Remedial

- Action Project Office' l

JAlbuquerque Operations Office J

P.O.- Box 5400

' Albuquerque, NML 87115 Dear Mr. Matthews-1 By letter dated August two copies of the Lowman,. Idaho draft Remedial Action Plan (dRAP29,)1990, site visit / meeting minutes were transmitted-for NRC review and signature. The NRC.Lewrw project manager has reviewed the site visit / meeting minutes and finds the document acce?+.ble. The two copies of-the minutes have been signed and are being returned for DOC project manager signature.

If you have any questions concerning the transmittal please contact M.

Fliegel at FTS 492-0555 or S. 'Wastler. at FTS 492 0582.

Sincerely, OffiClNAl. SIGNED BY b

Paul H. Lohaus, Chief Operations Branch.

Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning,

Enclosure:

'As stated cc:

F. Mann, DOE /Al Distribution:

S centralxMle7*%

NMSS r/f RBangart 4Greeves JAustin JSurmeier PLohaus

.MFliegel DGillen SWc tier LLWM t/f LLOB r/f

' EHawkins RIV.URF0 PDR YES X

ACNW YES X

SUBJECT AB3TRXC): LOWMAN SITE VI5IT/ MEETING MINUTES I

c un.

~'

Orc :LLOB

L

/

LL

LLWM

LLWM j

... 7... '

g....... _____...............................

-NAMb P

MFliegelo

PLoha 5 6

....___........L......;..'... h..................___.............

DATE09/$/90

09/l8/90

Gdfi/90

/ /90

/ /90 g-SW/ LOW /MTG MIN OFFICIAL RECORD COPY y '.

9009190267 900918 h: 'i)7 PDR WASTE t

WM-43 PDC

'M/

VL v a,a

~.. _ -

r 8

_,i.

r ID@mN IRAFT RDIEDIAL ACTICH PLAN MEETTING E

BOISF/ID#RN, IDPHO JUNE 13,~1990 1

L 70 DISQJSS NRC 00t91ENIS ON IRAFT RAP:

The list of attendees ita shown as Attachment 1.. : The participants drove to the Iowman, Idaho, site and spent approximately three hours investigating d

the present condition of the prrmaning site,, The meeting reconvened tin Boise, Idaho to review the preliminary NRC ocxuments and die = any charges to the comments as a result of the site visit.

The preliminary NRC ocammtents areJncluded as AttachmentsL2.- Sandra l

Wastler discussed the Geology Report oczuments incluoed.in Attachment 2 and stated that only cu..

i' 6 regarding the U.S. Forest Service land upslopei o

of the disposal site shoald be deleted. This change.was made because the state and DOE are working to purchase this lar.d to ensure urswiculled i

(

harvesting will not occut'on this slope..

Sandra Wastler also di e w the'next section'in Attachment 2 dealing with the.use of elevated unsi irations for verification'of cleanup.

7tase'ccanments were made by G. Grugnoli who was ncrc. in attendance.

Cu.. sit 6.3.'1. dealing with 1cng tann moisture can te deleted.

1 Dan Gillen die==d the Geotechnical Engineering section % the amunis l

included in Attachment 2.. Major areas of discussion'~incluk the stability of slooes aoove and below the pile and the potential' for frost

~

l degradation.

l l

Andrew Fan disomam the Questions on Groundwate'- included in Attachment L

2.

Andrew was given ir.formaticx1 regarding the'Rchnical-Assistance Contractor's additional characterization procp.am.

j Ted Johnson disnmaad the surface water. and erosion v im.iuits contained in..

Mast of the Aisnmaion centemd on flow ua suiration frun the area upslope cf the di&l' cell and wu. ct design of the rock apron end cover. Ted suggested that since a substantial apron was being used and good rock sources were hard to fini in the Iowman area, en opticn was.

available to use' lesser quality rock (soore '65 or better) on the top slope 1

of. the' cover. The existirg natural gulley apprunmately 100 feet from the disposal coll should be analy::ed to determine-if meancktring ard erosion

~

could inpact the MS - 1 cell in the future.

l l

l l

s I

I l'

4r-m u., s

,,.,,.--....m r y

-r.

e.,,

e

, y,J

- 'Ihe NRC's.consnants arryor questions resulting frtan thig review of the i

Iowman draft-Resnadial Action Selection Report (RAS) are-included as Attadiment 2.

Under streamlinirxJ agreement: 3, the NRC was to provide verbal cansaants on the draft RAS at a site visit meeting. 'Ihese informal ~

caments were provided to the DOE as a convenience but should not be considered formally transn.itted otxanents, nor shall'they be considered as all' enotmpassing. 'Ihe NRC staff does not expect DOE to provide formal-responses to the individual connants/ questions,-but to take these ocuments into account'in the preparation of the. final RAS.

'Ihis hiption of tho' meeting along with the attached consnents will' serve as a record of thalotunnents frten the R{: on the Iowman, Ichho,, draft Remedial' Action Plan.

i Attachments A

k'..N M U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear-Regulatory N immion l

Uranium Mill Tailings Repadial Office of Iow Isvel Waste Action P1oject Office Marap==nt l

I 5

l i

t N

1 f

i f'

m-.-....m..

4

i l

he NRC'4 ccsonants an$'or questions resultirg frun this review of the L

'* /

Iowman d: aft ReparHal Action Selection Report'(RAS) are included as Attachnalt_ 2.

Urxler streamlining agreement 3,- the NRC was to provide verbal o. tenants on the draft RAS at a site' visit meetirq. Wese informal ocenents ser.3 provided to the DOE as a ocnvenience but should not be:

L considered formally honemitted rranarits, nor shall they be considered as.

a L

all anocupaa.:i g.

2e NRC staff does not og DDE to provide formal J

l responses to the individual ocamnants/quer~ '

', but to take these cxznants l

Into acocunt in the pruperation of the-

. MS.

l his description er the meetirq along with the attached ocnnents will-sierve as a record of the ocuments fri:x0 the NRC en the Iowman, Idaho,. draft -

Repaiial Action Plan.

1

-l l

Attachments L-Ahad.LtJan

+

I l

U.S. Depart 2nent of Energy Nuclear-Regulatory Ccamission e

Uranium Mill Tailings W ini Office of Iow'Invel Wasta Action Project Office Management l

l k

l 5

?

)

4 4

4 W

.c ATDOMENT 2 I

~

I i

q o

t IMFGEANT NOTIM

'Ibe attached canmants or questiers have resulted from the NRC's feview'of I

- the Iowman draft Remedial Action Selection Report (RAS).4 Under streamlining agreement 3, the NRC is to provide verbal ocanments on the

.' draft RAS at a site visit meeting

'Ihese Linformal ocenents are being --

}

provided to the DOE as a convenience, but should not be considered formally transmitted ocements, nor shall they be considered as all encapassing - 'Ihe'NRC staff does not_ expect DOE to provide formal-responses to tho' individual comments / questions,'but to take these ocuments into account in the preparation of 'J1e final RAS.c 1

I

.j a

I

.j.

$f s

e b

i

_7 o

y 3-Infomal Review of Lown.an Idaho Draft RAP

. Geotechnical Engineering s

1. Section 3.2.2lof the Remedial Action Selection Report indicates that Figure 1 in Volume I of the Infomation for Bidders shows the location of test pita (21) and boreholes (9).

The same section indicates that there'are-an additional 64'boreholes drilled to deetha from 10 to 150 feet. 'Although--

these~ borings are associated with the contamination. investigation, they provide.important infomation (material description =s, blow counts) and '

should be included on the torehole location plan.

2, All of the samples of the radioactive sands were collectedifcom the top 2.5 feet of the piles.

Evidence should be pmvided to demonstrate that these surface samples are representative of the entire. depth of the piles.

3. The slope stability-analysis (short-tem with earthquake loading' case)~.

resulted in a factor of safety equal to the minimum allowable.- The failure surface occurs-in the foundation colluvium. The colluvium layer strength parameters used-in the analysis are based on an average of only two UU-tests.

In order to obtain a better basis for the atmngth parameters = for this critical. layer, consideration should be given to perfoman* of additional laboratory strength tests.

4. The-model for the slope stability analysis included.a thin, partial laher of colluvium on the steep slope above:the dispesal' cell. :What is the basis for the -haracterization of the thickness and extent of this-layer? What are-the results of a shallow surface failure analysis applied to this: layer?< If the results indicate potential for, failure, what would be the' impact to the:

y disposal cell, i.e~. ditch clogging, cover dismption?-

a

<r

.I -

5. 'Ihe slope stability analysis does not appear -to have considered a potential.

failure surface thmugh the alluvium on the Clear Creek embankment at,the

. toe'of.the tallings cell. This case should be analyzed'.

I

6. The Remedial Action Plan h=antation contains no discussion relativo to the protection of the' radon barrier from the effects of frost' degradation.'

-j Discussion on the potential for damage due to frost =should be'provided.

/

7. Typos:

,c t

- Remedial Action Selectio1 Report, Table 3.1;- Data for the in situ tailirds, relocated tailings and radon barrier are all under the. wrong colu' na and the unit weight data is missing.

- Remedial Action Selection Report, Section.3.3.5; Paragraph'l aference o Section 3.2.2 should be 3.3.3.

Paragrapt 5 refemnce to Detail 1 should be Detail 3.

- Calculations, Volume II, 12-624-01-00 Material Properties, %=wy o'f Colluvial. Test Results; Sample 027-5 classification is wmng - GC'should' be'SC.

l x

- - -. -.. = -.. -

J l

1*

q l

LOWMAN PRELIMINARY RAP 1 QUESTIONS'ON GROUNDWATER i

j

1. '

The uppermost aquifer 1s a. localized' unit with. limited

~

vertical and' lateral extent.

This fact should be' considered in f ormu l'a ting theLgroundwater' protection strategy.

DOE-

~

should attempt to delineate the boundary'of this aquifer by~

l mapping the elevation contours of-the alluvium / bedrock

. interface.

2.

Is < wev a deepei regional.uquifer and what is the depth 7.

3.

The

^.lusion that the on-site tdilings. pore water and grour.ozater are superior tofthe background soilx pore' water

~

and groundwater is contradictory to common-sense.

The. site-

}

physiography is'no different from the neighboring background areas and the tallings could not have improved;the groundwater.

If it.can be proven beyond scientific doubt that the above conclusion isevalid, theni the need for groundwater cleanup surveillance monitoring-and infiltration control may no= longer.be warranted.

[

l 4.

There are two upgradient lysimeters.(613,"614) but only one p

was sampled.

There.is'no upgradient background:well.

-None of the background wells are within the same hydrogeologic unit,.though they are affectodobylsimilar~ physiographic 4"

settings.

The data are insufficient to prove,iconclusively, j

the on-site water quality is superior to the background quality.

Additionalfbackground lysimeters and at least one-upgradient well should be installed.

. Toxic characteristics.

leach tests (EP toxicity)1can be' conducted;on background and on-site soil samples,.and" tailings, for comparison purposes.

5.

Wells 577-and 584 may be usec as cross-gradientDbackground l

wells but no water qualityL ata were presented.

Why?,

The-d g

020 series wells were util'ized to construct the water table contourt, yet no water quality cata were presented.

Why?

6.

What are the flow conditiens (high, low or normal) when the surface water samples were collected.

Why no stream sediment samples were collected 7 7.

The water quality data are presented as final products without any description on the sampling activities and'QA/QC procedures.

It-is difficult to judge the' validity.cf.the data.

There.should be an appendix to include a description of the sampling procedures,-QA/QC methodology,. sampling a.1d QC logs,.and.Other relevant information.' The tabulation of the water quality data should include a synopsis of the QC 1

-c- - - -., - -..

,-wm,

,,,-,,y

,,e-,-.,,-,h-.,,eav g

h-um w +, A o g.

r-,--e

t I

l L

l t

i-

~!

parameters, such as, ionic balance calculations, blank or

~

spike. sample-data,'and other relevant information.

Unusual.

3 circumstances that may-affect'.the sampleLresults.should'be.

'l

'ollowings.

.noted,s including but not limiting to the f

(a) inability.to purge the wellland.obtainirecovery,..

l (b) difficulty in faltering the samples ~due to excessive sediment, (c) suspect of cross-contamination, (d) suspect of contaminationHby' filter' sand, bentonite, cement grouts'or-well casing, and.(e) interference by well. construction' method and lab environment.

Leach tests should be conducted on filter sands and grout' materials for comparison purposes.

l 8.

By~ definition of the Act the~ term " tailings" means'.the r

i remaining portion of a metal-bearing ore after.some or.all

(

of'such' metal, such as uranium,.has been extracted 'Thus, the need to distinguish " radioactive sand" from." tailings"'

j may not be justified.

.9.

The radt.n barrier is only'i.5 feet thick.-

DOE must 1

demonstrate that it is sufficient to withstand biotic intrusion, desiccation cracking, and freeze / thew weathering..

What in'the frost depth.in.this region?

10.

The following information is missing:

Well ID number in Table 3.5,.pH values in Table.3.6, spring; sample ID. in-Table 3.16, location.of background wells 557 and,559 in Figure,3.2 and other similar~ site maps.

l 4

f 2

- ~-

--.----L

Y ll

-NRC CCMMENTS ON THE'LOWMAN.-

DRAFT REMEDIA ACTION SELECTION REPGRT-

- Sempd u(Jc t i.ggJelgetigo Brfppc1_rJ313.cbmMOLOa Je91991_8M9Ct 1.

_ Sca i on 3.1.. Pr o,oc ted Cl i ma te = Vari at i on - 'Withsregard to temperature and precipitation, ' DOE has indicated that

...extremo esunts en coadi ng-. the r x.ngo 6f : histori cal b.~i abill tylprobabl y have occurrod and mav recur:Within thO li f et.ioe of a tailings.di nposal facilitv.

TheJgeomorphl'c~ clabi1ity ot curfctes.at the-site can'bei a f f ected ei ther 'by en treme even to' or by brief shifts inJavorage d

condi ti onc, : espec i al l y i f tho'landacape !'s inensi ti ve to change". =That shal1ow sai! on the upper s1 apr+ Tuggontu that'the l'andscape-at thi s-si to Jin tensiti ve-to change..To ccmo_lylwith the-EPA standard, DOE I

must demonstrate that the tai 1ings p1lle in; designed to control the; tailings f or 1000 years to the e>: ten t - reasonabl y achi evable ' and, i.ns i

.any cowe. fne at-1on t' 200 years.

Tho - demonstr ation0 of, stabili ty lf or theco tima poriods must include the cifect of brief shifts in average-conditioun, as well as extreme events.

DOE should determine the-cffect of thcisa climati c events on Lt abili tv.

y 2.

Sec ti on 6.1 and 6.2 - DOE r,hould crevide~a moroEdetailed R

di ccussi on of the charoc tori s t!'c t,1whi ch all ow def i ni ti onc of the '

ueimmotectonic provinces in -the'st'tb area,; the 4haracteri stics : that h

defino the Idaho 5elumic Zone (ISZ)', the'rationslo forlconsidering.the ISZ en a subplate margin, and the.intorrelationanlp of these factors.

j DCE should include a discucsion ot the' technical evi dence : used-L to Jefine the nouthern boundary Of the I5Z a, shown'on.FigureL6.1'and the i

Plate 1, including w,rc data on'the nioilarity'of. north-south

= extent, ion between ~ the ISZ and the-Snake Ri'er Plain,ctheLfault plane-v c ol u t t or.n, and the rationale for the w eismic nature of the Snake; j

R1ver P1ain.

DOE shoul d prav1 r's A figure'which shown~1'ocal heat'f1ow i l measur emen t s, hot springs,.the_. location of geomorphic> evidence,'and.

' t 1

any other -f eature used ' to define the ISZ.

3.

Secti on 6. 3 - DOE shoul d provide addi ti anal information-on the

- the wi cmic characteristics of the Basin and Range Structure Province, including the 1ocation'of~the Borah Peak-earthquake, the:-f aul t': pl ane

[]

mechanium for the Borah Peak event, if avat1able, and-a-discuss!.;on of, the difference between the Borah Peak event.and other major' events.in i

thi:, province.

DOE should.also discuss whether this event,;since it-9 is not characteristic of the-BaLin and Range earthquakes, is more.

1 characteristic of the-Intermountain Seismic Belt or the ISZ.

4.~

Section 6. 4 - DOE should provide suf ficient data ' to support the conclusion that the potenttal for,1arge earthquakes?in the. Northern-Cordillera is low compared.tc their potential in either the Idaho Batholith Province or the Banin and Range = Province.

3 5.

Sect!.on 7i2

' DOE has concluded that,the potential for' volcanic activity.is low within..the batholith and moderate to high;saut of the Batholi th wi thi n the ISZ.-

DOE should expand their di scussi on of ' the '

. rationale for considering;the geothermal.uprings, in the southern

,t e

7

batholith as meteoric and rationale f or considering the hot springs esat of the batholith as magmatic.

DOE should gi ve considerati on in this discussion to the f act that 'Se location of tne southern b oun-J ar y of the ISZ.is tenuous, that hot springs arc related to the IS2 as a

~

sub plate margir. xic that het spr ings are l ucai ed-cl ose to the si te.

6.

Sectien 7. '. - DOE he oluted in thic antion that clear cut har vesti ng or harmst a nt; with heavv equipnyer? shouJpf.not effect the elena to the drainege di vi dy immedi atel y. above the disposal ~ site.

l Decouac this is a questien of'the st. ability of the tallings alle ano I

ompl ance aith the EF A e t and ar d, DOE = E di scusai on of the timber L

harvesting and the potential affect on the si te should be expanded to determine precisely whether cc oct the clear cut harvesting in areas outsido the boundarv util aftxt the site.

If the sito is impacted, t hi s impact must be co., cider ed and mitigated by the design.

7 Section 7.4, Epicentral comp t l ati on - DOE indicated that Dewey (1987) relocated the epicentwrs f or all macroseismic earthquakes in c o n t e cal Idaho from 1944 tc 1980.

NOAA data files do not reflect these opicentral locattons.

DOE should provida the.lustification for using l

the relocated epicanters in their analyn.ts of seismic sources.

DOE shoulo provide a Table whit'i contains the relocated epicenters of-Dewof along bido the NOM date on these earthquakes.

6.

Section 7.4, Effects on ME o+

other sei smot. c toni c; provi nces -in the region - DOE'should provi de the.juuti ficatio.n for the FE aetermined for each seinmotectonic province.

The R.3 only discusses previous studies by Algermissen, the capabl e f aul ts wi th!,n '63 km',

and' j

the largest earthquake awociated with structurer in the seismotectonic provincem i

I 9.

Section 7.4, Deadwood Fault, page 61, 1ast paragraph -- DOE' states that all f aul ts wi thin the east-wnt trending.!daho Seismic Zone should be ccnsi dered capable".

If th'.s is the caso, then based on the definition of a capable f aul t, those faults extending from the ISZ into the sile area should be considered capable.

10.

Section 7.4, Cat Creek Fault, page 66, 1st paragrcph -' DOE indicated that there are younger. fractures that offset-the-1 Trans-Challis trending east-west with.the South Fork Payette River DOE also implied that this system is.the active system of the if ISZ in this section and the their discussion o'f the Deadwood' Fault.

l DOE should provide a discussion of this active. cast-west system in the ISZ.

11.

Section 7.4, Mont e::uma Fault - DOE states that there'is evidence to suggest that the' f aul t has been active during the ' Quaternary'..cThen concludes that;bh ause of an absence of associated sei smi citv..and: the lack of evidence of dissected Quaternary deposits, the fault not:be consider ed c.anabl e.

These statements are contradictory and should be clarified.

12.

C OE should provide the f ollowing ref erences, where possible:

4 Ld j

-O

- Kiiisgaard, et al,-1970,~3993,'3tyg7

- LaForgo and Hawkins, 1987

. Gilbert, et al,-

1983 Witkind, 1975

- Dewey,_ 19s7 1

i l1

'I a

I t

t R

1 1

9 5

, I t

L j

.I'

~

CO MENTS Gd IHE USE OF ELEVATED CONCENTRATIONS-FOR YERIFICATION OF-CLEANUP Overall general comment on use of NRC 1981." Disposal or 0? site Storage of Thorium or Uranium Wastes from Past Operations", in applying supplemental standards under criterion (f) of 40 CFR Part 192, Section 192.21 for processing sites in cases of SIP, SOS or. relocation disposal:;

The DOE keeps referencing the NRC.1981 staff position on guidelines for concentrations of-thorium at-c uranium wastes in soil. This position is

-l incorrectly cited.

Its title is: Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium or i

Uranium Wastes from Past Operations. This position was written to replace 10 CFR Part J0, Section 20.304, which provided general authority for disposal p

of radioactive wastes, under certain conditions, by burial onsite in> soil.

It i

is a position for disposal of radioactive material under. certain conditions, not a cleanup criterion. The guidance in?46 FR 52061-52063. states that,

"... currently licensed operations will be conducted in such manner _as to j

minimize the possibility of soil contamination 'and when ~',uch occurs the contamination will be reduced to levels as low as reasonably achievable." Use of the guidelines in this NRC position paper,'therefore, does not avoid the.

.i requirement in 40 CFR Part 192, Section 192.22(b) that levels be reduced to -

W

ALARA. Furthermore, this position is now being revisited to determine consistency with the present Decomissioning Rule for Nuclear Facilities (53 FR 24108), which became effer.tive on July 27,-1988.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS Se:: tion 6.3 RADON BARRIER PARAMETERS 6.3.1 Long-term moisture l

There ap) ears to be some confusion in the terminology in this section.1 The -

I phrase ']y weight" is used to refer to-the long-term moisture," dry weight."

C.3.2 Raden diffusion

1. The diffusion coefficients do not seem to correspond with the other-l parameter values cited in section 6.3.

The MK-E: calculations (Volume III) ind measured data yielded a 0.035 cm{cate that a least squares fit o{/s calculated value (using other

/s rather than using a 0.058 cm 1

measure parameters in section 6.3). The text of-the RAP-should provide the coefficient of determination for the fit displayed in Figure 4.4 (sheet 18) of the MK-E calcclation document.

2. Likewise, the coefficient of determination should be_ provided for the fit of the diffusion coefficient of the cover materials. This value,'as in the caso of the above comment, provides the reader with the'1evel of confidence in 'the fit.

6.3.3 Radon Emanation The MK-E calculations (Volume III) recommend using a emanation rate of 0.037, and the computer runs of the RAECOM code use this value. The text should be corrected to reflect this.

I p

Section 6.5 SITE CLEANUP W

6.5.1 Radiolo ical site ch'aracterization f

1he later discussion = of elevated values and supplemental: standards in

- section 6.5.3 with regard to natural uranium and thorium (Th-230 and Th-232)-

. raises the question on'the existence or extent of such contamination; i

Since DOE is proposing to leave soilsicontaminated by elevated uranium and thorium. levels in place, the RAP should provide'information, forl instance in Table 6.2, relating to the. expected-extent of this contamination'in, terms of: radionuclide, radioisotope, radioactivity,-volume, areal extent:of -

' contamination, cost for ranges of cleanup criteria,^etc.... This > ~

information would need to be available to DOE before considering use of..less:

stringent standards than those in Subparts B and Cr f: 40 CFR'Part 192.

o

' Clearly, concentrations of ut anium or thorium above-background levels could result in total Ra-226 concentrations in excess o_f.the Subpart Bl criteria, depending on the soil concentration of-Ra-226-above background,-which is' left in place.

.6.5.2 Standards for cleanup This'section -appears to be inconsistent with the C -cussion sin the 'second-n paragraph of section 6.5.3.

DOE needs to request NdC. concurrence with such use of standards as-part of the NRC concurrence with selection:of remedial _~

action. The verification discussion should consist of,the mechanisms sto' be used.by DOE to verify that the standards, whether supplemental or primary, are. net.

6.5.3 Verification of cleanup l

L

1. It appears that the DOE is contemplating the use of the:same criteria used for the Rifle, Colorado processing site-remedial action excavation-as generic criteria.for leaving elevated levels'ofiuranium'and thorium in=

place, in lieu of meeting the primary EPA standards for onsite cleanup at'

,c UMTRA sites.

Is there any evidence, other than elevated-gamma measurements in Table 6.2, that such contamin'ation exists?~ MK-E Calculation 12-622-01-00 (Volume II)< provides no information. other than Ra-226.

L

2. The last sentence of the first1 paragraph implies that DOE may leave contamination in place if'some 100-square meter areas averaged values _in excess of the soil concentrations in Section 192.12(a)?f-00E'needsl.o clarify this statement, since it appears to say that DOE will 'not'cc7 y-1 with the standard, if construction constraints dictate it. Some allowsnce for consideration-of such actions is addressed in Section 192.21,- and some further explanation should be provided.

3. In light of the_ general comment on using the NRC 1981 reference, the ~ DOE should key the application of supplemental 3tandards under criterion (f) of 40 CFR Part 192, Section 192.21. This should be addresses in section 6.5.2.

4. If DOE proposes'using a generic protocol for cleanups in areas around the

4 waste encapsulation or at processing sites, where the tr.111ngs are

. relocated, this:should be proposed asia generic procedure in'the DOE Health Physics Procedures Manual.~.However, using~the NRC 1981 onsite 5

' disposal position in a-generic fashion is not appropriate.. Residual radioactive material; n Title I of UMTRCA is;not included in any of the~

four options-discussed in the NRC position.

However, the cleanup j

criteria are consistent with the. cleanup levels cited:by EPA in the draft-

~

L standards for UMTRCA Title ! cleanups. This is not to_ say that'10, 30,.

or 35 pCi/g are not. legitimate criteria-for cleanup of elevated levels of' i

i uranium and thorium in specific situations,- but to rely.- for justification

. on an NRC staff position related;to a different situat. ion is not in'-and--

of itself sufficient.-

5. In order. to resolve what appears to be a' pervasive. problem at:UMTRA sites with regard to elevated uraniusi and thorium soil concentration levels,.a meeting should:be heldJto. attempt to establish'a-protocol,1 which will;be-both protective and consistent with the intent of the EPA cleanup; standards in-Subpart~ B of 40 CFR Part 192, as well as-being sufficiently.

4 flexible for the contractors' use within the-framework of the:

construction effort.-

(

t a:

,l l

{

4 r

1

.L r

i i

?'

-. - -....... ~..

-a.

a -, ;--,..

-e.

.~;

Q,: am c'iw.m w lh>a. s y

-3,

,;;ay,a

.x e.

s i

/

Qvf r C.w

' f.L TEL N w 7 Sw ' !

i L o w a > <> w ru

. ls s yr")

?)bedn3 lh>G \\

.hc f rK, hv+*Ii4*L $Yt&def

'.N..,

m l,q,.cb.

i L_t i

! ** * * /

',..J fC w/

1. f !)

b 'h. (( ( to.

)

• Y.

., d

• 1

,# 1 Lk,

,v1 9

d 0

.L L

}

Dwpr

. jk.. J ;.... :r s.. %

fi.

ALq c.., 4'

-47 iAp

' i

^

h.a,<,

s.'e.<'

,,,s..& ;L.g, c4-4 t'.

~1 -/ila an jl. W b ar i '< !! ~

A SI/I'*} '*

'Y-U"'

. I f r\\

f fyup

..sy Ad h < by' sa b n

1.-

ov

]

4 i/.3 A s-

,, p y, -

m Eu

/2f

~c.. -64

-e ce A 44

.okp e ' ',.p I

{G? Acc '

^&

h..

J. c.,ur -

,.,,444.

f

'2 lccs a

0cz. G wa.am N

0

i ls,s

~

{cu: ss i

, p ascl.-

f

.;.q

. i p(2.z :

Ms/m7 ri_w.i f u.-T rr 4 M<-

w en r m

, u,x e-w. )

w in a s.r u.,,w,

s.

e&

n y

~,.s x k

8 Q

t n-