ML20126J477
| ML20126J477 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/28/1985 |
| From: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Higginbotham L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-60 NUDOCS 8506100609 | |
| Download: ML20126J477 (6) | |
Text
,
WM Record file WM Proket _ 4o j.
Docket No.
MAY 2 81985 PE
,JGLJL1/85/05/07
_ Distribution:
l
~'
fi[eturn to WM,623 SS)
Distribution MEMORANDUM FOR:
Leo B. Higginbotham, Chief, WMLU T, N.
Division of Waste Management Bell, Michael Birchard, George Brooks, David Browning, Robert FROM:
Malcolm R. Knapp, Chief, WMGT Dam, William Division of Waste Management Fliegel,' Myron Ford, William Gnugnoli, Giorgio Jackson, Ken
SUBJECT:
TRANSMITTAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR Johnson, Ted NRC/D0E MEETING ON REVISED HYDROLOGY Justus, Phil APPENDIX FOR THE RIVERTON UMTRAP Larson, Mark SITE, MAY 1, 1985 Smykowski, Steve Valdes, Jose Weber, Michael Please find attached the meeting notes for the subject meeting,,which closes out TAR 85031. The purpose of this meeting was a preliminary exchange of information between the staff of the U.S. Department of Energy and the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. Therefore all requests and conclusions may change after a more thorough review has taken place.
OriginalSigned By Malcolm R. Knapp, Chief, WMGT Division of Waste Management
Enclosure:
As Stated 8506100609 850528 PDR WASTE PDR D
/
)FC :WMGTM.
- WM
- W
- WMGTI
- WMGT
.:4p ______:____
4AME :Ftrd W.
- Flieg M.
- Jes u P.
- Jackson k.
.____:____________:____________:____L_____:____________:____________:____________:___________
) ATE :85/05/21
- 85/05/g2/
- 85/05/w
- 85/05/ J.V:85/05/
l y
l WM-41/85/05/07/1- -NRC/ DOE MAY 1, 1985, MEETING MINUTES LPARTICIPANTS:
N.R.C.
D.O.E.
T.A.C.
Birchard, George Matthews, Mark Bone, Mike Brooks, David Brinkman, Jim Dam,' William Piel,. Kelly Fliegel, Myron Ford, William...
Gnugnoli, Giorgio
- _ ~
Johnson, Ted Larson, Mark Smykowski, Steve
.Valdes, Jose Weber, Michael
.On Wednesday, May 1, 1985, the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-held a discussion with the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) and DOE's consultants (TAC) concerning the Revised Hydrology Appendix of-the Riverton Environmental Assessment..The purpose of this meeting was to discuss _the j
- i. initial.. reactions of the NRC staff _ to the Revised Hydrology Appendix. All
~
staff comments and questions were preliminary, since the NRC staff had only one
=
-or two days to look at the document. Therefore any of the conclusions and recomendations expressed during this meeting and documented in this record may
. change pending further review. This memorandum describes the major issues
. discussed'during the meeting.
'1)-
Surface Water,-Riverton Site1 TheLNRC Staff indicated:that they wanted a.re'asonable Probable Maximum Flood calculated for each UMTRAP site. This would_mean that a consistent approach to calculate _ Probable Ma'ximum Flood would be used for all. sites. However, it would not n';ean that each UMTRAP -site would have to-be. designed to withstand this : level of flood, if it could be shown that the design for a lesser' flood would be adequate. The TAC staff replied that the Remedial Action Plan'will show that the rock: size used to cover the pile will be sufficient to withstand any credible, flood event.
NRC staff also asked if the pile would be designed to withstand channel erosion should the. Wind River or Little Wind River change its flow direction so asito
-directly-impactithe pile. The TAC replied that the pile would be adequately protected against that possibility. The TAC ~ described the details of the
.revisedLerosion protection design.
t
(
)
s L
n WM-41/85/05/07/1 2)
Surface Water, Dry Cheyenne Site A request was made by the NRC staff for an improved description of erosion protection of the Dry Cheyenne Site.
3)
Slurry Wall The TAC indicated that a slurry wall will not be included in the Remedial Action Plan since the wall would not attenuate the movement of molybdenum and would slow down clean up of the unconfined aquifer by natural flushing.
4)
Carbonate and Acid Tailings The NRC staff asked if the TAC knew where the carbonate and acid tailings were located in the pile. The TAC staff replied that the carbonate tailings were located at the bottom of the pile, but little was known about their detailed distributions. Also it was not known if the carbonate tailings presently provided any buffering for the acid tailings.
5)
Ground Water Sampling Groundwater samples and water level measurenents will be taken at the end of May. Local wells and DOE wells will be sam; led at this time for organic and inorganic species.
6)
Contaminated Wells Three wells show evidence of contamination in the confined aquifer system (West Lake,106,111). Neither the TAC or DOE knew why the wells appeared to be contaminated.
It was hypothesized that West Lake (a wind mill) may have been showing contamination due to a poor well completion and that the DOE wells (106,111) may have been contaminated when they were drilled. These wells will be studied further to try and determine how they were contaminated.
7)
Buffering Capacity The Revised Hydrology Appendix states that leaving the pile at the Riverton site will not create a continuous long term source of groundwater pollution because the unconfined aquifer can buffer the pH of the groundwater. This buffering action would cause contaminants to precipitate and limit their migration and transport. The NRC staff requested the sediment buffering capacity be characterized to add credence to this conclusion.
WM-41/85/05/07/1 8) Geochemical Modeling The-NRC requested.that a caveat be placed_in the Environmental Assessment.
- This request was made in response to the statement in the EA on page D-232 that
" Computer codes... are useful particularly for prediction of short-and long-term impacts of various remedial action plans because they account for
- complex interactions of mass and energy within the physical system before and after implementation of the proposed remedial action, subject to certain assumptions." However, the problem with the statement in the EA is that the computer codes are constructed from simplifying assumptions and are limited by the quality of input and thermodynamic data. Therefore, the codes are useful tools that can be used to 1) help understand the geochemistry of a site and 2) develop scenarios based on expected changes in conditions. Thus, they can be used to provide input into what might happen in the future but they do not predict what will happen.
The NRC also requested that the EA list the assumptions that were made in formulating the geochemical model (e.g. infinite calcite buffering capacity).
- 9) - Groundwater Restoration It was requested by the NRC that the Environmental Assessment be revised to address partial groundwater restoration alternatives and what costs and effects such an action will have on water use patterns if the groundwater is not restored.
10)
Information Request
'At the end of the meeting a preliminary request for information (attached) as reproduced below was agreed to and signed by the NRC and DOE. This list summarized most of the information requests previously described plus a request that responses to NRC comments on the Draft Remedial Action Plan be itemized-when the Final Remedial Action Plan is submitted for NRC review.
PRELIMINARY REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING HYDROLOGY FOR THE RIVERTON UMTRAP PROJECT (5/1/85)
L.
- 1. West Lake well and water level measurements around the pile (May,1985 sampling).
- 2. Characterize sediment buffering capacity.
y WM-41/85/05/07/1 :-
I l
- 3. Request to caveat water chemistry modeling.
- 4. List of geochemical model~ assumptions-(solute transport, TRUST and
-PHREEQE).
- 5. Copy of Pyrih reference.
- 6. Copy of SH8B geomorphology ~ report.
- 7. Responses to NRC comment'on Draft RAP itemized when the draft final RAP is submitted and a copy of the proposed EA.
- 8. Improve description of erosion protection of Dry Cheyenne Site.
t-a Y
r 9_ve b i w 7 Rep er b IJovuftos Ilt.pdg M dwL n (b. 44.. R%
y u.M RAP Pn)d.
(5///Pf) 1, L)4* W vell.4 wA kx( mww.b..
g
,4 A ysle. L%, 19rt aa pl. 3 m
, a a a n k a,.
2.
cox d --
3.
A i%
w : h. % 4 ci m u t y e d.Ir g
4:
U* *E S** S " i d *
- N " N % >
P Cs.L.k wp.4, TRu)T e piiR PH R E 5. q 6.)
s.
c 4 di webey<
Z y7 n
.4 m+6 p ~ g w,a-
~~
c.
a r.
Ro p.3=s S
n.A.c. W o,,
Ov k RAP h a.J wkes es.
av,A& 4 wJ RAe is sdo,,:ftJ.
.._.._ o.4 A. c.4py d44e
/ ropaM 5.4.
b po d ^g.:. w.4 em ri %
protedte of Ov7 %e,,a t.
~
Uk.
gll}W
~
% gk g/c 9
g
_