ML20138G994
| ML20138G994 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/17/1985 |
| From: | Gillen D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Higginbotham L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8510280156 | |
| Download: ML20138G994 (6) | |
Text
i' JUL 171985 STRIBUTION DMG/85/07/16 OW6
'"ii I'ec:J FO Vl " Pi t.ct M _
~
WML r/ f NMSS s/f gs.w, ;g - -.
LIG _ __
09 7... - - _ _ - - -
MEMORkNDdMh0'Ri"LhoB.-Higginboth hief Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management FROM:
Daniel M. Gillen Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management
SUBJECT:
MEETING REPORT; UMTRAP TECHNICAL DISCUSSION GROUPS Attached for your information is a summary of the July 2,1985, meeting with DOE held in our offices for the purpose of establishing technical discussion groups to work toward resolution of generic UMTRAP issues.
Individual discussion group summaries are also attached. This meeting report will be distributed to all NRC and DOE / TAC /RAC staff involved in this effort.
r J
Daniel M. Gillen Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management 8510280156 850717 PDR WASTE WM-39 PDR OFC :WMLU:r NAME:DMGilfn,p:-___________:____________:____________:____________:____________:________
DATE :85/07/rl 1
l> -
s MEETING REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST John D' Antonio, DOE Don Phoenix, TAC Dave Ball, DOE Kenneth Baker, TAC Jack Baublitz, DOE James T. Kam, RAC Banad Jagannath, WMEG Kristin Westbrook, WMGT Giorgio Gnugnoli, WMLU David Brooks, WMGT Wesley Davis, hNEG Nani G. Banerjee, RAC Philip Justus, WMGT Jim Keithley, RAC Terry Johnson, WMGT Jerry Thiers, RAC Steve Smykowski, WMEG J0 Bunting, WMPC Leo Higginbotham, WMLU RE Browning, WM Myron Fliegel, WMGT MJ Bell, WM Jose Valdes, WMGT MR Knapp, WMGT Michael Weber, WMGT JT Greeves, WMEG Daniel Gillen, WMLU John Thackston, TAC Berg Keshian, TAC Dan E. Martin, kHLU Edward Hawkins, URF0 Mike Blackford, WMGT
~
William Dan, WMGT Ronald Rager, TAC D
1 e
1 MEETING REPORT DATE:
July 2, 1985 LOCATION Silver Spring, Maryland, NRC Willste Building Room 110-106 PURPOSE:
Establish UMTRA Program technical discussion groups to:
a)
Provide a forum through which generic technical issues on remedial action plan characterization / design may be resolved, and b)
Exchange information pertinent to NRC's development of Standard Review Plans and DOE's development of a Generic Design Manual that will result in characterization and design efforts that are compatible with the review pcocess.
ATTENDEES:
See attached sheet
SUMMARY
- The morning session began with opening remarks by L. Higginbotham (NRC) and J. Baublitz (DOE). These introductory statements keyed upon the January 1, 1990, end date of the UMTRA program as being the driving force for any streamlining of the design / review process that may be achieved by the efforts of these technical discussion groups. Mr. Higginbotham called for a positive approach to resolution of generic technical issues, but indicated a need for early identification of " unresolved" issues to avoid unnecessary waste of staff time.
In subsequent discussion, NRC cautioned DOE of the difficulties in attempting to achieve a " cookbook" design manual and recommended a document which presents generic technical approaches that are necessary to make the case for meeting the standards.
Brief sumaries of the NRC work on the standard revia plans (SRPs) were given by D. Gillen, M. Weber, T. Johnson, S. Smykowski, B. Jagannath, and J. Valdes.
This was followed by summaries of the DOE design manual sections by D. Phoenix, B. Keshian, R. Rager, J. Thackston, and K. Baker.
The afternoon session consisted of separate meetings of the four technical discussion groups. The groups discussed content of the pertinent SRPs and design manual sections, identified key issues for further review and discussion, and developed a schedule for future review, coment and meetings.
Summaries of each group meeting are attached. Under the general guidance of D.
Gillen (NRC) and J. D' Antonio (DOE), each group will individually pursue review and comment of documents and resolution of technical issues with the goal of producing a working SRP and design manual by mid-September.
l
\\
MEETING ATTENDEES; UMTRA PROJECT TECHNICAL DISCUSSION GROUPS July 2, 1985 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Willste Building Silver Spring, Maryland NAME ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE N0.
John D' Antonio DOE (505) 844-3941 Dave Ball DOE (505) 846-1206 Jack Baublitz DOE (301) 353-5272 Banad Jagannath NRC/WMEG (FTS) 427-4629 Giorgio Gnugnoli NRC/WMLU 427-4788 Wesley Davis NRC/WMEG 427-4111 Philip S. Justus NRC/WMGT 427-4684 T. L. Johnson NRC/V ",T 427 4490 Steve Smykowski NRC/
".G 427-4109 Leo Higginbotham NRC/WMLU 427-4433 Myron Fliegel NRC/WMGT 427-4094 Jose Valdes NRC/WMGT 427-4601 j
Michael Weber NRC/WMGT 427-4746 Daniel Gillen NRC/WMLU 427-4160 John Thackston TAC (FTS)846-1250 Berg Keshian TAC (FTS) 846-1250 Dan E. Martin NRC/WMLU (FTS)427-4607 Edward Hawkins NRC/URF0 (FTS) 776-2805 Mike Blackford NRC/WMGT 427-4597 William Dam NRC/WMGT 427-4543 Ronald E. Rager TAC (FTS) 846-1250 Don Phoenix TAC (505) 255-1445 Kenneth Baker TAC (FTS) 846-4030 James T. Kam RAC (415) 442-7604 Kristin Westbrook NRC/WMGT 427-4532 David Brooks NRC/WMGT 427-4603 Nani G. Banerjee RAC (415)442-7595 Jim Keithley RAC (415)442-7502 Jerry Thiers RAC (415) 442-7556 1
n.
-~--r
,c
-,e-
~
EROSION PROTECTION DISCUSSION GROUP Participants
'^
T. Johnson, NRC" E. Hawkins, NRC i
M. Fliegel, NRC J. D' Antonio, DOE D. Ball, DOE B. Keshian, TAC G. Thiers, RAC Discussion Items and Agreements Reached 1.
Use of PMF for Design. This issue was the principal issue discussed at the meeting. The group agreed that in some instances it may be possible to use floods smaller than a PMF for remedial action designs. This particular concept will be given considerable attention in the development of regulatory guidance during the next two months as the group works toward agreement on the meaning of such terms as " clearly impractical", and
" reasonable assurance".
2.
Exchange of Guidance Documents. The TAC presented the NRC staff with copies of design manual sections pertinent to erosion protection for RAP's. The NRC staff presented copies of the draft standard review plan (SRP) for erosion protection to the TAC and RAC. The group agreed to informally exchange comments on these documents by July 17, 1985.
3.
Future Meetings and Schedule.
The group agreed to meet in Denver during the week of July 22.
The remaining schedule was left open, being dependent on the resolution of various issues and review of the exchanged documents.
It was agreed that the schedule would accommodate the due date for the final version of the SRP.
t
1 GE0 TECHNICAL STABILITY DISCUSSION GROUP
Participants:
7 B. Jagannath, NRC D
M. Blackford, NRC J. Valdes, NRC N. Banerjee, RAC i
R. Rager, TAC Identification of Key Issues t
Major issues that need resolution include:
1.
Definition of " active" faulting.
2.
Overall approach to seismicity, i.e. use of MCE for design criteria.
3.
Selection of attenuation relationships.
4.
Use of 50% or 84% confidence level for acceleration.
5.
Selection of design parameters for input into pseudostatic analysis and/or use of limited deformation analysis.
Transfer of Draft Documents The DOE transferred proposed design manual sections to the NRC including:
o seismic hazard assesment o geotechnical site characterization o liquifaction potential o ground settlement o slope stability The NRC transferred a draft plan for geologic-seismologic reviews of UMTRAP documents.
Future Meetings and Schedule Following an exchange of comments on draft documents during the month of July, the Geotechnical Stability Discussion Group will hold its second meeting at the RAC offices in San Francisco on August 6, 1985.
l L
g#"%
UNITED STATES b
g&(M[j/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s
%w
,A)L 0 S 1985 NOTE T0:
Daniel M. Gillen 4
Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management FROM:
Steve Smykowski Engineering Branch Division of Waste PSnagement i
SUBJECT:
MINUTES FROM THE NRC/D0E UMTRA RAD 0N BARRIER SRP/ DESIGN MANUAL MEETING - JULY 2, 1985 PARTICIPANTS:
SteveSmykowski,WMEG(Lead)
Giorgio Gnugnoli, WMLU Wesley Davis, WMEG Kenneth Baker, TAC / DOE James Keithley, RAC/D0E LOCATION:
Willste Building Room 110 Silver Spring, MD The following items were determined as a result of the meeting:
1.
The TAC will develop a rationale for the sampling plan that will be used when estimating radiological parameter values of the contaminated tailings material and radon barrier material. The_ rationale as applied to tailings material will take into consideration specific sampling plans based upon
~ -
the type of remedial action that will be performed (i.e. homogeneous mixing of the tailings material during relocation versus stabilization of the tailings material in place).
The NRC will prepare a parameter review procedure which would correspond to the DOE sampling plan.
2.
The DOE Design Manual will be based on the EPA criterion that limits the average radon release rate over the entire surface of the disposal site to 20 pCi/m s.
Designs considering the alternative standard that limit the a
annual average concentration of radon in air at or above any location outside the disposal site to 0.5 pCi/l will not be included in the Design Manual. However, both alternatives of the EPA radon criterion will be addressed in the SRP.
Y
jut 0 9 1985
_2 3.
The TAC will investigate the error analysis approach for estimating the cover thickness based upon testing error when determining material parameter values for tailings and cover.
4.
The TAC will investigate testing procedures to be used by the DOE to verify that offsite locations comply with the EPA soil cleanup standards.
5.
A follow-up meeting is scheduled during the week of August 5 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Randy Brich, URF0, will be an additional participar.t at this meeting.
6.
The NRC staff gave the TAC /RAC personnel draft copies of the Regulatory Guide on radon attenuation through tailings cover material. The TAC gave the NRC staff publications on sensitivity of parameters affecting the radon barier cover thickness, long-term moisture content determination, and the estimation of radiological parameter values.
y Steve Smykowski Engineering Branch Division of Waste Management O
i 9
1
)
l p#
.f f
UNITED STA1 ES f g )[) t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
, I, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
.s.N e
./
JUL 0 81985 I
NOTE TO:
Daniel M. Gillen, WMLU v Division of Waste Management FROM:
Michael F. Weber, WMGT Division of Waste Management I
SUBJECT:
STATUS REPORT ON FIRST MEETING OF THE UMTRAP WATER RESOURCES WORKING GROUP (7/2/85)
In response to your verbal request, this note reports on the status of the i
first meeting of the UMTRAP Water Resources Working Group (WRWG).
The first I
meeting focused primarily on the logistics of the WRWG and review of DOE's Preliminary Draft Technical Approach Document for Hydrogeology.
John Thackston provided a copy of this document to work group members, including Jim Kan (RAC), Dave Brooks (NRC), and myself.
Bill Dam (NRC), Mike Fliegel (NRC), Ed Hawkins (NRC-URF0), and Don Phoenix (TAC) also attended portions of the meeting.
The WRWG decided to pursue the schedule for future meetings that was proposed by DOE.
Revised drafts of NRC's Standard Review Plan (SRP) for Water Resources and DOE's Hydrogeology Technical Approach Document will be exchanged on or l
before July 16, 1985 in preparation for the second group meeting to be held in 4
Albuquerque during the week of August 5, 1985.
Comments on the documents will j
be discussed at this second meeting, which will primarily focus on resolution a
of issues identified at the first meeting of the WRWG during our review of i
DOE's Approach Document.
i j
At the first meeting, we commented thn DOE's approach document could be strengthened considerably by revising it to identify preferred approaches for hydrogeologic evaluations, justify the application of the preferred approaches, and list defensible alternative approaches.
As currently written, the document merely discusses alternative approaches without identifying the alternatives preferred by D0E.
Consistent with the conclusions of the March DOE-NRC meeting about groundwater evaluations, we also recommended that DOE pursue the simplest approaches first, while providing flexibility to pursue, if necessary, more complicated approaches.
00E agreed with both of our comments and indicated that the document would be revised to reflect our recomendations.
The group also identified a list of issues (attached) to be discussed at the second meeting of the WRWG along with our presentation of NRC's SRP for Water Resources.
If you have any questions or comments about the first meeting of the WRWG, please contact me.
Enclosure:
I Identified Water Resources Issues
}
cc: DBrooks, WMGT//MFliegel, WMGT//PHildenbrand, URF0//WM File 39//MWeber & r/f l
l
WATER RESOURCES ISSUES (Based on WRWG review of DOE's Technical Approach Document)
J' 1.
Identification of decision logic and decision points in evaluating the need for and implementation of remedial actions for water resources at UMTRAP sites [Throughout document].
2.
Selection of statistical techniques for comparing background concentrations with downgradient concentrations of contaminants in groundwater and surface water, especially for contaminants below analytical detection limits in background samples [Section 3.3.1.2.1].
3.
Need to sample sites for organic constituents [Section 3.3.1.2.1].
4.
Need to monitor water quality during remedial actions and the timing of quarterly] sampling relevant to submittal of draft and final RAP's [Section 3.3.1.2.1.
5.
Demonstration that sampling years are normal [Section 3.3.1.2.1].
6.
Reference for Priority Pollutants list [Section 3.3.1.2.2].
4 7.
Clarification of objectives and alternatives for characterization of
~
existing and future contaminant release rates fron tailings piles [Section 3.3.1.3.1].
8.
Application and utility of assessments [Section 3.3.1.3.1] geochemical modeling in support of site 9.
Validation of geochemical and mass transport models [Section 3.3.1.3.1].
10.
Characterization of effective porosity and dispersivity [Section 3.3.1.3.1].
- 11. Detennination of background soil / sediment properties, such as carbonate bufferin 3.3.1.4]g capacity, cation exchange capacity, iron oxide content [Section
- 12. Characterization of attenuative capacities usin of contaminants in water resources [Section 3,L1.4]g existing distributions 13.
Need to consider the significance and effects of contaminant desorption
[Section3.3.2].
14 Appropriate types of evaluations to estimate impacts of water I
contamination on humans, agriculture, and the environment [Section 3.3.3].
I l
4 1
i i
V.4-39/MFW i
2 j
15.
Selection of water quality standards for comparison in deciding on j
impacts of water contamination on beneficial uses [Section 3.3.3].
l 16.
Prediction of water uses and resource values beyond 30 years [Section 3.3.3].
17.
Evaluation of benefits of restoring or controlling contaminated water j
resources versus the costs of the actions [Section 3.3.4].
i
- 18. Alternatives to conventional control or restoration of contaminated water resources [Section 3.3.5].
[ Additional and/or more-detailed issues may be identified in the future.]
- i' i
'4 1
i i
I l
4 I
, _ _ _ _ _ _