ML20138H225
| ML20138H225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 02700039 |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1985 |
| From: | Shaffner J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Starmer J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510280481 | |
| Download: ML20138H225 (1) | |
Text
__.
DfSTRIBUTION:
~n NMSS rf WMLU rf RBrowning 27-39/JAS/85/8/31 tjBell JBunting AUG 1 JSha ffner JGreeves Note to:
John Starmer, WMLU MKnapp LHigginbotham From:
Jim Shaffner, WMLU MFliegel DGoode
Subject:
MEETING WITH USGS RE:
IDNS REQUEST THAT USGS DECOMMISSION THEIR FACILITIES AT SHEFFIELD On July 30, 1985, Dan Goode and I met with Pete Stevens, George Dinwiddie and Larry Tolar of USGS to discuss NRC closure objectives for Sheffield and the relationship of USGS research activities to those objectives.
The meeting was a precursor to discussions between USGS and IONS regarding USGS's continued presence on the Sheffield site.
I outlined our major closure objectives:
site surface stability, cover integrity, monitoring and compliance with Part 20 performance standards.
Dan and I went on to explain how specific USGS monitoring well locations were an integral part of our closure objectives.
We added however that some of the.
USGS activities at the site were not viewed by us as an integral part of performance assessment, most notably, activities into tunnel beneath part of the site.
USGS contended that the tunnel was producing useful information not only for Sheffield closure but for future sites in humid areas.
They went on to say that the tunnel could abet performance assessment of the final cover.
We suggested that the USGS, at the very least, prepare a plan for decommissioning its facilities at Sheffield and a schedule for completion of ongoing research activities. We further suggested that the USGS decommissioning plan be integrated with an overall sight closure plan.
USGS agreed that this was desirable and would discuss it with IDNS when they met on August 22.
Dan and I pinpointed specific USGS well locations that we thought were necessary to assess sight performance. We added that the monitoring program could most likely be scaled back based on adequate performance over several years. We pointed out to USGS our need to distinguish between closure and post closure activities which are mandatory for public health safety and activities which are not necessary, but are desirable research activities.
Finally, I asked Stevens to contact Starmer regarding a meeting to discuss USGS activities at LLW sites nationwide.
I suggested a six week time frame.
Stevens was agreeable but wasn't sure he could comply within six weeks.
8510280481 850001 PDR ADOCK O2700039 Jim Shaffner, WMLU C
PDR WM Record File WM Project _.
Docte! No. X/--d.y__
0FC :WMLU kj :
p
....... _ _______.. ___.. ____. _______ ___ ____________.._-___..____.___________ L____ g
_7_ _
NAME :JShaffner
_ _ _ _ _. _. _.. _ _.. _ _ _. _ _.. _ _ _... _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _.. _.... _ _ _ _ _,B i s tri b u_t io n_:
DATE :85/08/
1,.
,o j
2 M5
.. ~.... ~ - -..-..
e ;