ML20150D980

Comments on Definition of Solute Tranport Mechanisms at Low Level Waste Disposal Sites, Monthly Progress Rept for May 1988.Progress to Date Satisfactory

ML20150D980
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/06/1988
From:	Matt Young NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Krupka K Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION
References
CON-FIN-B-2483 NUDOCS 8807140262
Download: ML20150D980 (2)

Text

i a

1 j

B2483 MAY MONTHLY /MY/6 88 -I Dr. Kenneth Krupka Pacific Northwest Laboratories P.O. Box 999 3000 Area Sigma V Building Richland, WA 99352

SUBJECT:

CONTRACT NO. 50-19-03-02/ FIN B-2483, "DEFINITION OF SOLUTE TRANSPORT MECHANISMS AT LLW DISPOSAL SITES..."

I have received and reviewed the May 1988 monthly progress report for contract FIN B-2483, dated June 13, 1988.

Based on my review of this report, progress to date is satisfactory. As we discussed and agreed upon during our phone i

conversation on June 16, 1988, the Task 1 report will be submitte.d to NRC by July 30,1988. This extension should provide you with sufficient time to complete the document.

As we also discussed on June 16, I request that you, Jeff Serne, and Randy Arthur review and coment on the enclosed report entitled, "Redox State of the Cedar Mountain Formation Aquifer, Green River UMTRA Site, Utah." This workgis to be performed under Task 5 (Short Term Technical Assistance).

The coments should be enclosed in a letter report.

Iestimatethatthetotalmaximumtip required to complete the task will be three staff weeks.' The letter report should be delivered to me by July 8,1988.

The purpose of your review of this report is to assist NRC staff in reviewing the available geochemical data on the Cedar Mountain Formation, and in determining whether assertions contained in the report are reasonable and based on adequate data.

I have several specific questions that should be addressed in the letter report:

(1) Were the analytical techniques used to determine the ratios for the various couples appropriately used?

(2) What are the uncertainties associated with these techniques? Are the i

uncertainties significant in terms of the conclusions?

(3) Could an in-depth independent analyses be performed using the data contained in the technical report?

If not, which areas of data l

collection would be most useful?

(4) Do the data support the assertions that the geochemical environment in the Cedar Mountain Formation is reducing?

j h//h#.

8807140262 880706.

PDet WMRES EXIBMNL B-2483 PDC

>U

'- -i

$Y$

5 B2483 MAY MONTHLY /MY/6 88 2

(5) Will the geochemical conditions inferred from the data contribute to reduced uranium concentrations? Which attenuating processes will likely reduce uranium concentrations downgradient of the cell boundary (i.e.,

cilution, precipitation reactions, etc.)?

(6) What inferences can be made, based on the available data, on the potential migration rates along the flow paths from well 562 to well 815 over the next several hundred years, assuming that the conditions remain constant over time?

Please contact me if you have any questions concerning this task, or if more information is needed to ar.swer the above questions.

The action taken by this letter is considered to be within the scope of the current contract (FIN B.2483). No changes to costs or delivery of products are authorized.

Please notify me irnmediately if you believe that this letter would result in changes to costs or delivery of contracted products.

Sincerel,

Michael H. Young, Project Manager Technical Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, l' MSS Distribution:

TCentralfile i NMSS r/f LLTB r/f MYoung, LLTB (L.Derring)

RJStarmer, LLTB JSurmeier, LLTB JGreeves, LLWM ltKnapp, LLWM MBell, LLRB PLohaus, LLGB j

0FC : LT

,aA/:

..J.*...................................................................

ig(/ec NAME:

i DkTE$ / h/88 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

---n v

,-,,-.--..--,-r

-.--.w

- _..., - -. - - - - - -