ML20150E247
| ML20150E247 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/14/1988 |
| From: | Hawkins E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Arthur W ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150E250 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-64 NUDOCS 8807150046 | |
| Download: ML20150E247 (2) | |
Text
_ .
DISTRIBUTION Docket File WM-64 1
- PDR/DCS ~ -
WM-64/TT0/28/06/01/0 s RGonzales RCPD, NM LLO Branch, LLWM AN I 41988 URF0 r/f a' L URF0iTTO Docket No. WM-64 W. John Arthur, III, Project Manager Uranium Hill Tailings Project Office U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office P.O.-Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115
Dear Mr. Arthur:
This letter is in regard to the Lakeview UMTRA Project. On May 19, 1988, the Uranium Recovery Field Office (URFO) conducted an onsite construction inspection at the Lakeview property. Enclosed with this letter is the report detailing our findings.
Additionally, we noted numerous aspects of the project that lead us to believe problems still remain with construction and planning at the Lakeview disposal site. A summary of our concerns is as follows:
Upon observing the' inter:eptor drain, it appeared that seepage water was not flowing in the drain, but rather in the finer grain material surrounding the drain. Our preliminary conclusion is that the drain is not functioning as designed and is likely not directirig seepage away from the cell.
Additional seeps were observed in a number of areas adjacent to the disposal cell. The seeps are apparently new this year. This suggests that in the future, similar seeps may develop throughoet
.the area of the cell. The NRC had been advised by you that such occurrences were of very low probability; however, evidence now suggests otherwise. This leads to the question of whether the interceptor drain is actually intercepting all seepage that may impact the disposal cell.
g FT j Some of the downgradient disposal site monitoring wells show bl raciiunuclide concentrations above background levels. It has been I pointed out that these concentrations at present could be an analytical error. However, background wells do not seem to reflect this pattern. Downgradient wells vill need to be watched closely and the data analyzed thoroughly to develop a better understanding 8807150046 880614 0FC : PDR WASTE : : :
........ WM-64 PDC .....................................-... ...........-
NAME : : : : : : :
DATE :88/06/14 : : : : : :
d WM-64/TT0/88/06/01/0 y y4 g of what the exact mechanism is that is being seen in past and present water quality information from the monitoring wells. The NRC will expect to continue to receive the water quality data as your schedule permits for sampling and analysis. If the concentrations are not caused by leakage from the disposal cell, a fully substantiated explanation of the source of the contamination I is needed.
The rock from the Pepperling quarry appears to be marginal at best and may not meet the specifications required in the Remedial Action Plan (RAP). URF0 was told that testing is presently being conducted on this rock source. Initial test results however indicate that the rock will not meet the specifications as required in the RAP. We were informed that crushing and grading this rock without
, confirmation of quality or minimal test results has already begun.
DOE should be cautioned that use of rock that does not meet the specifications in the RAP will not be acceptable.
The URF0 staff observed that a large percent of the disposal cell has already been covered with radon barrier material. Most of the area has been surveyed and station marked for bedding material and riprap placement. The URF0 has still not received nor reviewed for concurrence your radon barrier material data. Additionally, it was noted that although placed radon barrier material is meeting compaction specifications, it is not meeting moisture specifications for placement and there have been no passing tests for rgoisture.
Since we were informed that no further work would be done on the radon barrier material already in place, it would appear that the constructed disposal cell will not meet the EPA standard.
From the items addressed above, it is evident that the NRC has serious concerns about the project and continuing activities at the Lakeview site. We would recommend that these issues be resolved as soon as possible to prevent any further delays.
Sincerely,
/s/
Edward F. Hawkins, Chief Licensing Branch 1 Uranium Recovery Field Office Region IV
Enclosure:
As stated ,
cc: F. Hiera OFC : URF l
- URF0 -
URF -
1..:......... , , , ,
NAME : RGonz 4 s/1v: T01sen : EHawkins : : : :
OkTE 88/06 14 .