ML20195C309
| ML20195C309 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/05/1986 |
| From: | Weber M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | William Ford NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8605300222 | |
| Download: ML20195C309 (5) | |
Text
VlM Record File YiM ProjecL_N DochelHe.
MAY 5 1966 POR #
LPDR DISTRIBUTION WM-39,_e,.-...
._._ _ _ tribut. ion:
r WM s/f;:0 M-39 P Mject)>
vimfaufumnyn
~WMGT r/f
-I,F d
~ NMSS r/f REBrowning (Rcturn to YlM. 623-SS)
MJBell NOTE T0:
William Ford, WMGT J0 Bunting Division of Waste Management ph j a
FROM:
Mictael F. Weber, WMGT e r & r/f PDR Division of Waste Management DGillen, WMLU DMartin, WML@
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F " DOE PLAN FOR WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS" Based on my review of the "00E Plan for Water Protection Standards" (UMTRA-D0E/AL) for UMTRAP sites, I have the following comments:
1.
Page 1/ Paragraph 1: The first paragraph should be revised to state the " Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals" rather than the " Tenth Circuit Court."
2.
Page 2/ Paragraph 1:
Federal and State drinking water quality criteria are not considered " standards of general applicability" for groundwater protection programs. Althou these standards (e.g., RCRA)gh several regulatory programs have adopted
, application of the criteria was only intended for protection of consumers of public drinking water supplies.
3.
Page 2/ Paragraph 1: The text states that Federal and State drinking water standards are essentially the same as concentration limits at active uranium recovery sites under UMTRCA Title II. Under 40 CFR Part 192, however, concentration limits for hazardous constituents at active sites may be established as either (1) Federal drinking water criteria listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR Part 264.94 as amended by Table A in Part 192, (2) background concentrations, or (3) alternate concentration limits established under 9264.94(b). The text should be revised to remove the generality.
4.
Page 3/ Paragraph 1: The text proposes to omit concentration limits for uranium and molybdenum that were originally proposed by EPA in 40 CFR Part 192. The text bases its omission on the lack of strong scientific evidence about acute and chronic health effects associated with these two constituents, and on the absence of Federal drinking water criteria for U and Mo. Based on analysis of groundwater monitoring data at UMTRAP sites, however, uranium and molybdenum appear to be two of the most mobile and ubiquitous contaminants associated with uranium tailings.
In addition, substantial technical literature by prestigious scientific organizations (e.g., National Research Council, Health Effects Research Laboratory, Health Physics Society) attributes health effects to U and Mo exposure.
Further, several concentration limits for the two constituents have been proposed in technical literature. Much of this literature is cuoparable in quality to literature that supports concentration limits for other constituents listed in the Federal drinking water standards, j
1 8605300222 860505 i
WM-39/MFW/86/04/30/UMTRAP
_2-Therefore, DOE's plan should be revised to include appropriate concentration limits for uranium and molybdenum in groundwater at UMTRAP sites.
5.
Page 3/ Paragraph 1: The text does not mention organic and other inorganic constituents that may be associated with uranium tailings contamination. EPA's standards for active uranium mills include organic and other inorganic constituents among the universe of constituents of concern at mill sites. Therefore, the text should be revised to include these constituents with corresponding concentretion limits or to justify why organic constituents are not of concern at UMTRAP sites.
6.
Page 3/ Paragraph 1: The text is vague about how the concentration limits listed in Table 2.1 will be applied at UMTRAP sites.
For example, the text does not describe where compliance with the concentration limits will be enforced, how they will be enforced, and when they will be enforced. What concentration limits are appropriate if background concentrations exceed the concentrations listed in Table 2.1? What happens if the concentrations limits are exceeded? Would the concentration limits only apply to contaminant releases after disposal or would they apply equally to existing contamination? The text should be substantially revised to describe COE's proposal to protect groundwater by adopting the concentration limits in Table 2.1.
7.
Page 2/ Table ?.1: DOE has adopted fiaximum Contaminant Lenis (MCLs) listed under EPA's National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 40 CFR Part 141. These concentrations are not solely based on health effects, but also on treatment costs, feasibility of treatment technology, and occurrence of raw water resources that exceed the MCLs.
If the intent of adopting these concentration limits is to protect public health and safety and the environment, DOE should consider adopting EPA's RMCLs for inorganic constituents that were proposed in November 1985 (50 FR 46936).
RMCLs, by law, only consider potential health effects, and thus may be more appropriate health limits than MCLs in determining the need for remedial actions for contaminated groundwater.
8.
Page 4/ Paragraph 1: The text states that EPA concluded that the disadvantages of setting numerical water quality criteria outweigh the advantages.
This observation is used to support DOE's omission of concentration limits for uranium and molybdenum.
EPA's conclusion, however, was generic for all constituents in groundwater at UMTRAP sites and explains why EPA declined to establish stringent numerical limits in its final standards. Thus, the conclusion does not apply only to uranium and molybdenum.
It should be omitted from the text or used to explain why DOE should not adopt numerical limits for contaminant concentrations.
)FC
- WMGT 4AME :MWeber
) ATE :86/04/
WM_39/MFW/86/04/30/UMTRAP 9.
Page 4/ Paragraph 3: The text states that data do not adequately support a concentration limit of 0.05 mg/l for molybdenum, but does not refute the data or state why the data are inadequate. The text should be revised to support its assertion that available data do not support a concentration limit for Mo of 0.05 mg/1, or to delete the statement opposing the concentration limit.
- 10. Page 4/ Paragraph 4: The text states that "it is not felt that large expenditures for ground-water restorations are warranted to reduce
[ uranium and molybdenum] to the limits originally proposed for the Title I sites." This " feeling" implicitly assumes that aquifer restoration
- would be automatically triggered by exceedances of the concentration limits. Even at Title II sites, however, corrective actions are net necessarily triggered by exceedances of concentration limits.
In addition, the statement leads one to question whether large expenditures are warranted to reduce other constituent concentrations to the limits proposed for Title I sites. Without any strong defense, the exclusion of U and Mo from Table 2.1 appears arbitrary. The text should be revised to include concentration limits for U and Mo in Table 2.1 or to revise the text substantially to provide a defensible rationale for the exclusion of these constituents.
- 11. Page 5/ Paragraph 3: The text states that the process of setting ACLs as specified in the Title II standards is "so full of technical uncertainties that delays in the UMTRA Proiect schedule would be highly likely." The text then provides examples of these uncertainties, none of which are problems associated specifically with setting ACLs. Rather, the examples oppose other portions of EPA's standards for Title II sites, including adoption of gross alpha as a hazardous constituent, selection of statistical techniques, and the lack of Federal drinking water standards for uranium and molybdenum.
NRC and EPA are jointly developing a methodology, which is nearing completion, to establish ACLs at uranium recovery sites. Substantial tortions of this methodology are identical to DOE's present approach for selecting remedial actions for water resc.urces at UMTRAP sites. Thus, the process of setting ACLs is just as full of
" technical uncertainties" as is the current process of selecting remedial actions.
In addition, the NRC-EPA joint effort is intended to avoid substantial complications and schedule delays in establishing ACLs.
In the context of groundwater protection programs at both active uranium mills and hazardous waste disposal sites, prevention of time delays in setting ACLs is necessary considering that these delays could stall implementation of corrective actions. The text should be revised to omit assertions that setting ACLs would necessarily delay project schedules.
)FC :WMGT iAME :MW;ber LATE :86/04/
sN r
WM-39/MFW/86/04/30/UMTRAP
- 12. Page 6/ Table 3.1: DOE has apparently misinterpreted the EPA standards for active uranium mills (Title II standards).
For, example, Table 3.1 states that the EPA Regional Administrator will specify constituents to be monitored at the compliance point. EPA Regional Administrators will not even be involved in NRC licensing decisions such as specifying hazardous constituents. DOE should discuss the EPA standards with NRC and EPA prior to revising its descriptions of the Title II standards in Table 3.1.
- 13. Page 8/ Paragraph 1: The text states that contaminant concentrations in groundwater at ten VMTRAP sites violate the Title II standards.
Because compliance with concentration limits must be determined on a site-specific basis through the licensing process, the text's generic conclusion about the lack of compliance with the Title II standards is indefensible. Although the concentrations may exceed those listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR Part 264.94 as amended by Table A of Part 192, the text does not indicate that DOE has performed a detailed assessment to determine that the concentrations also exceed background concentrations and appropriate alternate concentration limits. The text shculd be revised to clarify the statement regarding compliance with the Title II standards or to delete the statement.
- 14. Page 8/ Paragraph 1: The text states that cost-benefit analyses at ten sites indicate that aquifer restoration is not worthwhile. Based on the number and content of NRC comments about DOE's hydrogeologic assessments of these sites, NRC concludes that DOE has not demonstrated that aquifer restoration is not worthwhile at these sites. The text +
should be revised to provide or reference detailed assessments that.
support conclusions about the merit of aquifer restoration.
?
- 15. Page 8/ Paragraph 2: Thetextstatesthataquiferrestoratio$would cost between $5 and 50 million per site, with a total project cost of more than $200 million. The text, however, does not reference or provide any assessments that support these cost estimates.
Furthermore, the NRC has comented on numerous equations how DOE should consider hybridized programs for control of contaminated groundwater rather than end-member-type remedial actions (e.g., pumping out every last drop of contaminated water vs. no action). The text should reference or include assessments that support DOE's assertions about cost increases attributed to aquifer restoration and increased site characterization.
1
)FC : WET MME :MWeber
) ATE :86/04/
j
WM-39/MFW/86/04/30/UMTRAP 5-16.
Page 8/ Paragraph 3: The relevant considerations from EPA's hazardous waste management system are those listed in 40 CFR Parts 264.93(b) and 264.94(b). The text icplTes that the considerations are found elsewhere in EPA's standards through its general reference to the Federal Register notice for EPA's final standards for land treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for hazardous wastes (47 FR 32274). The text should be appropriately revised.
17.
Page 8/ Paragraph 3: The last sentence in this paragraph is incorrect.
DOE's Remedial Action Plans (RAPS) for the South Salt Lake and Canonsburg UMTRAP sites did not provide for restricting access to existing contaminated groundwater.
In addition, DOE's RAP for the Shiprock site does not yet provide for restricting access to contaminated groundwater beneath the tailings piles.
DOE has not decided whether to implement controls to restrict access to contaminated groundwater along the San Juan River at Shiprock. The tcxt should be revised to omit this error.
These comments are based on my review of Chapters 1 4.
Obviously the summary statements in Chapter 4 need revisions in accordance with the revisions suggested above. Please contact me if you oave any questions about this review.
J Michael F. Weber, WMGT Division of Waste Management
)FC :WMGT VAME :MWeber JATE :86/Qf/06
.