ML20195H813

Summary of 880526 Meeting W/Doe in Rockville,Md Re Alternate Concentration Limits at Umtrap Sites

ML20195H813
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/27/1988
From:	NRC
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20195H811	List: ML20195H806 ML20195H813
References
REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8806280390
Download: ML20195H813 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _

M Y 3 1 nll WP-39/MFW/88/05/26/ACL

SUMMARY

MEETING NOTES Date: May 26, 1988 Time: 8:15 - 11:45 a.m.

Location: Room 5B9, White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland

Subject:

ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS AT UMTRAP SITES

Purpose:

To respond to specific questions from the Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractor (Jacobs-Weston) about implementation of alternate concentration limits (ACLs) at Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project (UMTRA?) sites.

Participants:

Michael Weber, NRC/LLTB Don Leske, DOE /UMTRA Lynn Deering, NRC/LLTB Denise Bierley, Jacobs-Weston Larry Coons, Jacobs-Weston Sumary: NRC opened the meeting by sumarizing the status of the NRC staff's draft technical position on ACLs for uranium mill tailings sites and by providing DOE with information about EPA's Integrated Risk Information System and an upcoming EPRI workshop on contaminant transport modeling. DOE stated that it would robabl p(RAPS) y separate to avoid delays inACL RAPapplications preparation and from concurrence. RemedialNRC Action Plans and DOE agreed that DOE could reference other documents that contain information to support ACL applications (e.g., RAPS, EISs,EAs). However, NRC comented that extensive referencing may slow reviews.

DOE and NRC discussed the amounts and types of information that are likely to be necessary to demonstrate the acceptability of proposed ACLs at UMTRAP sites. NRC emphasized the importance of site-specific characteristics in determining the amounts and types of information needed to demonstrate ACLs. In comparison to existing DOE assessments of UMTRAP sites, NRC stated that additional information may be needed in the areas of leaching characteristics,(effective characteristics dispersionperosity, coefficients, contaminant distribution transport l

coefficients),wateruses(bothexistingandpossible),

transport assessment, and risk assessment. NRC also stated that the following information contained in existing UMTRAP assessments should generally be adequate to justify ACLs:

groundwater flow directions, hydraulic gradients, hydrostratigraphy, hydraulic conductivity, physiography, climate, and surface water characteristics. Specific information needs should be assessed by DOE once it formulates l site-specific strategies to justify ACLs.

8806280390 000601 PDR WASTE WM-39 PDR

MRf 8 7105 WM-39/MFW/88/05/26/ACL DOE and NRC also discussed application of supplemental standards at UMTRAP sites under proposed portions of Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 192. !!RC stated that NRC staff does not intend to develop additional guidance about supplemental standards and institutional controls. In addition, NRC commented that applications for supplemental standards may be more extensive than ACL applications because DOE would need to (1) justify why (2)selectand the primary justify standards appropriate should not supplemental be applied,(3) select standards, appropriate remedial actions to comply with the supplemental standards, (4) demonstrate that DOE comes as close as reasonable under the circumstances to meeting the primary standards, and rotect human (5)demonstratethatDOE'sactionsareadequatetop(4)and(5) health and the environment. NRC stated that items would probably be similar to ACL applications in their form and content.

Action items: DOE (Leske) will inquire as to whether DOE intends to coment on NRC's draft technical position on compliance with the proposed groundwater protection requirements of 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts A-C.

Contact:

Michael Weber, LLTB, x20565

__ _