ML20206C573
| ML20206C573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/19/1986 |
| From: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Shaffer R WYOMING, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206C577 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39, REF-WM-60 NUDOCS 8606190516 | |
| Download: ML20206C573 (7) | |
Text
.
SO DJstribuHnn :
WM Record Fila WM Pro;ec
/
84M r/f(WM601& WM39 Docket No.
gy y g 1986 WMLU r/t l.PDR ['
PDR NMSS s/f RE Browning MR Knapp WM60/kPbU/EliG/86/05/06l J0 Bunting
.._1___
____}
DE Martin 1_ Return _to WM,623 S3)
GN Gnugnoli M Haisfield l
I M Nataraja Roger Shaffer, Administrator Land Quality Division M Fliegel PS Justus Department of Environmental Quality EF Hawkins, URF0 122 West 25th Street H Rose, URF0 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
Dear Mr. Shaffer:
I am writing to inform you of the progress of our evaluation of your April 10, 1986 transmittal regarding the feasibility of removal of the residual radioactive material at the Riverton' site and of the disposal of such material at the American Nuclear Corporation's (ANC's) commercial milling site in the Gas Hills.
The Department of Energy (D0E) has also requested that NRC review the legal and policy questions of disposal of UMTRAP wastes in commercial tailings sites under NRC license. The DOE letter (April 16, 1986 copy enclosed) is broader in scope and raises issues in the areas of title transferability and licensability. At present our Office of the Executive Legal Director is analyzing the DOE request. Upon the completion of this review, we will provide the results to both the DOE and the State of Wyoming.
Furthermore, we have recently obtained a copy of ANC's proposal from Governor Herschler. Until we have completed the evaluation of the DOE generic feasibility questions and of the ANC proposal, it would be premature to attempt to answer your specific questions regarding commingling. We expect to have answers to DOE on the generic question of commingling sometime this June.
With regard to your questions on the status of NRC's review of the DOE proposed remedial action at Riverton, the NRC has not actively reviewed the case since June, 1985. At that time, David Ball (D0E) indicated that DOE had put the remedial action effort on indefinite hold, and that NRC should proceed with reviews on other high priority UMTRAP sites. A May 1, 1985 meeting was held involving DOE, DOE contractors and NRC. A copy of the meeting minutes was provided to L. Askew of your staff in May,1985.
I am enclosing a copy for your information.
During this meeting NRC provided DOE with comments on the bulk of the information which formed the Environmental Assessment published in July, 1985. As you know, DOE did not publish a final Remedial Action Plan for Riverton. Concerns identified and discussed at this meeting included erosion, stability, ground-water protection and geology. Although these concerns did not preclude stabilization-in-place, the proposal was not considered complete, and further monitoring, characterization, and design changes were deemed necessary. We also informed DOE that the Dry Cheyenne alternative site had not been adequately characterized in the Environmental Assessment.
No other review documents for Riverton have been submitted by DOE for NRC evaluation, nor has i
0FC :WMLU:rj
- WMLU
- WMLU NAME :GN Gnugnoli :DE Martin
- MR Knapp DATE :86/05/
- 86/05/
- 86/05/
8606190516 860519 PDR WASTE WM-39 PDR
MAY 10 1986 WM60/WM39/qNG/86/05/06 DOE requested further action from NRC. Until the time that DOE reactivates the NRC participation by such document submittals, the NRC review of Riverton is limited to our participation in the EPA's alternate concentration limit studies.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact i
Giorgio Gnugnoli (FTS 427 4788) of my staff.
Malcolm R. Knapp, Acting Chief Low _ Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated i
cc:
J. Turi, D0E/HQ/NE-24 J. Themelis, 00E/AL R. Dale Smith, URF0
+
R. Fonner, ELD i
Record Note:
Response was coordinated with ELD on May 15, 1986
- WMhjr 0FC
- WMLU <
- WMLU
- NAME
- G g oli :DE Mart n
- MR Knapp (DATE:86/05/[L
- 86/05/)b
- 86/05/ld l
Department of Energy j
4 Albuquerque Operations Office fj/
2 P, O. Box 5400 v
Albuquerque. New Mexico 87115 j
Amt i 61986 Mr. Malcolm Knapp Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7915 Eastern Avenue Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Dear Mr. Knapp:
The Department of Energy (DOE) is currently evaluating the feasibility of the disposal of residual radioactive materials associated with the UMTRA Proj ect at currently licensed Title II uranium mill sites.
Specific locations for which this remedial action alternative is a consideration include Falls City, Texas; Naturita, Colorado; Riverton, Wyoming; and Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico.
In previous informal discussions of the issue, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has indicated that such an alternative appears feasible.
In fact, this is the approach we used for the Edgemont vicinity properties; residual radioactive materials,from those properties are being disposed of at the TVA mill.
The general concept is that the Title II mill site licensee would assume custody and responsibility for the UMTRA Project materials until the mill site is decommissioned in accordance with applicable license requirements.
Thereafter, the Government (DOE or such other federal agency designated by the President) would take title and assume custody and control of the disposal site.
This alternative is attractive because of its potential for reducing the total number of mill tailings disposal sites.
It may also offer technical and economic advantages.
Prior to serious consideration of this alternative, DOE must resolve several issues regarding specific requirements of the program legislation.
We would appreciate your opinion regarding these issues, which are listed below:
1.
The program legislation, Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 ("UMTRCA"), requires that, where the remedial action selected is removal of the residual radioactive materials from a Title I mill site to a separate disposal site, the affected state must acquire the materials and I
- h/ s. r. m a dtl -
..--jv(v q l
.?
Malcolm Knapp the land used as the disposal site.
We would like NRC's view of whether Title II of the UMTRCA allows for a state acquisition prior to final decomissioning of the site by the operator / licensee?
Inasmuch as the TVA mill site is not a j
privately owned site, these issues were moot at Edgemont.
l
[
2.
The UMTRCA also requires that the state convey to the Government title to the residual radioactive materials and the disposal site upon completion of remedial actions.
DOE, or such other federal agency designated by the President, is to thereafter assume 3
custody of the disposal site and to provide long-term maintenance j
of the site pursuant to an NRC license.
Key issues are:
when are Title I remedial actions completed?; when does the Government accept title to the site?; and what if, any, impact is there to t
the operator / licensee's surety requirements?
In the case of the Edgemont situation, state acquisition and federal ownership were not problematic because TVA holds property in the name and title of the Government.
Moreover, pursuant to each individual Remedial Action Agreement with vicinity property owners, the Edgemont tailings become Government property upon cleanup of each vicinity property.
Thus, the radioactive materials and the disposal site are already in federal ownership.
4 3.
The UMTRA remedial actions are to comply with the general health and environmental standards promulgated by the U.
S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR Part 192.
We ate assuming that the operator / licensee will have to comply with the EPA Standards promulgated for Title II mill sites.
At issue is whether compliance 'with the EPA Title I standards is technica11y' accomplished through compliance with the EPA Title II standards.
Because of the relatively small quantity of vicinity property materials involved at Edgemont, we assumed that the Title I standards will be met or exceeded.
4.
DOE's statutory authority to perform remedial action expires in 1990, although we anticipate a Congressional extension to 1993.
Assume that a Title II site at which we have disposed of Title I l
materials is not finally decommissioned until after 1993.
Is i
" remedial action" completed when we have deposited tailings at the Title II site or when the Title II site is finally decommissioned?
5.
At some sites where DOE is considering relocation to a Title II site, the owners have indicated that they would charge a certain
" fee" for accepting the UMTRA Proj ect materials.
Is this 3
permissible under the Title II program?
Is a license amendment required to allow for such receipt and for such a " fee"?
l I
l
,,w
s k
.. /..
. g Malcolm Knapp We would appreciate your input from a perspective as an implementing agency under Title I of the UMTRCA, and as a regulating agency under Title II of the UMTRCA.
Your earliest possible written response to this request will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, f
/
/
I s
.[/ ;-U v c y
? f; si.v2 -
J Johh G. Themelis Project Manager OCC:229: RAM:1f UMTRA Project Office CC:
J. Turi, (NE-24) HQ S. Miller, (GC-11) HQ R. Marquez, OCC 4
4 4
4 4
r R
O O
,*YI
O WM-41/85/05/07/1 '
NRC/D0E MAY 1, 1985, MEETING MINUTES PARTICIPANTS:
N.R.C.
D.O.E.
T.A.C.
Birchard, George Matthews, Mark Bone, Mike Brooks, David Brinkman, Jim Dam, William Piel, Kelly Fliegel, Myron Ford, William Gnugnoli, Giorgio Johnson, Ted Larson, Mark Smykowski, Steve
~
Valdes, Jose Weber, Michael On Wednesday, May 1, 1985, the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a discussion with the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) and DOE's consultants (TAC) concerning the Revised Hydrology Appendix of the Riverton Environmental Assessment. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the initial reactions of the NRC-staff to the Rbvised Hydrology Appendix.
All staff comments and questions were preliminary, since the NRC staff had only one or two days to look at the document.
Therefore any of the conclusions and recommendations expressed during this meeting and documented in this record may change pending further review.' This memorandum describes the major issues discussed during the meeting.
1)
Surface Water, Riverton Site The NRC Staff indicated that they wanted a reasonable Probable Maximum Flood calculated for each UMTRAP site. This would mean that a consistent approach to calculate Probable Maximum Flood would be used for all sites. However, it-would not mean that each UMTRAP site would have to be designed to withstand this level of flood, if it could be shown that the design for a lesser flood would be adequate.
The TAC staff replied that the Remedial Action Plan will show that the rock size used to cover the pile will be sufficient to withstand any credible flood event.
NRC staff also asked if the pile would be designed to withstand channel erosion should the Wind River or Little Wind River change its flow direction so as to directly impact the pile. The-TAC replied that the pile would be adequately-protected against that possibility. The TAC described the details of the revised erosion protection design.
G.[
i WM-41/85/05/07/1 2)
Surface Water, Dry Cheyenne Site A request was made by the NRC staff for an improved description of erosion protection of the Dry Cheyenne Site.
3)
Slurry Wall The TAC indicated that a slurry wall will not be included in the Remedial Action Plan since the wall would not attenuate the movement of molybdenum and would slow down clean up of the unconfined acuf fer by natural flushing.
4)
Carbonate and Acid Tailings The NRC staff asked if the TAC knew where the carbonate and acid tailings were located in the pile. The TAC staff replied that the carbonate tailings were located at the bottom of the pile, but little was known about their detailed distributions. Also it was not known if the carbonate tailings presently provided any buffering for the acid tailings.
5)
Ground Water Sampling Groundwater samples and water level measurements will be taken at the end of May. Local wells and DOE wells will be sampled at this time for organic and inorganic species.
6)
Contaminated Wells Three wells show evidence of contamination in the confined aquifer system (West Lake,106,111). Neither the TAC or DOE knew why the wells appeared to be contaminated.
It was hypothesized that West Lake (a wind mill) may have been showing contamination due to a poor well completion and that the DOE wells (106,111) may have been contaminated when they were drilled. These wells will be studied further to try and determine how they were contaminated.
7)
Buffering Capacity The Revised Hydrology Appendix states that leaving the pile at the Riverton site will not create a continuous long term source of groundwater pollution because the unconfined acuifer can buffer the pH of the groundwater..This buffering action would cause contaminants to precipitate and limit their migration and transport. The NRC staff requested the sediment buffering capacity be characterized to add credence to this conclusion.
I t
i f
1 i
c -
,n-
,n.
y.
WM-41/85/05/07/1 8) Geochemical Modeling The NRC requested that a caveat be placed in the Environmental Assessment.
This request was made in response to the statement in the EA on page 0-232 that
" Computer codes... are useful particularly for prediction of short-and long-tem impacts of various remedial action plans because they account for complex interactions of mass and energy within the physical system before and after implementation of the proposed remedial action, subject to certain assumptions." However, the problem with the statement in the EA is that the computer codes are constructed from simplifying assumptions and are limited by the quality of input and thermodynamic data.
Therefore, the codes are useful tools that can be used to 1) help understand the geochemistry of a site and 2) develop scenarios based on expected changes in conditions. Thus, they can be used to provide input into what might happen in the future but they do not predict what will happen.
The NRC also requested that the EA list the assumptions that were made in formulating the geochemical model (e.g. infinite calcite buffering capacity).
9)
Groundwater Restoration It was requested by the NRC that the Environmental Assessment be revised to address partial groundwater restoration alternatives and what costs and effects such an action will have on wat:.r use patterns if the groundwater is not restored.
10)
Information Request At the end of the meeting a preliminary request for information (attached) as reproduced below was agreed to and signed by the NRC and 00E. This list summarized most of the information requests previously described plus a request that responses to NRC comments on the Draft Remedial Action Plan be itemized when the Final Remedial Action Plan is submitted for NRC review.
PRELIMINARY REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING HYDROLOGY FOR THE RIVERTON UMTRAP PROJECT (5/1/85)
- 1. West Lake well and water level measurements around the pile (May,1985 sampling).
- 2. Characterize sediment buffering capacity.
WM-41/85/05/07/1 3. Reauest to' caveat water chemistry modeling.
- 4. List of geochemical model assumptions (solute transport, TRUST and PHREE 0E).
- 5. Copy of Pyrih reference.
- 6. Copy of SH&B geomorphology report.
- 7. Responses to NRC comment on Draft RAP itemized when the draft final RAP is submitted and a copy of the proposed EA.
- 8. Improve description of erosion protection of Dry Cheyenne Site.
i I
t l
'l
t' hbim Rep er b Idomb A y k M d w t. n & 4 4. RA y
u.M R AP Pn,d.
(,5 ///Pf) 1 U ot 16.% u ll a 4 w S I m l E u w hE. ~
q.vowd A. y)Ilt.
C.r g, 19iT
>ampll3) f
- 2..
Awkiss.
Selim Jt bb M,
y CavW
' ~ ' ~
3, b wi
+a w:.de %f& cI.ebfr. (N4alih;.
9 7
4 4.
Lot of 34. ckea d n JM q.Lrup4Ms
.y C.s Ak wp.4, TRM AT e M 94 R E 5. Q S.)
4
_J 5.
C ok y.< bes< e
~~
y7 C.4 r y a k S ff + 6 C.,
p w <pL sywF l
7, Ro p es<s 5
A1. A.C.
w J o,,
Ov.3+ RAP iteasd whew Me d r Mr Sib)
RAP (3 s k6, ff d.
. -..... o.4 s.
c.apy e4 44 s f mpsad 5.h.
h p s d ^ dis <*:=t * '4 i
t.
em %
prDhdi., ok b
%e,ig
~
y Uh.
Qc QJ M ( p/@ ipr u
my g
g L
~ -
- - - - - -- - --- - - -- - -- - -