ML20206E022
| ML20206E022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/16/1986 |
| From: | Justus P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8606230048 | |
| Download: ML20206E022 (9) | |
Text
'
WM Record file WM Prciect3f n Occhet No. - - - -
WM s/f(WM-39)
POR V WMGT r/f MAY 16 Igg $DR__ NMSS r/f
"-" "I"9 WM-39/WHF/86/5/13 ;
.__]I JBunting (Return to WM,623-SS) _ PJustus WFord & r/f MEMORANDUM FOR: Malcolm Knapp, Acting Chief 9 WLU [DR DGillen, WMLU FROM: ip Justus, Acting Chief G u li WMLU MWeber, WMGT
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F DOE PLAN FOR UMTRA PROJECT WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS, WM_86407 In response to ticket WM-86407 we have completed our review of the " DOE Plan For UMTRA Project Water Protection Standards". This plan was developed by DOE "to define D0E's implementation of water protection standards for the UMTRA Project, on an interim basis, until the EPA promulgates revised standards in response to the September 1985, decision by the Tenth Circuit Court". At the present time, NRC's authority in conducting ground water contamination reviews prior to licensing of an UMTRAP site is limited to ensuring that DOE actions conply with the EPA standards. As a result of our review, we have concluded implementation of the proposed interim plan as presently written would replace the existing standard with a less stringent standard. Neither the Tenth Circuit Court or EPA have indicated that this is their intent. Rather they have indicated that the new standard will be as stringent or more stringent than the present standard. Therefore, we recommend that any new interim plan should at least be as stringent as the existing standard.
In conducting this review we have not reviewed Attachment A of this document, because it is merely a revised version of Section 6.0 (Water Resources Protection) of the Technical Approach Document for the UMTRA Project. Our review focused exclusively on DOE's proposed interim plan, because the Technical Approach Document provided in Attachment A is not a part of the proposed plan and because revisions to the plan could require substantial revision to the Technical Approach Document, making a detailed review of the TAD inappropriate at this time. Comments in our review were prepared by William Ford and Mike Weber. Should you have any questions or comments about this review please contact William Foro at extension 74697.
8606230048 860D16 PDR WASTE
[
W" Philip S Justus, Acting Chief WMCT
Enclosures:
As Stated JFC :WMGT f
e
- WMGT :WM : : : :
1AME :WFord b :MFliege :P u IL, : : : :
ATE :86/5/l(e
- 86/5/lh :86/5/ $ > : : : :
~
i-WM-39/WHF/86/5/9 COMMENTS ON 00E PROPOSED INTERIM UMTRA PROJECT WATER PROTECTION PLAN MAJOR COMMENTS (1) The proposed futerim water protection plan is intended to define the Department of Energy's implementation of water protection standards for the UMTRA Project, until EPA promulgates revised Title I standards.
Although the interim plan proposes a water protection plan it does not specifically designate which paragraphs from the present Title I standards (40 CFR 192, Subpart C), if any, will not be a part of the interim plan.
Icntification of these paragraphs is needed in order to clearly understand how the new interim plan will be applied.
(2) At the present time, both NRC and DOE reference the existing Title I standards (including compliance with Subpart C of 40 CFR 192) in evaluating and conducting remedial action activities at UMTRAP sites.
Therefore, the text should contain an explanation of how the new interim plan will change the way the DOE conducts future remedial action activities and the way NRC reviews and concurs in those actions.
(3) The interim water protection plan is described in sections 2 and 3 along with the rationale for the plan. It is difficult to gain a picture of how the whole interim plan fits together and to identify which sentences are part of the " plan" and which are part of the explanation. We suggest that the text be organized so that one section (either in the front or rear) contains the language of the proposed interim plan and that other separate sections contain justification and explanation.
(4) The Environmental Protection Agency's guidance in Subpart C of the present Title I standards requires that "Judgements on the possible need for remedial or protective actions for ground water aquifers should be guided by relevant considerations described in EPA's hazardous waste management system (47 FR 32274, July 26, 1982) and by relevant State and Federal Water Quality Criteria." Under this standard, National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR), National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWR), hazardous waste considerations and applicable state standards have been considered at each site evaluated to date. Since NIPOWR, NSDWR, and hazardous waste standards have been the same for all sites, they have been consistently considered relative to remedial actions for water resources at all sites. However, the proposed interim standards only reference NIPDWR for selected parameters ard only uses applicable
~
0 WM-39/WHF/86/5/9 state standards for molybdenum and uranium. It appears that under the proposed interim plan, DOE would consistently consider fewer constituents than it would under the existing Title I standards. It is suggested that relevant parameters in EPA's hazardaus waste and State and Federal Water Quality criteria be included in the proposed interim plan.
(5) In Table 2.1 the proposed interim plan references concentration limits for constituents under the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWR). Constituents in the NIPDWR are maximum co.icentration limits for public drinking water supplies. The simple inclusion of Table 2.1 in the proposed plan does not indicate how DOE intends to implement these concentration limits. Specifically, implementation language is needed in the proposed standards to address the following issues:
(a) If background water quality values exceed NIPDWR values, will the effect of tailings contamination on water quality be evaluated? For example, if the background water quality is usable for agriculture, but not for drinking water, will prevention and restoration of ground water contamination be considered?
(b) How will DOE evaluate a site that is contaminating water with hazardous constituents that are not contained in Table 2.1?
(c) If a state's drinking water standara has less stringent concentration limits or more constituents than the NIPDWR, will the state standards be referenced in lieu of the federal standards?
(d) How will the situation be evaluated when an aquifer has been rendered unusable or seriously degraded with respect to National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWR)? While NSDWR parameters are considered nuisance and not toxic substances, they can render an aquifer unusable for its prior use. For example, TOS is not a NIPOWR parameter, but it is used by EPA to classify ground water resources, since aquifers with TDS concentrations greater than 10,000 ppm are not considered potential sources of drinking water.
(e) 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 l limits are appropriate if background concentrations exceed the concentrations listed in Table 2.1? What happens if the l
Y' WM-39/WHF/86/5/9 concentration limits are exceeded? Would the concentration limits only apply to contaminant releases after disposal or would they apply equally to existing contamination? Would the concentration limits be applied to existing contamination if the pile is moved?
The proposed interim water protection plan should include appropriate state and federal standards and make decisions about water protection based on anticipated and existing water uses, human exposure, and cost / benefit analysis. It is suggested that the factors listed in 40 CFR 264.94 (a) and (b) should be a part of the proposed interim plan, since we feel they provide a good guide for making ground water contamination decisions.
(6) Under the existing Title I standards, the decision to implement remedial actions for water protection is based on environmental exposure and cost / benefit analysis. The discussion in the text (page 4, 7) says that the DOE will continue to prepare NEPA/ RAP documents that evaluate the technical feasibility and cost / benefit of the various alternatives for aquifer protection / restoration. However, when the concentration limits of Table 2.1 are exceeded, DOE is not required by the proposed plan to evaluate the costs and benefits of water protection, but only to negotiate with the NRC. Consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding NRC no longer concurs with NEPA documents by DOE. The NRC's authority is thus limited to ensuring that DOE actions comply with the EPA standards including the proposed interim plan, if adopted. Omission of cost / benefit assessments from the proposed plan would therefore erode NRC's ability to require cost / benefit and environmental analysis in its review of proposed remedial actions. Therefore, the proposed interim plan should incorporate the use of cost /)enefit analysis and environmental exposure assessments to determine the need for water protection activities.
(7) The text propose,s to omit concentration limits for uranium and molybdenum that were origi.ially proposed by EPA in 40 CFR Part 192. The text bases its omission 09 the lack of strong scientific evidence about acute and chronic health effects associated with these two constituents, and on the absence of F2deral drinking water criteria for uranium and molybdenum.
Based on ar.11ysis 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 Scciety) attributes health effects to uranium and molybdenum exposure. Further, several concentration limits for the two constituents
v.
WM-39/WHF/86/5/9 have been proposed in the technical literature. Much of this literature is comparable in quality to literature that supports concentration limits for other constituents listed in the NIPDWR. Concentration limits for molybdenum and uranium have been established in some states. The DOE's plan should be revised to include appropriate concentration limits for uranium and molybdenum in groundwater at UMTRAP sites in states without j appropriate water quality criteria for the two constituents.
4
,--__u , ,
~ ~ ' ~ ' ' ' ' n -,,- -
V.
WM-39/WHF/86/5/9 DETAILED COMMENTS INTRODUCTION, Page 1, Paragraph 1 r
The first paragraph should be revised to state the " Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals" rather than the " Tenth Circuit Court."
INTRODUCTION, Page 2, Paragraph 1 Federal and State drinking water quality criteria are not considered " standards of general applicability" for groundwater protection programs. Although several regulatory programs have adopted these standards (e.g., RCRA),
application of the criteria was only intended for protection of consumers of public drinking water supplies. Controversy currently exists about the adoption of drinking water quality criteria for ground water protection programs. The text should be revised to omit the statement about general applicability or to include justification for the statement.
INTRODUCTION, Page 2, Paragraph 1 The text states that Federal and State drinking water standards are essentially the same as concentration limits for active uranium recovery sites under UMTRCA Title II. However, under 40 CFR Part 192, 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 264.94(b). The text should be revised to remove the incorrect generality.
INTRODUCTION, Page 2, Table 2.1 DOE has proposed to adopt Maximum Contaminant Levels 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 consider treatment costs, technological feasibility, and the number end location of public raw water resources that exceed the Maximun Contaminant Levels. If the intent of adopting these concentration limits is to protect public health and safety and tha environment, DOE should consider cdopting EPA's Recommended Maximum Concentration Levels for inorganic constituents that were proposed in ;
November 1985 (50 FR 46936). Recommended Maximum Concentration Levels are i established to prevent known or anticipated edverse health effects, with an adequate margin of safety and thus may be more appropriate health limits than l
l i
I
9-WM-39/WHF/86/5/9 Maximum Contaminant Levels in determining the need for remedial actions for contaminated groundwater.
INTERIM PLAN, 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.
However, EPA's conclusion was generic for all constituents in groundwater at UMTRAP sites and did not apply only to uranium and molybdenum. Therefore this justification should be omitted from the text or used to explain why DOE should not adopt numerical limits for contaminant concentrations.
INTERIM PLAN, Page 4, Paragraph 3 The text states that data do not adequately support a concentration limit of 0.05 mg/l for molybdenum, but it 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 molybdenum of 0.05 mg/1, or to delete the statement opposing the concentration limit.
INTERIM PLAN, Page 4, Paragraph 4 a
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 assumes that aquifer restoration would be automatically triggered by exceedances of the concentration limits and implies that while expenditures are not warranted to reduce uranium and molybdenum concentrations to the limits proposed for Title I sites, expenditures are warranted for the other constituents in Table 2.1.
Therefore, the exclusion of uranium and molybdenum from Table 2.1 appears a rbi tra ry. The text should be revised to include concentration limits for uranium and molybdenum in Table 2.1 or to provide a defensible rationale for the exclusion of these constituents.
RATIONALE, 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 Project schedule would be highly likely." The text then provides examples of l 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 acoption of gross alpha as a hazardous constituent, selection of statistical techniques, and the lack of Federal
V-WM-39/WHF/86/5/9 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 in a timely and systematic manner. Substantial portions of this methodology are identical to DOE's present approach for selecting remedial actions for water resources at UMTRAP sites. Thus, the process of setting ACLs is not significantly different from portions of the current process of selecting remedial actions. The text should be revised to omit assertions that setting ACLs would necessarily delay project schedules.
RATIONALE, Page 6, Table 3.1 Table 3.1 states that the EPA Regional Administrator will specify constituents to be monitored at the compliance point. EPA Regional Administrators will not be involved in NRC licensing decisions for active uranium mills. The text and table should be revised to correct tSis error.
RATIONALE, Page 8, paragraph 1 The text states that contaminant concentrations in groundwater at ten UMTRAP 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 violation of the Title II standards is not correct. For example, if contaminant concentrations exceed those listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR Part 264.94 as amended by Table A of Part 192, this conclusion about violation of the standards would require a detailed assessment to determine that the concentrations also exceed background concentrations and appropriate alternate concentration limits. The text should be revised to clarify the statement regarding compliance with the Title II standards or to delete the statement.
RATIONALE, Page 8, Paragraphs 1 and 2 The text states that cost-benefit analyses at ten sites indicate that aquifer restoration is not worthwhile. However, based on NRC comments about DOE's hydrogeologic assessments at some of these sites, NRC concludes that DOE has not demonstrated that aquifer restoration is not worthwhile at all the sites. !
Further, the text states that aquifer restoration would cost between $5 and 50 million per site, with a total project cost of more than $200 million.
However, the text, does not reference or provide any assessments that support these cost estimates. Furthermore, the NRC has commented on numerous occasions that 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 1
9 WM-39/WHF/86/5/9 increases attributed to aquifer restoration and provide or reference defensible assessments that support conclusions about the merit of aquifer restoration.
RATIONALE, Page 8, Paragraph 1 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, 00E'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 text should be revised to omit this error.
RATIONALE, 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 implies that the considerations are found elsewhere in EPA's standards through its general i 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.
- _ . . . - .-