ML20214J955
| ML20214J955 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/29/1986 |
| From: | Bell M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Themelis J ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8612020075 | |
| Download: ML20214J955 (5) | |
Text
.
e 4
4-SEP 2 91986 WM-39/DMG/86/08/20/ DUP C
WM Rccctd Fi!e Wu Woket Dockci No. ___.
John G. Themelis, Project Manager POR/
UMTRA Project Office LPDR-U.S. Department of Energy
@@uRcq
~
Post Office Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115 D ' a to WM,623.SS) gf
Dear ' r. Themelis:
7 M
We have completed our review of the first revision of your Proposed Interim UMTRA Project Water Protection Plan.
Our comments are enclosed.
It appears to us that with the incorporation of our comments, the interim plan would provide for consideration of groundwater protection needs in a manner essentially the same as that provided under EPA's guidance in Subpart C of 40_CFR Part 192.
In 4
spite of the plan's proposed use of certain drinking water concentration limits for initial guidance, judgments on the need.for remedial or protective action -
would still be based on cost / benefit considerations.
Thus, the end result.of the interim plan would be the same as that reached using EPA's guidance in Part 192.
Our current review process, as specified in our Standard Review Plan for, UMTRAP Remedial Action Plans, need not be modified, if we continue to rely on EPA's-Subpart C guidance..We are agreeable therefore, at'least on an interim basis, to continue to base our groundwater protection reviews on the EPA guidance in-40 CFR Part 192, Subpart C.
This is consistent with our existing Memorandum.of Understanding.
Subpart C, however, has been legally vacated and the outcome of a further EPA rulemaking is uncertain.
There is some risk that plans approved and executed j
on the basis of Subpart C will not satisfy EPA's future ground-water protection f
requirements and may require modification.
DOE must choose whether or not to proceed in the face of this risk.
Furthermore, pending conclusion of EPA's replacement rulemaking, all NRC concurrences on remedial actions will be conditioned to require a further. review against EPA's final groundwater protection requirements.
i We believe that the public interest would best be served by DOE's continuing to I
carry out the UMTRA Program while EPA develops a final rule. We appreciate i
your efforts and cooperation on this matter and are ready to discuss it with i
8612o20075 860929 PDR WASTE l
(
OFC :WMLU
- WMLU
- OGC
- URF0
- WM NAME :DM Gillen
- DE Martin
- RDSmith
- MJBell DATE :86/09/
- 86/09/
- 86/09/
- 86/09/
- 86/09 l
l
s
'WM-39/DMG/86/08/20/ DUP SEP 2 91986 you and EPA as needed.
Should you have any questions on this letter, please contact Dan Gillen of my staff.
Sincerely, Original Signed by MICHAEL J. BELL Michael'J. Bell, Deputy Director Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As Stated cc:
J. Turi (00E/HQ)
C. Feldman (EPA) 1
- 0GC y"
- URF WM 0FC :WML b-_:,
_ _ [-
7__:RDSm
- MJ e NAME :DM lien in
- 6
_____.-_--________.__---____---.4__V DATE :86/09h)
- 86/09/14
- 86/09/jk
- 86/09/g1
- 86/09
WM-39/DMG/86/08/20/ DUP
_2 REVIEW 0F DRAFT DOE PLAN FOR WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS Section 2.0, INTERIM PLAN, Page 3 The DOE Interim Plan For Water Protection Standards of the UMTRA project contains a Table 2.1, which was developed from the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards. The Interim Plan proposes to use Table 2.1 in the following manner:
1.
"If any of the concentrations of contaminants at a site exceed the limits specified on Table 2.1 prior to remedial action, the remedial action activities shall be conducted in a manner that will not allow a significant increase, at the designated site boundary, in the concentration levels of these substances over time."
2.
" Judgments on the possible need for remedial action or protective actions for ground-water aquifers should be guided primarily by the numerical standards listed in Table 2.1 and by relevant considerations described in EPA's Hazardous Waste Management System (47 FR 32274, July 26, 1982, and 40 CFR 264.99), and, secondarily, by other relevant state and Federal water quality criteria for anticipated or existing uses of water over the term of stabilization.
The decision on whether to institute remedial action, what specific action to take, and to what levels an aquifer should be protected or restored should be based on such factors as technical feasibility of improving the aquifer in its hydrogeologic setting, the cost of applicable restorative or protective programs, the present and future value of the aquifer as a water resource, the availability of alternative water supplies, and the degree to which human exposure is likely to occur."
These statements do not appear to be very clearly written and could be subject to several interpretations. The staff's interpretation of these statements is as follows:
If groundwater contamination is found to exceed the concentrations in Table 2.1, remedial action activities will be conducted in such a manner that significant increases will not occur at the designated site boundary (unless a variance is granted). However, the decision to implement groundwater remedial action protective actions is not determined solely by the parameters in Table 2.1, but rather by the other factors listed in paragraph 2 above. This means 0FC :WMLU
- WMLU
- 0GC
- URF0
- WM NAME :DM Gillen
- DE Martin
- RDSmith
- MJBell DATE :86/09/
- 86/09/
- 86/09/
- 86/09/
- 86/09
~
WM-39/DMG/86/08/20/ DUP that if contamination exceeds the concentrations listed in Table 2.1, ground water restoration may or may not be implemented pending the outcome of the decision making process described in paragraph 2 above.
Further, if ground water contamination does not exceed the concentrations in Table 2.1, ground water remedial action and protective actions may still be implemented pending the outcome of the decision making process described in paragraph 2 above.
It is our conclusion that the statements relating to Table 2.1 should be clarified.
Furthermore, if our interpretation of the Proposed Interim Standard, as described above, is incorrect DOE should advise us and further justify their interim plan.
Section 2.0, Interim Plan, Page 3 The introductory paragraph for the Interim Plan states that " Deletions from the text of the remanded Title I standards are indicated with brackets around the words to be removed and inserts of text stating the proposed interim plan are underlined." It appears that the statement "[primarily by the numerical standards listed in Table 2.1 and by]", has been mistakenly bracketed and should be underlined.
Section 2.0, Interim Plan, Page 3 The response to comment 7 states that "for sites in states without water quality criteria for uranium and molybdenum, DOE will seek guidance from the EPA regarding the appropriate concentration limits for these constituents."
Further, "Judgements on the possible need for remedial action or protective actions for ground-water aquifers should be guided primarily by the numerical standards listed in Table 2.1 and by relevant considerations described in EPA's Hazardous Waste Management System (47 FR 32274, July 26, 1982, and 40 CFR 264.99), and, secondarily, by other relevant state and Federal water quality criteria for anticipated or existing uses of water over the term of stabilization." However, uranium and molybdenum are not included in Table 2.1 and EPA's Hazardous Waste Management System (47 FR 32274, July 26, 1982, and 40 CFR 264.99). Therefore uranium and molybdenum wruld only become secondary considerations in making restoration decisions. Since, the National Research Council, the Health Effects Research Laboratory, and the Health Physics Society attribute health effects to uranium and molybdenum exposure we feel that these should be in the primary decision process.
It is suggested that uranium and molybdenum be included in Table 2.1, but without specific maximum concentrations and with appropriate reference to DOE intent to reference state standards and to seek guidance from the EPA when no state standards exist.
Section 2.0, Interim Plan, Page 3
@FC :WMLU
- WMLU
- 0GC
- URF0
- WM c____:____________:____________.____________:____________:____________:____________.___________
NAME :DM Gillen
- DE Martin
- RDSmith
- MJBell c____:____________:____________:____________:____________:____________:____________:___________
TATE :86/09/
- 86/09/
- 86/09/
- 86/09/
- 86/09
WM-39/DMG/86/08/20/ DUP The interim plan states that " Table 2.1 should be considered of primary importance in defining.the extent and degree of water contamination." However, in the past the UMTRA program has used other indicators such as sulfate, which has been a good indicator of the maximum extent of mill tailings contamination.
Furthermore, some sites may contain hazardous contaminants that are not contained in Table 2.1.
Exclusive use of the constituents in Table 2.1 may not define the actual extent of groundwater contamination and may miss important constituents that should be considered. Therefore, we recommend that this statement be removed from the proposed plan.
@FC :WMLU
- WMLU
- 0GC
- URF0
- WM e____:____________:____________:____________:-___________: ___________:____________:___________
NAME :DM Gillen
- DE Martin
- RDSmith
- MJBell e ___:____________:____________:-___________:____________:____________:-___________:___________
EATE :86/09/
- 86/09/
- 86/09/
- 86/09/
- 86/09
,