ML20215E129
| ML20215E129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/19/1986 |
| 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 8610150066 | |
| Download: ML20215E129 (5) | |
Text
i
.. 2
\>;
G'iWs/ff?> PDR
{ WMGT r/f DGillen WMLU NMSS r/f RBmming W39/WHF/86/8/15/1 MBell JBunting gg PJustus WFord & r/f MEMORANDUM FOR: Malcolm Knapp, Chief MFliegel WMLU MWeber FROM: Philip Justus, Acting Chief WMGT
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF DOE PROPOSED IfiTERIM UMTRA PROJECT WATER PROTECTION PLAN, Ticket HM-86702 We have conpleted our review of the first revision of the DOE Proposed Interim UMTP.A Project Water Protection Plan. In conducting our review we have focused on the Interim Plan rather than the details of the introduction and rationale of the plan. If our interpretations of the proposed plan (enclosed) are correct and our recommendations are incorporated into the plan, ve conclude that the interim plan v:ilr be as strict or stricter than the Title I standards.
Our convents should not be interpreted as concurrence with the interim plan, because only the EPA has the ruthcrity to establish ground water protection standards for UMTRAP sites in accordance with the 10th circuit court remand of portions of the EPA standards proru1 gated in 1983. Further, in view of the current legal uncertainties cercerning NRC concurrence authority with respect to ground water contamination at UMTRA sites, it may ret be advisable for NRC to comment on DOE's plan. We are currently drafting a memorandum for your signature that seeks a legal decision from OGC regardino NPC's concurrence authority on DOE's remedial action plans with respect to ground water contamination. Should you have any questions about our review please contact William Ford (74697).
V!M Recor:f fi!J Vif.1 Prob ct _ d b Dociet tio.
PD:1 V Philip Justus, Acting Chief lpg;<__
WMGT -_ibution:
Distr
~
Enclosure (Retura to WM,62[S[l _ l fbo dote: N.Y tem 90jTo5c e /hb fi kodOQ9pp860019 WM-39 PDR DFC :WMGT I :WMGT Y:WMGT : : : :
p--_-:-__ g b ___:_-- _ ..,-..:-___'_- -___:________ -__:____________:_---_------_:--_----____
NAME :WFord :MFliegel :PJusi s : : : :
b__--_.-__-______:____________:...___-__:_-________-_:-__-__----__:________--__:______---_-
DATE :86/8/A :86/8/[ :86/8/ : : : :
i L
y WM39/WHF/86/8/15 REVIEW OF DRAFT 00E 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. "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.
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 ground water 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 ground water 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 ,
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
O WM39/WHF/86/8/15 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 is our conclusion 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 would 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.
_- _. _____--._a
4 WM39/WHF/86/8/15 Section 2.0, Interim Plan, Page 3 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 indicatons 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 ground water contamination and may miss important constituents that should be considered. Therefore, we recommend-that this statement be removed from the proposed plan.
t
. e N U S NUCLE AR KEGULATORY COMuiS5 SON T A5n NvY.t.a
, .A.C..Peron ti7E TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TASK CONTROL DIVISION OF WASTE MAN AGEMENT. NMSS 6 ALE NuveER
'\ TO .
F,.OM P. Tusfus VMGT WM 59 DECiS*0N wNr T PL ANNED ACCOvP NO H. kneo .w Mi u. ,,,A, sw ut.
TASK TITLE.
P- -..A Deaff DOF- Pla 4r he P,h h*.n AcLed. (usmAPh '
1 TASK DESCmWTION nne hu L t . .hd , 6 lear ck4.4 ml; u,iu s. , h < Ajed ele, ff-b oaw=AY' ine_LL'u n s.oa te, r b h Nec shJf c =M on h E
a Ane 'l int. veeJon af 4Cs A.cu rad. Piemu moL ud c, ...4
- a. & boa. res pe &<,s .
EeGc,a ce cook eG .%s sshwh clae.o.-E+ usee ,am.ede el 4s - -
Nak AE.+ m g ,tf L a m rA.
REQUESTEO COMPLETION D ATE RE v SEO COMPLtTION DATE ESTIMATf 0 5TAFF MOUms REOuimEO rosca enes e
s a , S (, I o-. I I add I I 'a-a i i a-=o I i T ASK ACTION IOsch oael l l SCHEDULE OUT 05 MOLD l l (Sose,47 INITI ATE NEWu TA$K l l REV15E TASK Usta OFFICE APPROWALS forners DATE TL LEA R DATE
-. M. _)l4A. pl6
_ EADE. c, . . .NC C _. E . i..,E
&# i
[
iO.TE 7 M ACTION OFFICE APPROVALS MA / (( [
7/t*
SECT >ON u ADE. < [OA1E
.u C. C ,E , joATE COMMENTS