ML20235U495

Forwards Draft, Options Study for Mgt of Commingled Waste from Umtrap, Per Request.Recommends That NRC Personnel Planning to Attend 890323 Meeting Review Rept in Advance

ML20235U495
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry, Sequoyah, 05000000
Issue date:	02/23/1989
From:	Matthews M, Mccoy F ENERGY, DEPT. OF, NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Kingsley O, Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
References
REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8903090228
Download: ML20235U495 (2)

Text

7.- L.

s

(

n; L

Department of Energy.

3

{ r Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400

. Albuqtjerque, New Mexico 87115

' MAR 0 2 1989 -

l:

b

.FEDEPR, EXPRESS Mr. Paul Ichaus, Chief -

' Division ~ of Im-Ievel Waste

- Management & Decommissioning Mail'Stop 5-E-4

'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission

Washington, D.C.

20555:

Dear Mr. Lohaus:

Enclosed for your information is a copy of a. letter received by the

.U.S. Department of Energy -(DOE) from the Colorado Department of-Health (CDH); regardinglcomingled waste on UMPRA Project sites 'in Colorado. In

^

the letter CDH suggests that'a meeting be convened between DOE, CDH,~and w

NRC to discuss policy. concerns. Debbie Mann of my staff has coordinated

'with Dan Gillen of your staff to tentatively schedule'a meeting..in Denver, Colorado, on March 23,'1989.

I As requested by Mr. Gillen, enclosed.is one copy of the draft " Options Study from the Uranium Mill. Tailings Remedial Action Program" prepared'by UNC Geotech in December.1988. It would be helpful if hTC personnel who plan to attend.the March 23 meeting review this report in advance.

Ms. Mann will continue to coordinate with Mr. Gillen to finalize plans for the~ March 23 meeting.. If you have any questions, Ms. Mann can be reached

-2t FTS 846-1243.

Sincerely, w

kt, Mark L. Matthews Acting Project Manager Uranium Mill Tailings Project Office Enclosures cc w/ enclosures:

.E. Hawkins, NRC-URFO cc w/o enclosures:

D. Gillen, NRC

.J. Garcia,'UMTRA 8903090228 890302 n

Q.-M't PDR WASTE I.

WM-39 PDC r

(-

e f.

,a

'LM'

.'L.

ej

% ~)

- s; STATE 03CO10MJO

. COLORADO' DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH f

1210 East 11th Avenue.

e# an, N-

[

Denver, Colorado 80220 f* ~ C - ['

l" Phone (301),320 8333

\\ kj[;,7/

p

\\

,/

l...

Roy Romer Govemur T homas M.' Vernon, 'M.D.

Isecutive Director '

-February 15. 1989 1

bhrk L. Phtthews Acting Pro,iect thnager Uranium Mill Tailincs Pro.iect Office Department of Energy P.O Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87115 Re: Handling Comingled Waste

Dear Fhrk:

.I am very concerned about the disposal of mill tailings combined with other hazardous constituents as part of the LMrRA Pro.iect in Colorado.

Currently this issue exists at the Rifle mill site and at'several vicinity properties (VPs) in Grand Junction.

I.would like to summarize-the' status,at these sites, outline our concerns and offer a plan for resolving,this issue at these sites and for similar future problems at other sites.

Status 1.

Rifle Mill. ' Radioactive hazardous material associated with processing has been identified including asbestos.-ar.enic caustic soda, chromiu.n, kerosene, PCBs, selenium, soda ash, sulfuric acid, vanadium and

. uranium. We've detennined that all waste associated with the processing of uranium is exempt from the Colorado Hazardous Waste Regulations.

However, waste associated with'the processing of vanadium as a separate product are not exempt and must be handled as an acute hazardous waste.

It is my understanding that this material would not be considered hazardous if it was sold for reuse or reprocessing and that SE-Ferguson is proceeding to identify a buver.

l i

i

'i i

.i 9*

r Mark L. Matthews 1ebruarv 15. 19 e Pace 'lwo 2.

Grand Junction \\ 1cinity Properties. UNC Geotech has identified 70 vicinity properties (VPs) containing mill tailings and other contaminants including petroleum products. EP toxic metals. ICBs and dioxins. They propose removing this comingled material from the VPs and temporarily storing it at the State owned repository until it can be transported for permanent disposal in the DifRA cell. This larger pro.iect was brought to our attention as a result of mishandling of arserac bearing tailings from GJ-0050G-CS. Despite our directive against disposal of hazardous materials EP toxic levels of arsenic and lead, mixed with tailings, were dumped by UNC's contractor in the State Repository. At a meeting on January 26, 1989 to discuss this problem with DOE and UNC, I advised that any further disposal of hazardous materials in the State Repository was unacceptable until DOE and Colorado have a mutually acceptable plan for handline the comingled waste.

In addition, I requested that all work on the 70 VPs with comingled waste, for which the State pays 10% of the cost, be discontinued until I advised DOE of this Department's concerns about use of the State Repository as a temporary storage site for hazardous materials.

Concerns The following questions relate primarily to the VPs in Grand Junction since the comingled waste issue is largely resolved at the Rifle Mill.

1.

' Liability. Would clean up of "non-processing" waste under OffRA impact liability from other laws, such as CERCLA, RCRA or TSCA to Colorado. DOE, NRC or contractors? For example, could we become a

" responsible party" at a site as a result of conducting OffRA remedial action or could we be liable under the requirements of some other law for releases of non-processing wastes from the State Repository or the disposal cell?

2.

Clean up and Disposal Standard. Would the clean up standard for comingled waste be the OffRA radiological standard or some standard for the non-radiological component, presumably set by CERCLA, RCRA or TSCA?

Further, would an OffRA storage and disposal standard apply or would regulations covering the non-radiological component apply or would a combination of the two apply?

3.

Public Policy. Should we expand OffRA funds to clean up sites for which a private responsibility exists under another law such as RCR\\,

CERCLA, or TSCA? The Hazardous Kaste Control Unit in our Division is currently pursuing enforcement action against a private party on a least one VP in Grand Junction.

In addition, should we epd OffRA funds on sites where we know that only a partial clean up can be achieved by OffRA? This would happen when the DTTRA clean up would leave non-radiological waste behind.

Further Action These questions are not easy to answer.

I have found car brief internal review of this issue to produce many questions and few answers.

I believe this is a direct resulu of multiple regulatory and technical complications.

-______-.__.___J

Mark L. $hthews February 15, 1989 hige Three In order to move foneard. I suggest we we convene a meetint between the IOE, NRC and Colorado to discuss poliev concerns related to this topic.

If, after this meeting, we agree that further work needs to be done in the way of legal research or site characterization, then we can provide the appropriate direction.

I do not believe contractor representatives are necessary at this meeting nor should we have more than two representatives from the principal agencies. We should view it as a scoping meeting to clarify concerns and frame any follow up action.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (303 ) 331-4813.

i Si aerely,

/

l

^

/

d j

A c/

waril L. Bischoff j

LMITL\\ Program thna p Hazardous Shterial. and Waste bhnagement Division EB:lh ec: D'ebbie Mann - DOE Jody Garcia - DOE Leo Little - DOE Eud Fran - CDH Mike Tucker - DOE l

l a