ML20236C519
| ML20236C519 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/19/1987 |
| From: | Weber M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Fliegel M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236C520 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8710270232 | |
| Download: ML20236C519 (5) | |
Text
__
v M rg n[f raa !ome rih owa w,
= -. -.. -
WM-39/MFW/87/10/14/GW p;y; _ _ LP rC__
007 19 1987 w'
'n:
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Myron H. Fliegel, Section Leaderg ggg[-
g Operations Branch
,,7 -
4 Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning i
FROM:
Michael F. Weber j
Operations Branch j
Division of Low-Level Waste Management
'l and Decommissioning
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
NOTES FROM THE NRC/ DOE MEETING'ABOUT THE UMTRA PROJECT ON OCTOBER 14, 1987 Please find enclosed summary notes from the NRC/D0E meeting about the I
UMTRA Project, which was held on October 14, 1987.
If you have any questions j
l or comments about the notes, please contact me on telephone extension x74746.
Original Signed By Michael F. Weber Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning
Enclosure:
As Stated Distribution vlLWM s/f MWeber NMSS r/f DSollenberger LLOB r/f GGnugnoli MKnapp SBillhorn JGreeves MDunkelman PLohaus RStarmer JSurmeier KDragonette-MKearney MTokar RDSmith, URF0 MHaisfield, RES DEC
- LLOB fff[
...__:____/...... :__..........:..........__:...........:______. __..:........____:......___..
NAME :MWeber DATE:87/10/7 8710270232 871019
/
-,--__~~_m
j 1
l 1
c
\\
OCT I S 1967
SUMMARY
NOTES DOE /NRC MEETING ABOUT THE UMTRA PROJECT I
Date:
October 14, 1987 Time:
8:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.
Place:
Seventh floor conference room, Willste Building, Silver Spring, Maryland
Participants:
See enclosed list Agenda:
See enclosed agenda Summary:
After a brief discussion of the proposed agenda for the l
meeting, DOE summarized its comparative assessment of soil and rock covers to stabilize uranium mill tailings at Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project (UMTRAP) sites. The results of this assessment are provided in the enclosed letter to Paul Lohaus from James Anderson, 00E/Al., dated October 2, 1987.
00E stated that, on the average, soil covers cost $1.1 million more than rock armored covers for UMTRAP sites.
However, DOE also stated that hauling-cost (i.e., distance to borrow areas) makes up a considerable fraction of the total cost of covers. Thus, soil covers may be considerably less expensive than covers armored with rock if the rock must be hauled large distances to the disposal site. DOE stated that it will propose rock or soil covers based on site-specific assessments of the performance and cost of the alternative designs.
After the discussion of cover costs, DOE summarized its efforts to develop criteria for disposition of demolition rubble from remedial action at UMTRAP sites [see enclosed correspondence on building demolition). DOE's first preference is to decontaminate mill buildings, if practical and acceptable, for unrestricted uses (e.g., mill buildings at Green River).
When such decontamination cannot be performed at a reasonable cost and in a. manner that is protective of the public health and safety, however, DOE prefers to dispose of contaminated demolition rubble in trenches excavated adjacent to tailings disposal embankments.
NRC suggested that DOE consider the concepts in NRC's BRC policy statement and implementation guidance and 10 CFR Part 61 in developing criteria to' determine when demolition rubble constitutes "non-radioactive" waste under the definition of residual radioactive material in Section 101 of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.
In discussing schedules for the UMTRA Project, DOE stated that it is currently requesting the U.S. Congress to extend the
c, i
OCT. r 19W WM-39/MFW/87/10/14/ NOTES -
Project until 1994. DOE considers that this estension is:
sufficient to complete remedial actions!other than' those -
)
specifically. intended to protect groundwater in compliance with EPA's proposed standards.
DOE stated its desire to complete 4
the certification process for the Canonsburg and Shiprock sites i
to provide'a basis for'progrannatic' planning for close-out ~of l
the.UMTRA Project. DOE and NRC agreed.that open issues should' i
be'sufficiently resolved prior:to NRC' concurrence with site certifications.. DOE also described the site-specific and generic actions that it has recently performed in response to NRC's identification of the rock quality issue.at'.Canonsburg.
D0E and'NRC then discussed the process for interaction'of the.
two agencies during preparation and approval of-preliminary and final site designs. NRC and DOE. agreed on the need for timely identification of issues that could preclude NRC concurrence.
with Remedial Action' Plans and site certification. DOE also requested more routine feedback from NRC'regarding internal scheduling of reviews.
NRC asked DOE about whether DOE will implement additional characterization or remedial action to comply with the draft EPA groundwater protection standards before they are promulgated. Although DOE' may conduct some additional site l
characterization, DOE stated that it will not implement any remedial action to comply with the standards until after they have been finalized. NRC noted.Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act, which states that after October 1,'1982, ~ draft EPA standardrs are effective until: EPA promulgates final standards.
1 DOE stated that it disagrees 'with portions.of the draf t standards and, therefore,'would be at risk if it initiated aquifer restoration and other protective actions prior to'.
promulgation of the standards.. DOE also stated that it wil.1 meet with EPA staff on. 0ctober 15,--1987, to discuss development of cleanup criteria for non-radiological contaminants (e.g.,
arsenic at Lakeview, molybdenum at Belfield and Bowman) in scils I
at UMTRAP sites.
DOE agreed to keep NRC informed of the development of the cleanup criteria and associated discussions with EPA.
Action Items:
1.
NRC (Lohaus) will provide DOE (Arthur) with NRC's (1) BRC policy statement and implementation guidance, (2) licensing requirements for land disposal of radioactive waste (10 CFR. 61), and (3) guidance on decommissioning criteria for contaminated aquipment and rubble by October 30, 1987, 2.
DOE ( Arthur) will provide' NRC (Lohaus) with assessments.of criteria' for disposition of demolition rubble at UMTRAP sites after they are developed by 00E.
ag -
9:
~,..
i J.
OCT '19 287
'WM-39/MFW/87/10/14/ NOTES.
-3..
t l-3.- DOE'(Arthur) will provide NRC L(Lohaus)! with' a" responseLto
'the' rock quality issue raised by NRC at the'Canonsburg site'by.
' October-28, 1987..
(4),DOEL(Arthur)will; keep'NRC.(Lohaus)' informed"aboutLthe E
development of fcleanup criteria for, non-radiological contaminants (e.g'.,' arsenic. and l molybdenum)iintsoils Lat' UMTRAPL it Lsites and associated' discussions with EPA.
o
~
1 (5)'NRC (Smith) will' provide DOE (Anderson) with comments about l
- theLdesign for stabilization.of UMTRAP. sites atLTuba City:and y
Ambrosia Lake by October 31 and November'30,'1987, respectively.'-
(6) NRC~ (Lohaus) will provide DOE (Arthur) with' appropriate
- s
. internal schedules.for VMTRAPl reviews on.a monthly basis 1
beginning November 1, 1987.
I
Enclosures:
As Stated s
t O
i I
l
R-a o
WM-39/MFW/87/10/14/NOTEST
. y AGENDA 1
i 1
DOE /NRC MEETING.ABOUT THE UMTRA PROJECT.
j
-October 14, 1987 Silver. Spring, Maryland.
~]
l
^
Introduction' DOE /NRC
-Cost Comparison: Soil vs. Rock Covers at Selected UMTRAP Sites' 00E Criteria for Disposition of Demolition Rubble l
at UMTRAP Sites DOE-UMTRA Project Schedules and General Issues DOE /NRC l
Discussion 00E/NRC Su'mmary and Concluding Remarks
. DOE /NRC -l l
l j
i l.
l l
l
.t:.-
P l-1
(
.__..._._______._m_m-