ML20245L224
| ML20245L224 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/18/1989 |
| From: | Hawkins E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Matthews M ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-64 NUDOCS 8907050409 | |
| Download: ML20245L224 (3) | |
Text
-
[k i,T is UNITED STATES b
}
' *[
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M
[
REolON IV i,
URANIUM RECOVERY FIELD OFFICE
. 4 m,,o box 25325 DENVER, COLORADO 80225 A
MAY I 81989 l
URFO:DLJ Docket No. WM-64 j
040WM064860E Mark L. Matthews, Acting Project Manager 1
Uranium Mill. Tailings Project Office U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations.0ffice P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115
Dear.Mr. Matthews:
StaffreviewofRevision3oftheLakeviewRemedialActionknspectionPlan (RAIP) dated April 6,1989, transmitted by your letter dated April 24, 1989, has been completed. As you are aware, any activities that DOE elects to perform prior to NRC concurrence are done at DOE's risk and in no way will influence our final decisions.. In this case, DOE placed radon barrier material, but the frequency of some testing was not in accordance with the guidance in our Staff Technical Position (STP) on testing.
However, we find that on a site-specific basis, the amount of testing for the Lakeview UMTRA Project is acceptabl e'.
This is based primarily on the staff's opinion that the specifications and the selective borrowing technique from the stockpile reportedly used during constr'uction of.the radon barrier were such that the relaxed testing frequencies were sufficient to provide the desired product.
The. proposed procedures for rock testing were also reviewed and found to be acceptable.
The procedures conformed to those identified in NRC's draft position on rock testing and scoring.
j As additional justification for your frequency of testing, you noted in your letter of April 24, 1989, that NRC had previously concurred in Revision 1 of
)
the Lakeview RAIP, which contained the testing frequency actually used.
The
'j testing frequencies proposed in Revision 2 were the same as they were in 1
Revision 1.
Normally, after concurrence in a RAIP, staff review of succeeding documents is limited to the revised areas only.
However, as you suggested and as indicated in our March 22, 1989 letter, Revision 2 was reviewed as an original document:
previous RAIP's were disregarded, and revision marks were ignored.
Therefore, even though the testing frequencies had previously been approved, they were now evaluated by the guidelines established in our current Staff Technical Position (STP) which prescribes more frequent testing.
That is why modification or justification of previously approved frequencies was requested.
It should be noted that the testing frequencies of the current STP l
will be used to evaluate all future RAIPs.
If you wish to deviate from the j
)
8907050409 890518 PDR WASTE I
I Wr1-64 PDC
y.
4'
.p MAY l 81989 2
guidelines established in the STP, you should provide substantiated justification.
If you have any questions, please contact D. L. Jacoby at FTS 776-2815.
Sincerely, g Edward F. Hawkins, Branch Chief y Uranium Recovery Field Office Region IV cc:
R. Richey, DOE M. Scoutaris, 00E Case Closed:
040WM064860E 1
i s
9
- t.
j 9.g.
j
"= g,;N,
~
l '
3.-
.-.. ?
Ti WM-64/860E/DLJ/89/05/11/L:
i DISTRIBUTION' Docket.. File WM-64~
-t PDR/DCS -.
.l
-ABBeach, RIV
- DJacoby-1 T01sen-RGonzales:
RCPD, NM;.
LLO Branch, LLWM.
URF0 r/f-l
'l a
CONCURRENCE:
DATE:
RGonzales/URF0 S//8/89
/
DJacoby/URF0 8
5/////f EHawkins/URF0 J
ff
'1mv
/'
//7 i
. _ - - _ _