ML24275A087
| ML24275A087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | WM-00073 |
| Issue date: | 10/07/2024 |
| From: | Hayes K NRC/NMSS/DDUWP/URMDB |
| To: | Frazier B US Dept of Energy, Office of Legacy Management |
| Shared Package | |
| ML24275A070 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML24275A087 (1) | |
Text
.
Bill Frazier, P.E., Site Manager U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management 2597 Legacy Way Grand Junction, CO 81503
SUBJECT:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS STAFF REVIEW OF THE JUNE 2023, DRAFT TUBA CITY, ARIZONA, DISPOSAL SITE, GROUNDWATER REMEDY PERFORMANCE UPDATE 2022
Dear Mr. Frazier:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is writing in response to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management (DOE-LM) document entitled, Draft Tuba City, Arizona, Disposal Site, Groundwater Remedy Performance Update 2022, dated June 2023 (Received September 28, 2023; Agencywide Documents Access and Management System [ADAMS] Package Accession No. ML23271A113). The following comments are provided:
1.
Table 5, Extraction Volume and Contaminant Mass Removed During Interim Active Treatment, 2014-2022, lists the total pounds of nitrate, sulfate, and uranium mass removed during the 101 days of active pumping during 2022 by extraction wells 1101, 1103, and 1105. The text on page 16 of the submittal indicates that water quality samples collected in August 2022 were used to estimate the mass removal volumes for each of the listed contaminants. Were these analytical results, which were not provided in the submittal, the result of samples collected at each individual extraction wellhead during pumping or was a blended sample of the influent groundwater from all three extraction wells collected from the piping downstream of the wells prior to discharge to the evaporation pond? If analytical results are available from each extraction wellhead, are the concentrations exhibited by each extraction well representative of the dissolved plume concentrations shown in the vicinity of each extraction well on Figures 7, 8, and 9? NRC would appreciate additional details on the sampling conducted, including the analytical results from the laboratory.
2.
The nitrate concentration gradient key shown in Figure 8 does not accurately represent the nitrate concentrations shown in the nitrate plumes. Similarly, the sulfate concentration gradient key shown in Figure 9 does not accurately represent the sulfate plume concentrations shown in the figure. The concentration gradient keys appear to be the same color and numeric October 7, 2024
B. Frazier intervals used for the uranium maps in Figure 7. Please correct the concentration gradient keys for the affected maps and re-submit.
3.
The operating extraction wells shown on Figure 10 of the submittal are not labeled with the extraction well designations. Please add the active extraction well designations to a figure clearly showing the extraction well locations and re-submit.
4.
Please provide water elevation data, laboratory analytical results, and any field parameter-related/purging data sheets for well gauging and well sampling activities conducted during 2022.
If you have any questions concerning the NRC review of the report, please contact me at 301-415-0549 or by email at Kevin.Hayes@nrc.gov.
Sincerely, Kevin R. Hayes, P.G., CPG, Hydrogeologist Uranium Recovery and Materials Decommissioning Branch Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Docket Numbers: WM-00073 cc: Tuba City, AZ ListServ List Signed by Hayes, Kevin on 10/07/24
ML24275A070; Ltr ML24275A087 OFFICE NMSS/DUWP/URMDB NMSS/DUWP/URMDB NAME RVonTill KHayes DATE Oct 7, 2024 Oct 7, 2024