ML20136J194
| ML20136J194 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/23/1985 |
| From: | Higginbotham L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Themelis J ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8601130262 | |
| Download: ML20136J194 (9) | |
Text
pq WM Recod file WMP.y 1 M L_ __
Detktt No._ /~ __
PDL WM39/6HG/85/12/13/1 Djstybut.kh (Return I U ld.~521$ 5 _ _. _ _ _.
Mr. John G. Themelis, Project Manager D stribution Uranium Mill Tailings Project Office WM39 s/f U.S. Department of Energy WMLU r/f Albuquerque Operations Office NMSS s/f Post Office Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115
Dear Mr. Themelis:
Enclosed please find specific comments on the revised Certification Plan for Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Processing Sites.
The NRC staff has reviewed this revision in light of the mid-September, 1985 meetings in Canonsburg, PA on the certification process for UMTRAP.
I was encouraged to see that the revised plan reflects that the certification and licensing processes are distinct. NRC staff is presently working towards a licensing guidance document, which should be available early next year.
As a result of the court decision last September, which set aside the ground-water portion of the EPA standards, I recommend that the Certification Plan remain an interim document until EPA has been able to adequately address the court's concern regarding ground-water protection at UMTRA sites.
Specifically addressing the Certification Plan, I point out the following observations and concerns:
1.
The plan frequently mentions that DOE certifies that the remedial action is completed so as to meet the EPA standards. Although that is necessary, the remedial action must be completed in accordance with the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) with which NRC must concur.
2.
The plan gives the impression that DOE will certify remedial action completion at processing sites. The document should clearly state that this means that 00E will certify remedial action completion at processing sites and disposal sites, in the case that the residual radioactive material is relocated elsewhere.
3.
One major goal of the Canonsburg meetings was to make the certification package manageable so as to streamline the review process. The NRC staff agreed to deletion of a great deal of information, which would normally not be needed to come to a conclusion regarding remedial action completion. However, should the certification package reference other documents, these should be available (i.e. finalized, bound and printed) 8601130262 051223 PDR WASTE WM-39 PDR_
0FC
- WMLU:rj
- WMLU
- WMLU NAME :GN Gnugnoli :DE Martin
- LB Higginbotham DATE :85/12/
- 85/12/
- 85/12/
i WM39/GNG/85/12/13/1 DEC 2 3 M5 upon NRC request should they become necessary.
Failure to do so would only delay the full concurrence in completion.
4.
There is still some ambiguity in the roles of NRC, States, Indian Tribes, DOE and DOE contractors in the certification process. Specifically, the plan refers to approved design changes without identifying the approving parties. A table of such responsibilities and corresponding parties during the various stages of remedial action, modification and determination of completion would easily resolve this ambiguity.
5.
In the case that aquifer restoration is part of the remedial action, NRC concurrence with the determination of completion may be conditional until it is demonstrated that the restoration strategy is progressing successfully.
If not, another alternative would need to be considered e.g. providing an alternate water supply.
The enclosure contains comments, some of which are designated as not having been resolved from NRC's review of the July,1985 draft plan.
Due to the brief outline nature of the plan, it is impossible to detennine whether these repeated comments would be routinely addressed under one of the many headings in the Site Certification Report.
In order to resolve this concern without needlessly enlarging the Certification Plan, it would be extremely useful if you were to individually address in writing the cormlents and questions raised in this transmittal.
Should you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me or Giorgio Gnugnoli of my staff.
Sincerely, Ongmal signet by
@ 4 Il4 G a h ana Leo B. Higginbotham, Chief Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material and Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
J. Baublitz, 00E/HQ, w/ encl.
W. J. Arthur, DOE /AL, w/ encl.
]
- WM U
(
2FC
- WyC r ~'
- WMLU
}4.___:.
NAME : N, g oli :,E artin
- n i
J nbotham i
DATE :85/12/ / r
- 85/12/l0
- 85/12/p
ENCLOSURE SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DOE CERTIFICATION PLAN Cover Memorandum o
The Cover Memorandum states that the revised plan includes expansion of the type of information to be included in the certification report.
It appears that, in fact, the plan has been reduced in scope and content.
x o
It is stated that verification ceasurement results for non-radiological contamination will not be routinely provided in the Site Certification Report (SCR), unless such a measurement program has been established in the RAP or in an approved RAP modification.
Since the generic plan will not address such a possibility, 00E will have no indication from NRC on what is required to certify that the remedial action has been sucessfully completed with regard to non-radiological concerns. DOE should seriously consider addressing this issue in the generic design manual being prepared for UMTRAP.
o it is stated that approved RAP modifications will be summarized in the Certification Report, but such a summary is not spocifically menttoned in the Certification Plan.
Table of Contents o
The table titles and page numbers are not consistent with those in the plan itself.
1.1 Purpose o
It is not clear what is meant by "necessary institutional controls" in the certification process.* The plan does not appear to identify any controls as such.
The asterisk indicates comments which were raised by NRC resulting from the review of the July, 1985 draft. These did not appear to be addressed in this revision.
4
=
2 1.2 Certification Policy and Methods o
It is not clear why DOE elected to delete the discussion of the contractor's obligation to adhere to design specifications and to document construction activity.
Furthermore, the deletion of any mention of how design changes are handled reduces this section to a description of the contents of the Site Certification Report.
o First paragraph, Page 2 The composition of records and information in the Site Completion Report (SCR) varies from that in Figure 1, Section 1.2 (Firstparagraph,Pa B.2 (Page 3) and Section 2.2 (Page 4)ge 2), Section 2.0 These descriptions should be consistent.
The " established guidelines" by which design changes would be processed are not specified.
Furthermore, requirement for NRC concurrence should be identified as one of these, o
Second paragraph, Page 2 NRC is omitted from the list of agencies performing independent surveillances and audits of remedial action construction.*
It would strengthen the statements about the construction surveillances by indicating that the NRC concurs in the Remedial Action Inspection Plan (RAIP).
o Third paragraph, Page 2 The statement should read that the remedial action is completed (with the concurrence of NRC) in accordance with the requirements imposed pursuant to UMTRCA, Title I.
Should design aspects in the RAP not be specifically tied to the EPA standards, DOE would still need to evidence the implementation and completion of these aspects as well.
Figure 1 o
NRC is not mentioned in the concurrence role for the remedial action nor is it indicated as performing audits and concurring with design charges.*
2.0 Certification Report o
The Certification Report should state that the discovery of any nu information or data which could affect compliance with EPA standards would
s 3
be handled by means of modifications to the RAP. The NRC would then review the Certification Report in light of the chronology of NRC-concurred revisions, which would be included in the certification package subnitted to NRC (The meetings in Canonsburg in September,1985 indicated that such a RAP modification / resolution tracking system would be included). Examples of this kind of information would include increased volumes of contaminated material, unexpected radioactive or non-radioactive substances, or the discovery of faults, fractures or other unexpected geologic features o
The Certification Report should include a chronological summary of modifications and other actions, as well as the NRC-approved resolutions, which affect the status of the RAP and associated design from initial concurrence to the completion of remedial action. Such a summary would greatly expedite NRC review and concurrence with the certification.
If construction initiates after only conditional concurrence from NRC, the chronology should start at that time.*
2.1 00E Certification Statement o
As previously mentioned, the certification statement should indicate that the design and criteria established (and having NRC concurrence) in the RAP have been successfully met. The original wording in the July, 1985 draftiappears to be more appropriate.
o First paragraph, Page 4 The maintenance, monitoring or concerns to be addressed in the licensing process will be NRC-required not necessarily
" suggested".
2.2 Site Completion Report o
Using the term " processing" site should be explained to include
" disposal" site.
The NRC will concur only after remedial action is completed, and this applies to both locations, when residual radioactive material is relocated.
o It is not clear whether the TAC will review the report before DOE reviews and apprcves it.*
o It is essential that deviations from the RAP, not just construction changes, be documented and chronologized, along with the NRC concurrence for such changes.*
4 o
It is not clear whether the outline in Appendix 2 refers to the completion report or a completion report summary.*
o It is suggested that although DOE acknowledges that the report is prepared by the RAC, it should be referred to as the DOE's Certification Report.*
2.3 Quality Assurance Audit Reports o
It is not clear under which criteria the QA audits will be perfo rmed.*
o QA/QC procedures may be identified by NRC in order to ascertain compliance with EPA standards. The RAP would have to be revised accordingly, and the subsequent implementation would need to be acknowledged and certified in the completion report.*
o Qualifications for auditors are included in the RAIP; these could then be deleted from the Site Certification Plans.
2.3.2 Radiological and Construction Surveillance Reports o
The DOE-approved procedures used to conduct surveillances should be clearly specified and/or referenced. Copies of these should be made available, if not already done so.*
Furthermore, the present version has deleted the few benchmarks originally listed in the July, 1985 draft, such as the contractor's radiological survey plans, the RAIP, etc...
o All references to minimum qualifications for the DOE and contractor inspection personnel were deleted.
Prior to concurring with the RAIP, NRC will need to review such qualifications on a site-by-site basis.*
c This section should identify (maps) and describe wells and drill holes sealed during remedial action activities.
Specifics could be provided in Appendix E, H or J.
2.3.4 Summaries of Other Surveillance Reports o
Summaries of all NRC audits with DOE's resolutions should be included as part of the certif cation package to be used by NRC for its review and cuncurrence role.*
m
5 3.0 Certification Procedures e
o It is not clear why DOE deleted this entire section. This is the major portion of such a generic document. Without this section, this plan becomes a description of the SCR, and as such it does not provide any guidance or information on how certification works except to collect records, documents and data. This section should outline ~
how 00E will utilize such information to evidence that the completed action meets the criteria and designs laid out in the RAP.
APPENDIX 1 o
The Certification Statement should clearly state the significance of NRC's concurrence signature:
NRC concurs with DOE's determination to the best of its knowledge based on independent periodic visitations and review of documentation provided by the DOE.*
APPENDIX 2 II. Design Assessment Summary o
The outline does not provide sufficient explanation of the itemized components to permit an understanding of the scope and content of these components.
For example, "II.1.a. Criterial evaluation," could be interpreted to refer to the EPA criteria, the remedial action plan design criteria, or whether these criteria are the same as those listed in "II.2.
List of Criteria approved by DOE /NRC/ State / Tribes."*
o It is not clear why item 6 (Changes in design which were made during construction and which affect the previously approved criteria.) was dropped. These changes need to be summarized, if not in this section, then elsewhere.
III. Remedial Action Assessment o
As in Section II above, there is insufficient explanation of the itemized components to understand their scope and extent of detail.*
o Item 2.2 doesn't include photographs of in-progress construction activities.
This was discussed at the Canonsburg meetings and i
should be included.
l a
.----------,n..-.
i 6
o Although non-radiological measures for verifications will not be routinely addressed in all site verification reports, the DOE should include the general descriptions of methodology for the cases in which such measures will be needed.
It appears to be appropriate to mention this in this section, as well as in 4
Appendix J.
It is unclear why the item on deviations from the RAP was dropped, o
The average of the results from geotechnical testing (item 3) may be o
inadequate.
For parameters such as compaction and moisture content, the range and variability are necessary to evaluate adequacy.
Furthermore, this section should include a statement on the percentage of tests failing to meet specifications and how such non-compliances were rectified.
(Further details should be included in Appendix E) o The summary of the completed condition has been reduced from the description in the draft plan. This aspect of the document is extremely important to the NRC for its licensing function, as well as for decisions regarding the maintenance and monitoring after licensing. This may include items such as:
description and identification (including maps) of wells and drill holes sealed during remedial action activities.
description summary of ground-water quality of the pertinent aquifers.
description summary of any continuing activities prior to licensing.
IV.
CERTIFICATION BASES o
This section should also include a brief DOE evaluation of the RAC rationale used to recommend certification, as well as a brief evaluation of the evidence presented, With the deletion of the section on certification procedures in the o
body of the plan, the bases for such a certification are unclear.*
APPENDIX A DESIGN CRITERIA o
Should example 12 read, "End use restrictions?"*
t i
9
b 7
This section should provide a rationale or procedure for determining o
how to identify specific criteria requiring such approval.
For example, providing an alternate water supply is not on the list.*
APPENDICES B-D o
It is recorrmended that the words "a complete set of" be deleted. Per discussions at the Canonsburg meetings, if more data, records, calculations or other information will be needed to make a concurrence determination, DOE will provide it to NRC upon request.*
o The summary of changes should briefly identify what was changed, why it was changed, what parties reviewed and approved the change and should evidence how the change was successful. Any documentation of necessary notifications, approvals and/or concurrences should be at least referenced.
APPENDIX 0 o
The following sentences in this appendix appear to be applicable to the entire certification package:
"A final report will document any changes made to the Remedial Action Plan and will describe the construction change and date of approval by DOE and NRC. This report should also identify any difficulties that occurred during construction."
Furthermore, it is unclear whether this " Report" is an addendum to Appendix D or a separate report entirely.
APPENDICES E, G, H, and J o
Although the DOE doesn't expect to include non-radiological verification measurements routinely at sites, the generic UMTRA Certification Plan should address how the DOE would evidence that any related mitigation of a non-radiological nature had been successful.
The example of chromium and organics at Canonsburg and organics at Lakeview should provide a sufficient starting point for development of procedures and verification methods.*