2008/03/12 Shieldalloy-DP - Table & Bridgeline Info for 3 ...
[Pages:12]From: To: Date: Subject: cc:
John Hayes "David Smith" 3/12/2008 2:53:27 PM Table & Bridgeline Info for 3/13/08 calls ,
See attached for information on RAIs to be discussed on 3/13/08 during both calls Bridgeline No 888 810-3145 Passcode 24056 9 - 11 AM
Bridgeline No 888 928-9527 Passcode 24056 1:30 - 3:30 PM Thanks, Jack
Hearing Identifier: Email Number:
Shieldalloy_DP_Public 59
Mail Envelope Properties (47D7EE69.HQGWDO01.TWGWPO02.100.131646F.1.657.1)
Subject: Creation Date: From:
Table & Bridgeline Info for 3/13/08 calls 3/12/2008 2:53:27 PM John Hayes
Created By:
JJH@
Recipients "David Smith"
Post Office TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01
Route
Files
Size
Date & Time
MESSAGE
231
3/12/2008 2:53:27 PM
RAI Table on eligibility determination for restricted use 0312208.wpd
3/12/2008 2:53:29 PM
41757
Options Priority: Reply Requested: Return Notification:
Standard No None None
Concealed Subject: Security:
No Standard
DWS Input
page 1
draft 02/08/2008
RAI No. 7
Issue
Bases for radionuclide concentrations of materials proposed for consolidation in restricted area.
Reviewers Schmidt
8
Bases for volumes of Schmidt
contaminated
materials of
materials proposed
for consolidation in
restricted area.
9
Contamination in
Schmidt,
Hudson Branch &
Walker
meeting of
radiological criteria.
Discussion Topics/Issues
Specifics
SMC committed to obtaining additional characterization data, and committed to preparing a "source term document," an appendix to the DP.
NRC Staff: Approach appears acceptable. Staff will review source term document as part of DP Rev 1 b.
SMC committed to preparing a "source term document," an appendix to the DP.
NRC Staff: Approach appears acceptable. Staff will review source term document as part of DP Rev 1 b.
characterization and possible remediation, conclusion that meet unrestricted use criteria
SMC committed to obtaining additional characterization of Hudson Branch. SMC proposed comparing data to unrestricted use DCGLs, to determine if remediation is needed. SMC also will provide classification for FSS.
NRC staff clarifies: Approach appears acceptable, but the staff notes that SMC did not mention DCGLs specific to Hudson Branch. In its DP Rev 1b, SMC should justify the applicability of the DCGLs that are proposed for comparison of the soils and sediments along the Hudson Branch. Staff will review additional characterization and conclusions about remediation and FSS as part of DP Rev 1b.
DWS Input
page 2
draft 02/08/2008
RAI No. 10
Issue Data requirements for unidentified or insufficiently characterized soils
Reviewers Schmidt
27
?20.1403(a):
Schmidt
compliance method
Discussion Topics/Issues Characterization of areas not yet identified or insufficiently characterized
ALARA and net harm include more than the readily quantified benefits and costs
Specifics
SMC's response focused primarily on two specific areas. SMC committed to additional characterization and to revising discussion in Section 14.1 of the DP. SMC also stated that SMC is unaware of other locations on the property where slag may have been buried.
NRC staff clarifies: Approach appears acceptable, but staff notes that it is unclear if the DP Rev 1b will address the more general issue of uncharacterized areas (in addition to the 2 specific areas). SMC has not demonstrated (via historical information or characterization information) that there are not additional areas of contamination Staff will review additional characterization and conclusions about remediation and FSS as part of DP Rev 1b.
SMC stated that it it will rely on both eligibility criteria (net harm and ALARA). In discussing net harm, SMC discussed only the total risk of fatalities. In discussing ALARA, SMC stated that the LTC option provides the lowest cost and the lowest risk to a member of the public.
NRC staff clarifies: It appears SMC may not completely understand the RAI. First, meeting both criteria is not required. In addition, in the response to this RAI, the focus was on the more readily quantifiable costs and benefits (doses, accident fatalities). SMC should consider the issues raised in RAIs 28 and 32.
DWS Input
RAI No. 28
Issue
?20.1403(a): demonstrate net harm
page 3
draft 02/08/2008
Reviewers Schmidt
Discussion Topics/Issues
compare benefits to detriments, without cost of remediation
Specifics
SMC stated that collective dose from the LTC option is less than for LT or LC options and thus there is net harm. SMC is updating dose analyses, so final results are dependent on update. Part of SMC's response stated that SMC intends to make clear that there is "...net harm from implementing other than the LTC option due to higher cost and greater risk."
NRC staff clarifies: The staff notes that SMC refers to "higher cost" as a basis for net harm. In addition, SMC's response focused on doses averted. However, the net harm analysis should include all parts of the ALARA evaluation that relate to costs to the public, but should not account for the costs of remedial action. The NRC staff will review the revision to be provided in DP Rev 1b with these points in mind.
DWS Input
page 4
draft 02/08/2008
RAI No. 29
Issue
?20.1403(a): incremental changes to proposed restricted use action
Reviewers Schmidt
30
?20.1403(a):
Schmidt
compare benefits
and detriments
31
?20.1403(a): minimal Schmidt
incremental actions
Discussion Topics/Issues
incremental changes to restricted use proposal
Specifics
SMC stated that it does not expect different conclusions from incremental analyses. Part of SMC's reasoning is based on rejection of certain options because the option does not permit unrestricted use. However, SMC committed to performing certain incremental analyses, after revising dose analyses.
NRC staff clarifies: It appears to staff that SMC may misunderstand the original RAI. The incremental changes to the proposed restricted use approach do not have to result in unrestricted use; in fact some potential incremental changes would still result in restricted use of the site, but with potential changes in doses or other costs or benefits. The incremental changes that SMC committed to evaluate may be appropriate. The staff will review the revision to be provided in DP Rev 1b.
SMC committed to providing a more detailed presentation of benefits of dose averted.
NRC staff: Approach appears acceptable. Staff will review revision to be provided in DP Rev 1b.
SMC refers to response to RAI 29.
NRC staff: Staff will evaluate with evaluation of the response to RAI 29.
DWS Input
page 5
draft 02/08/2008
RAI No. 32
Issue
?20.1403(a): other societal and socioeconomic considerations
Reviewers Schmidt
33
?20.1403(a): sale of Schmidt
slag to IUC mill
34
?20.1403(e): ALARA Schmidt
for controls not in
effect
Discussion Topics/Issues difficult to quantify benefits and detriments
feasibility of uranium recovery
Specifics
SMC provided a brief discussion of potential change in land values associated with unrestricted use of the site. SMC provided brief reasoning that public opposition will be reduced and that aesthetic benefits cannot be reasonably assessed.
NRC staff: The staff will review the section of the DP Rev 1b. Evaluation of the response will depend also on the response to RAI 13.
SMC's response discusses commercial viability of sending slag to a uranium mill for uranium recovery processing.
NRC staff clarifies: It is unclear from the response whether sending slag to IUC would be more cost-effective than sending for disposal as proposed. It appears to staff that the response addresses commercial viability rather than viability as a decommissioning alternative. In the Section 7.1.4 that SMC plans to add to the DP Rev 1b, SMC should clearly address viability as a decommissioning alternative. The point is whether this option might be more cost-beneficial than the disposal option (LT) or restricted use option currently described.
SMC committed to provide a demonstration of ALARA for controls not in effect in its DP Rev 1b.
NRC staff: Revision will be provided in Rev. 1b. staff will review DP Rev 1b.
DWS Input
page 6
draft 02/08/2008
RAI No. 35
Issue
ALARA/cost-benefit: doses should be over 1000 years
Reviewers Schmidt
36
ALARA/cost-benefit: Schmidt
consider land use
over 1000 years
37
ALARA/cost-benefit: Schmidt
provide comparison
38
ALARA/cost-benefit: Schmidt
use of zero or low
discount rate
Discussion Topics/Issues
Specifics
SMC committed to calculating doses or doses averted over the 1000-year compliance period.
NRC staff: Approach appears acceptable. Satff will review DP Rev 1b. The staff notes that this RAI may also depend on the resolution of RAI 18 (issue of 1000 years).
SMC referred to their response to RAI 13.
NRC staff: Evaluation is partially dependent on response to RAI 13. Staff will review Rev 1b along with revisions to DP described in response to RAI 13.
SMC committed to including a description of all costs and benefits in the DP Rev 1b.
NRC staff: Approach appears acceptable. Staff will review the DP Rev 1b.
SMC committed to revising Chapter 7, in the DP Rev 1b, to include an undiscounted cost of present worth of the doses. SMC committed that if discount rates are applied, they will use a 1% rate and/or perform a sensitivity analysis.
NRC staff: Approach, including the use of no discounting, as committed, appears acceptable. Staff will review the DP Rev 1b.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- compliance enforcement state
- enviroflash fact sheet
- new jersey clean air council clean us
- frequently asked questions and us
- code of ethics of the department of environmental protection
- technical guidance overview us
- dep srp technical guidance us
- 2008 03 12 shieldalloy dp table bridgeline info for 3
- the new jersey wastewise bulletin
- njdep technical guidance document review form
Related searches
- free printable worksheet for 3 grade
- printable math worksheets for 3 grade
- worksheets for 3 year olds
- crafts for 3 year olds
- math activities for 3 year olds
- worksheets for 3 years old
- table of elements for kids
- russia info for kids
- table decoration centerpieces for january
- nutritional info for coffee
- table centerpiece ideas for men
- table decoration ideas for parties