ML20033A210
| ML20033A210 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/19/1981 |
| From: | Shaffer W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Scarano R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8111240915 | |
| Download: ML20033A210 (29) | |
Text
h M wuun vw-os
' *{ g -
- g
,31 DISTRIBUTION:
WMUR w/f s
[
WMUR r/f g4 f
W r/f NMSS r/f OCT t 91981 PDR WShaffer DMArtin WM-39, POR Brisher JLinehan HPettengill RScarano MEMORANDUM FOR:
Ross A. Scarano, Chief REBrowning Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch Jarartin N
o Waste Management Division THRU:
Dan E. Martin, Section Leader h@
\\@
New Facility Section
~
g Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch
<3
()
Waste Management Division
/g p.
i FROM:
William M. Shaffer III, Project Manager I'
New Facility Section Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch f
Waste Management Division
SUBJECT:
VMTRAP DOE PROGRAM REVIEW, SEPTEMBER 11, 1981, DOE-GERMANTOWN, MD
Background
On September 11, 1981, I attended the subject UMTRAP program review presented by Richard H. Campbell, Project Manager, UMTRAP Project Office, DOE-Albuquerque.
This memorandum is primarily to highlight the significant points presented at that review and the FY-1982 outlook for the program in particular.
In addition, I have attempted to assess what impact currently planned VMTRAP activities may have on NRC staff workload during FY-1982 in order for the NRC to continue fulfilling its UMTRCA Title I responsibilities to oversee and concur in sigreifi-cant program decisions.
Attachments I-V are copies of the DOE program review slides which are focused on in this memorandum.
Attachments II, III, and IV have been marked up by me to focus en FY-1982 in particular. Attachment VI ir, a complete copy of the slides presented at the review.
All of these slides show that since the April 15, 1981 UMTRAP program review, the scope, costs, and schedule for the program have received considerable attention and planned revision as a result of the anticipated delay, until January 1983, in the EPA's promulgation of final Cleanup and Dicposal Standards applicable to the UMTPAP (40 CFR 192).
Program Scope Versus Cost Scope Attachment I is a map showing the location of all 25 UMTRAP sites.
The total number of sites, and the specific sites themselves, remain the same as originally designated by the UMTRCA of 1978 plus those designated af ter the Act was passed.
This total will drop to 24 in the near future, however, because it has been finally determined by DOE that the Ba0gs, WY site does not qualify as 811124'0915 811019" PDR WASTE WM-39 PDR y
~.
Ross A. Scarano 2
UCT 191981 an UMTRAP site. This site, therefore, is in the process of being undesi nated.
0 I asked what the future status of the Baggs site was anticipated to be as a result of this planned' action.
The response was that this was not currently known.
Approximately 11,000 tons of tailings are currently located at Baggs on 0.4 acres out of a total site area of 11 acres.
The land is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Cost In April 1981 the UMTRAP cost over its life was estimated at $474 million in constant CY-1981 dollars.
This was based on conducting remedial action to meet the initially proposed EPA Standards and relocating tailings from the nine "High" priority UMTRAP sites.
At this time, a DOE synthesized conjecture of anticipated relaxed Final EPA Standards is assumed allowing remedial action to proceed based on the relocation of only one site (Durango, CO) and stabilizing the remainder in place.
As can be seen though from Attachment II, the revised overall program estimate is now $502 million (constant CY-1981$) or $800 million in projected escalated actual outlay dollars.
Program Schedule The Final EPA Standards for UMTRAP sites are currently assumed, based on recent EPA plans and Congressional testimony, to be available in January 1983 rather than October 1981 as was previously assumed.
Since detailed remedial action project design and construction activities cannot proceed before these standards are finalized, initiation of the remedial action phase of the legisla-tively mandated 7 year program life has had to be delayed for planning purposes by over a year.
This is reflected in Attachmer.t III by delays in all the final project completion dates shown with the last one being completed at the end of CY-1989.
Final program termination activities are planned for early CY-1990.
This delay has had the expected negative impact on the overall program cost shown in Attachment II due to inflation and the addition of another year's program activities.
Preparation of NEPA documentation and completion of other preremedial action activities may, however, proceed to the extent possible in advance of final EPA standards.
As shown in Attachment IV, a heavy schedule of DEIS preparation is therefore assumed durirg CY-1982 and early CY-1983 for those s*tes whose remedial action is anticipated to have significant environmental impact whether relocated or stabilized in place.
This will be preceded by preparation of revised and updated Remedial Action Concept Papers (RACPs) reflecting latest program planning assumptions.
Attachment V gives the current status of these and other important preremedial action milestones for the four highest priority UMTRAP sites.
None of these activities has been, or are planned to be, tempo-rarily terminated due to the expected delay in availability of final EPA standards.
FY-1982 Program Outlook The DOE, based on assumed availability of EPA Standards in October 1981, originally requested $31 million for this program in FY-1982.
Based upon an
=
OCT 191981 Ross A. Scarano 3
anticipation that subsequent planned delays in the Standards would slow down program activities, however, the cognizant House of Representatives Committee recently reduced the recommended level for FY-1982 to $13 million.
DOE has since appealed for restoration of funding back to the $22 million level repre-sentive of the sort of eventual half-billion dollar program envisioned by Attachment II.
If the heavy scope of NEPA-related activities foreseen by Attachments III and IV is to be realized, as well as proceeding with the sigaificant vicinity property cleanups anticipated for Salt Lake City, the drilling / assay program to evaluate reprocessing as required by the UMTRCA, and the supporting R&D necessary to develop the most cost effective disposal system, I would concur with the $22 million level.
NRC Staff Workload Impact As can be seen from Attachments III and IV, the NEPA documentation workload is planned to be extremely heavy in FY-1982.
Six EISs will be well into the DE13 preparation stage and two more initiated. Three of these DEISs are planned for publishing about midyear with three others published within two months after the fiscal year closes.
Public EIS scoping meetings (all based on tailings relocation as the prime assumption) have been held related only to the first three EISs.
We have agreed to participate as a cooperating agency under the NEPA of 1969 in the preparation of the UMTRAP EISs and will review and concur in the FEISs.
No final RACPs have been issued.
We have an agreement with the DOE to review and concur in UMTRAP RACPs which are significant baseline documents used to assist in scoping the EISs and Environmental Assessments (EAs) in the program such that all feasible remedial action options are being identified and appro-priately studied in sufficient depth.
As shown on Attachment III, a total of 15 EAs will be in preparation simul-taneously in FY-1982 in addition to the EISs.
Twelve of these are expected to be completed within 3-6 months following the close of FY-1982.
We are currently in the process of formulating an agreement with DOE for the NRC to participate in the preparation and review of these EAs and ultimately concer in the recom-mended remedial action plan as presented in the final EAs.
To my knowledge, field construction work will also actively proceed at the significant Salt Lake City vicinity properties as in the recent past.
The final report on the Fire Station No. 1 project, requiring NRC concurrence that remedial action has been completed, is planned for issuance in mid-FY-1982.
NRC staff review of the Sewage T eatment Plant proiect remedial action plan has begun and that project should be well under way and possibly completed by the end of FY-1982.
In addition, I anticipate a required NRC staff review /
concurrence function for the remedial action plans at 3-6 other significant S*'t Lake City vicinity properties in FY-1982.
Based on the above discussion of anticipated workload, it is my judgment that more staff resources will have to be identified to handle these UMTRAP activities in FY-1982.
Because of the planned heavy NEPA documentation workload, I believe this to be the case even if the program were ultimately restricted to the
Ross A. Scarano 4
CCI I 919I4 513 million level in FY-1982.
An alternative we may wish to co ~ider is to reexamine '.he requirements for NRC UMTRAP oversight and concurrence with a view to L tentially reducing the depths to which we are involved with the DOE in its execution of the program.
Original signed by William M. Shaffer, III, Project Manager New facility Section Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch cc:
Robert W. Ramsey, Jr., DOE-HQ Richard H. Campbell, 00E-Albuquerque Dr. William E. Mott, DOE-HQ Robert J. Stern, DOE-HQ CRESS:ss WM Shaf fer 1-I h ffer:is
</
10/19/81 1 $ /81
/Od j
+
+,
LOCATION - UMTRA PROJECT SITES i
e BELFIELD leBOWMAN k
^"
LAKEVIEW e
n cot 4V RSE SALT A
h l
LAKE RIVERTON CANNONSBUR CIT Y DAGGS A
ys-A e
GREEN
'MAYBELL-
{
7 l RIVER e A hlFLE (2)
\\
i j A GRAND JCT.
NATURITAs A GUNNISON MEXICAN HAT I
m o SLICKROCK (2)
A MfNUM g D rat'G l
p OCK 1 T
^
A BROSIA C TY LAKE i
ps FALLS CITY PRIORITIES e
4-HIGH a-MEDIUM
- - LOW s',
UMTRAM 5/81
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (MILLIONS OF 1981 DOLLARS)
ESCALATED TEC B ASIC TEC (ESCALATED DOLLARS
~
FISCAL YEAR (1981 DOLLARS)
@ 10% PER YEAR) 1980 4.6 4.6 1981 12.9 12.9 1982 19.1 21.0 1983 21.5 26.0 1984 72.1 95.7 q
1985 83.7 122.5 1986 96.0 154.6 1987 108.6 191.4 1988 51.9 101.1 1989 28.5 i
61.1 1990 3.9 9.2 TOTAL 502.2 800.1 I
U M i F4 A i 9/81 k
sv.8z.
B EMEDIAL ACTION MASTER SCHEDULE
-2" CY 19E 1 CY1902 CY1983 CY1984 CY1985 CY1986 CY1987 CY1968 CY1989 9/81
,o j,oj,o,o,ol,,j,o,o,oj,oj,og o, o [, oj,oj, o, o j,,j,o j, o,,j,oj,oj,o,oj,ol,oj,o, o g, ol,,j, o, oj,oj,,,,
CANONSBURG
'auuurnnuunu:n SALT LAKE CITY i"""
=m"w^n DURANGO N77sm"um'A
- ~
==
a
+- -'
SHIPROCK vmrumnwuun n.,w1 1
,m GRAND JUNCTION umusumuu.
-..--a
. ~ - - -
-u RIFLE (OLD & NEW) wuuww>m -
m
-amw~
m.....
- m. ~,,
RIVERTON remuuuz'o
-=
~. = = =
4, GUNNISON 977'wammen
~ e n vv r w. v-nm MEXICAN HAT vau wruuenan x
v
-n GREEN RIVER r""mm""'I/d i
r= a oi U
SLICK ROCK vuumemms<za i
~..nre 1
LOWMAN r>rrinuunun i
1
-1 a, e < n.
, i e
LAKEVIEW tz27eruzazresJ i
r ot uin MAYBELL muunnmu i
n
=m a
~-
a --
SPOOK muumw2Z3 i
= 1o w AMBROSIA LAKE wuuuewn i
1
~
NATURITA rouuuoueff; i
r-
- m.
TUBA CITY re"uumwen t-
>+
1 --- 7 MONUMENTVALLEY r>m"umA i
e<*w
" ~ ~ ~
+ ^i FALLS CITY muu: urn n
.. + < <
-+-o
~ ~ - ~. ~
BELFIELD emuu wruun i
i on BOWMAN ununn:uua
=
~
BAGGS vmue r^muA i
i-I I il I I I I I i l i I I l l l l l l l 1 I I I I n_
e
b W-8t r
DESIGN ENVIRONMENTAL II.1 PACT STATEMENT (EIS) SCHEDULE re CY 1981 CY 1982 CY 1983 CY 1984 9/81 JFM AMJJ AS OND JFM AMJJ AS OND JFM AMJJ ASO D JFM AMJJ ASOND I I I i 17 I I I I l l I 1 I I I i i l i iI iI II I I l.1 1 4II I I I I CANONSBURG v
o no SALT LAKE CITY U
0 nO DURANGO 0
OO SHIPROCK v
o o
o GRAND JUNCTION
,h v
o n
o RIFLE (OLD&NEW)
U O
O o
RIVERTON v
o no GUNNISON v
0 00
'it E
v pElS O COMPLETE REVIEW OF 3EIS 1
o FEIS o RECORD OF DECislON l l I I I I I I I I l i I I l l l l l l 1 1 1 l i II I I I I I l i i I II i i i l_
i SITE ACTIVITIES 0^'TLAKE ACTIVITY CANONSBURG DURANGO SHIPROCK CU COOR SK OPERATIONAL OPERATIONA5 OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL CO PE ^T V COMPLETED COMPLETED GREEME T NEGO ATION DR ED D1 O ^
IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED IN PROCESS ES EIS STARTED STARTED STARTED PRE-START VICINITY READY TO NOT NOT STARTED PROPERTIES
~ START DESIGNATED DESIGNATEJ ACO SITION l IN PROCESS NO ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION DIllLLING DRILLING ASSAY N/A ON ItOLD COMPLETED COMPLETED UMTftAf 9/81
I i
URANIUM MILL TAILINGS l
REMEDIAL ACTIONS PROJECT STATUS REVIEW 5
si
~4 FOR
- ]p SHELDON MEYERS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND FUEL CYCLE PROGRAMS SEPTEMBER 10,1981 GERMANTOWN, MARYLAND re,
UMTRA PROJECT MISSION vyi% 6 rM ko 24 kMA o%qp dE IN ACCORDANCE WITH L.95-604, NEPA, AND EPA STANDARDS, PROVIDE REMEDIAL ACTIONS AT 25 SITES TO STABILIZE AND CONTROL TAILINGS IN A SAFE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANNER TO ELIMINATE POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARDS CAUSED BY URANIUM DECAY PRODUCTS.
- REMEDIAL ACTIONS - RA OPTIONS, PLANS, ENGINEERING DESIGN, ON-SITE ACTIVITIES, MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE
. ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES - EIS'S AND EA'S PER NEPA
- STATE / LOCAL /PUBLIC RELATIONS - STATE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, COORDINATION WITH STATE / LOCAL / TRIBES, PUBLIC INFORMATION
- TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT - STABILIZATION AND DISPOSAL
~7:"
+
LOCATION - UMTRA PROJECT SITES i
l e BELFIELD j
- e BOWM AN
\\
^
(
LAKEVIEW e
a CONV RSE
\\
sal.1 A
J LAKE RIVERTON CANNONSBURG n A}
CITY BAGGS(Will b @ 82s 4
+
GREEN MAYBELL-lRIVERe A RWLE (2)
\\_
A GRAND JCT.
1 i
j NATURITA s AGUNNISON
(
l MEXICAN HAT, e SLICKROCK (2) ufuvuFdo"eCK,'
^
A BROSIA C TY LAKE FALLS CITY PRIORITIES bNN O
g Te hkM A-IllG H u-MEDIUM g (JM
- - LOW UMTHAPj 5/81 y
UMTRA PROJECT OFFICE FUNCTIONS
- PLANNING AND SCHEDULING
- DETERMINE RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
- CONTRACTOR SELECTION AND MANAGEMENT
- STATE / TRIBE / LOCAL COORDINATION
- PUBLIC PARTICIPATION /INFORMATION
- REPROCESSING
. TECHNOLOGY
- SITE ACQUISITION
- ENGINEERING
- REMEDIAL ACTIONS iwd*bN LICENSING
. MAINTENANCE AND SURVEILLANCE T
. PROJECT CONTROL j g.ga s
U Af 3/81
4 b
ACQUISITION STRUCTURE HQS/NEW PROJECT OFFICE ko k p h_ g d o( N g ALO sw a gt4e
=AQ4(sz b
7 I
I I
l I
I MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY NEPA
[f 5-76 g )
528 M
$18 M 510 M
$3 M 566 M 5340 M
- ENG UPDATE
. LABS
= SNLA
= SNLA
= TBD (SUB-CONTRACTORS)
(SUB-CONTRACTORS)
(FBDU)
- SLC OFF SITE
. UNIVERSITIES (FBDU)
SITE ACQUISITIONS
- RADIOLOGICAL 59 M (ANL)
- STATES
I
RAC SELECTION & AWARD SCHEDULE [EST?
i 1981 1982 ACTIVITY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL j
9 INITIATE PR 9 CBD ANNOUNCEMENT 9 ESTABLISH SEB D
9 DRAFT RFP O
9 SRP Q
9 ISSUE RFP O
9 PROPOSAL DUE DATE O
9 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE O
9 PROPOSAL EVALUATION Q
()
9 INTERVIEW FINALISTS & SEB O-<>
REPORT 4 SELECT CONTRACTOR Q
9 AUDIT, REVIEW, NEGOTIATE Q
()
9 CONTRACT AWARD Q
-A (UMTRAP 3/81)
(REV 8/81) e
BUDGET OUTLOOK FY 1980-81:
90 GSO 81 B A 81 BO
.i.5 5 M
$ 13.20M
$ 14.50M
($1.OM DEFERRAL IN FY 81)
FY 1982:
HOUSE MARK:
$ 13.2M (BA)
$ 22.OM (BA)(% \\M de D
APPEAL:
JAc.4% A dt M
FY 1983:
w DECREMENT:
$ 22.3M (BA)
REQUEST:
$ 32.3M (BA)
A 9/81
EPA REMEDIAL ACTION STANDARDS STRUCTURES STANDARD 00.02 mr/hr
- INDOOR GAMMA RADIATION oc0.015 WL
. INDOOR RADON DECAY PRODUCT CONCENTRATION OPEN LAND
. RADIUM - 226 CONCENTRATION c5 PICOCURIESIGM TAILINGS DISPOSAL
. RADON - 222 RELEASE
- 2 PiCOCURIES/M2 - sec 1000 YEARS
. LONGEVITY CLEAN WATER ACT
- GROUND WATER NO INCREASE IN CONTAMINANTS
. SURFACE WATER
- ABOVE BACKGROUND
- clNCLUDING BACKGROUND UMTRAPI 5/81
SITE ACTIVITIES AL AKE DURANGO SHIPROCK ACTIVITY CANONSBURG CITY CO SK OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL C
P
^T COMPLETED COMPLETED NEGO ATION DR ED AGREEME T
^
IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED IN PHOCESS ITES EIS STARTED STARTED STARTED FRE-START VICINITY READY TO NOT NOT STARTED PROPERTIES START DESIGNATED DESIGNATED IN PROCESS NO ACTION NO ACTION NO ACTION ACO SmON DRILLING DRILLING ON HOLD COMPLETED ASSAY N/A COMPLETED (J M T H A 5 9/81
VICINITY PROPERTIES e
SALT LAKE CITY FIRE STATION 010-15% ceq #-T 0
NEXT PHASE e
CANONSBURG OR/NLO ARRANGEMENT e
BLOCK ONE GRAND JUNCTION GJO BFEC ARRANGEMENT e
TEC $ 58.8 M
REMEDIAL ACTION MASTER SCHEDULE CY1981 CY1982 CY1983 CY1984 CY1985 CY1986 CY1987 CY1988 CY1989 e
9/81 io l:ol:ol4o eol:ol:ol4o iol:ol:ol4o iol:ol:oko iol:ol:opo eol:olao14o iol: oleo l4o iol: oleo l4o iol:ol:o14o CANONSBURG wmmusmuumm SALT LAKE CITY
""""m"""m"'
DURANGO vmm""mmro
- - ~"-
SHIPROCK vummmusmm'
- - - ~ - -'-
GRAND JUNCTION
""""m""">
=
RIFLE (OLD & NEW) w"m"m""'
=
" ~ -'
RIVERTON v" sum"m'o i
GUNNISON vammmma
.o t
i MEXlCAN HAT C
vuuumuumin i
GREEN RIVER I
m"mw"""m
=
SLICK ROCK vuumemmmia i
- v i
LOWMAN
- rmsnmum, i
u. -
i LAKEVIEW muruuuum i
-u i
MAYBELL rea"mmmA r
SPOOK 5
ummumm2 i
AMBROSIA LAKE vmuuuusa i
e NATURITA muummwe TUBA CITY vwuumsm i__
MONUMENT VALLE' ruuuuuma r
i i
FALLS CITY wuuuuro i
=
j BELFIELD rmumis 77777^
7 i
n BOWMAN
""nunwma i
BAGGS v"mm>NrA i
i i
i l I l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l 1 1 I i l l u, a GJtEm C '
- r i
I
i l
}
l 1
1 A
DESIGN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) SCHEDULE I
CY 1981 CY 1982 CY 1983 CY 1984 i
9/81 JFMAMJJASOND JFM AMJJ ASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND 3 I i 1, I I I I i i I l-1 i i i I i I i i i i i I i l ii i iii i 1-l l l l l l 1 I i CANONSBURG v
o no SALT LAKE CITY o
oo DURANGO V
O oO SHIPROCK v
o o
o GRAND JUNCTION v
o n
o i
RIFLE (OLD&NEW) n o
n o
RIVERTON v
o oo GUNNISON v
o 00 V DEIS O COMPLETE REVIEW OF DEIS
~
o FEIS o RECORD OF DECISION 4
e I l I f f I i t ! I I I f I f i1 if 1 I I i i1 it iI I I I t i 1 I I I II f f f I
A DESIGN SCHEDULE e'"
CY 1983 CY 1984 CY 1985 CY 1986 9/81 JFM AMJJ ASOND JFM AMJJ ASOND JFM AMJJ ASOND JFM AMJJ ASOND 3 6 I i i I I I I I i i i i iiiiI i i i i I i i i i i i I I I I I I I ill l l l l CANONSBURG SALT LAKE CITY DURANGO SHIPROCK GRAND JUNCTION RIFLE (OLD&NEW)
RIVERTON GUNNISON MEXICAN HAT GREEN RIVER SLICK ROCK LOWMAN LAKEVIEW U
MAYBELL SPOOK AMBROSIA LAKE NATURITA TUBA CITY MONUMENT VALLEY FALLS CITY BELFIELD BOWMAN BAGGS l l I t i I l I t i f n I t i I I I f I I t l t t t I ! !I I t i i I I I t t tt t t t t I
REMEDIAL ACTION MASTER SCHEDULE CY1981 CY1982 CY1983 CY1984 CY1985 CY1986 CY1987 CY1988 CY1989 9/81
,,g,,g,,g,,, g,,;,,[,,,,;,, g,, g,,,,;,qgy,,,, g,,g,,g,,, g,,g,,g,,,g,,g,,g,,,,,,y,,g,,, g,,,,,g,
CANONSBURG U
SALT LAKE CITY U
DURANGO U
SHIPROCK U
GRAND JUNCTION U
RlFLE (OLD & NEW)
RIVERTON V
GUNNISON U
MEXICAN HAT U
GREEN RIVER U
SLICK ROCK U
LOWMAN v
LAKEVIEW v
MAYBELL e
SPOOK U
AMBROSIA LAKE o
NATURITA U
TUBA CITY U
MONUMENT V ALLEY U
FALLS CITY v
BELFIELD v
BOWMAN v
BAGGS a
l I l l I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1 l 1
1 h
REMEDIAL ACTION SCHEDULE FOR CANONSBURG SITE 1982 1983 1984
' * "5 CY1980 1981 01 JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND I i + iiiiiiIT 7ii i i i' ii i i i'iiiiiit i i i I 6 i iiit 6 i::
~ ~-] 7TTmT'T' STATE RECOMMENDS DISP.(SITES)
Q 7
UPDATE PROCESS SITE CHARAC 7
PREPARE RACP O
RACP REVIEW & CONCURRANCE REPROCESSING EVAL. & DECISION (NOT APPLICABLE)
V DISP. SITE CHAR ACTERIZATION O
13 SUE NO PROPOSED EPA STOS ISSUED p
V PREPARE & PUBLISH DEIS O
DERS REVIEW & COMMENTS I
COMPLETE & PUDLISH Fels O
MOnRD fc OECISION AAFT RAP O
.ZW j
J Pt FINAL R AP l
J FINAL < TAP REVIEW & CONCUR t
U PREPARE DESIGN ECD J
SEPT 1985 CONTRACT AWARD
/
ry RACP - REMEDIAL ACTION CONCEPT PAPER REMEDIAL ACTION
[
NOI-NOTICE OF NTENT EPA - ENVSONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RAP - REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN i
,e ii !, i i i<
i'i8 1 1 t t t t Ii
!I 1 i t!tt ! I t t t t ? f t ! 1 ! I I
! Irt i t t ii# #
OTPER AGENCY MILESTONES
' PROJECT OFFICE / IEAM MILESTONES l
4 REMEDIAL ACTION SCHEDULE FOR SALT LAKE CITY SITE A
CY1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 UOI J FMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND iii.4 1Ti.
isI ii iI iiii ii i i i6 i is i i i6 ii ii, iii 6 1 i i iiiiii1 l
O STATE RECOMMENDS DISP.(SITES) t 4
9 j
UPDATE PROCESS SITE CHARAC V
I PREPARE RACP o
R ACP REVIEW & CONCURRANCE a
7 REPROCESSING EV Al & DECISION 9
DISP. SITE CHAR ACTERIZATION O
ISSUE NOI Q
PROPOSED EPA STDS ISSUED Q
j FINAL EP A STDS ISSUED (EST) 9 PREPARE & PUBLISH DEIS O
l 4
DEIS REVIEW & COMMENTS I rf i
COMPLETE & PUBLISH FEIS
{
Q J
RECORD OF DECISION j
I O
PREPARE DRAFT RAP i
I RAP REVIEW 2
_A PREPARE FINAL RAP FINAL RAP REVIEW & CONCUR l
g y
PREPARE DESIGN i
CONTRACT AWARD i
EF RACP - REMEDIAL ACN COKEN NR }
[
NOl-NOTICE OF WTEs4T l
REMEDIAL ACTION l EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY l
[
ECD JULY 1987
' RAP - REMEDIAL ACTkON PLAN l..
i i i iiiiiii,
I PROJECT OFFICE.' TE AM MILESTONES OTHER AGENCY MtLESTONES i
e
REMEDIAL ACTION SCHEDULE FOR DORANGO SITE 6.
CY1980 1981 1082 1983 1984
/
81 JFMAMJJASONO JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND i i i i i i l i ITT- ' TTITlTI I i i i iii iiiiiiii iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiii O
STATE RECOMMENDS DISP.(SITES)
U UPDATE PROCESS SITE CHARAC U
PREPARE RACP O
RACP REVIEW & CONCURRAflCE REPROCESSING EVAL & DECISION (NOT APPLICABLE)
U DISP. SITE CHARACTERIZATION O
ISSUE NOl V
PROPOSED EPA STDS ISSUED f
FINAL EPA STDS ISSUED (EST)
U PREPARE & PUBLISH DEIS b
DEIS REVIEW & COnlMENTS U
COMPLETE & PUBLISH FEIS O
RECORD OF DECISION PH. PARE DRAFT R AP i
A 1
RAP REVIEW l
t PREPARE FINAL RAP l
f, FINAL RAP REVIEW & CONCUR t
g PREPARE DESIGN
^
CONTRACT AWARD
/
S RACP - REMEDIAL ACTON CONCEPT PAPER REMEDIAL ACTION l NOI-NOTICE OF INTENT ECD MAY 1988 EPA - ENVIRONMENTAL PHOTECTION AGENCY RAP - REMEDML ACTON PLAN
!lIillIlIIIIii!Ii!1l l1l ltIilil1IIi lilililiil l l l l 1IiiIieL OTHER AGENCY MILESTONES PROJECT OFFICE ' TE AM MILESTONES
i PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (LQg%
Du
-411Qs M M Y
(MILLIONS OF 1981 DOLLARS)
ESCALATED TEC BASIC TEC (ESCALATED DOLLARS FISCAL YEAR (1981 DOLLARS)
@ 10% PER YEAR) 1980 4.6 4.6 1981 12.9 12.9 1982 19.1 21.0 1983 21.5 26.0 1984 72.1 95.7
- x h M ' au tis d 1985 83.7 122.5 d
1986 96.0 154.6 M
h%
1987 108.0 191.4 D
M 1988 51.9 101.1 j 61.1-1989 28.5 i
1990 3.9 9.2 TOTAL 502.2 800.1 A
9/81 i
l.
UMTRA PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (19818000)
COST ELEMENT FY80*
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 08 89 90 TOTAL 05 PLANNING & STUDIES 822 6265 1723 2662 2800 2800 2000 1500 1500 1200 400 18,672 10 ENGINEERING 791 2060 3520 13,987 13,910 12,750 9220 3360 1550 300 61,448 15 NEPA 539 2210 2550 2430 1920 10,349 20 TECHNOLCGY 2123 5085 3454 2471 1500 300 14,933 25 ACQUISITION 590 1650 5500 150 7890 30 REMEDIAL ACTION 704 2240 2910 21,223 38,790 49,880 63,470 26,840 11,870 500 218,427 35 MAINT & SURV 300 300 1000
.500 2000 2500 600 8200 40 MGMT/ TECH SUPPORT 1104 2812 4021 4340 8200 0100 8200 7400 6200 4800 1200 56,377 SUB'OTAL 4588 12,867 17,638 19,983 55,430 64,350 73,030 83,090 39,900 21,920 3000 396,596 CONTINGENCY 1409 1474 16,630 19,310 22,150 24,930 11,970 6580 900 105,353 TOTAL 4588 12,867 19,047 21,457 72,060 83,660 95,980 108.020 51,870 28,500 3900 501,949 SAY 502,000 l
- ACTUAL FY80 DOLLARS UMTHA
)
9/81
l i
l l
SUMMARY
1 PHASE STATUS EPA STANDARDS OUTLOOK GOOD SITE ACTIVITIES NEPA STARTED VICINITY PROPERTIES SMALL START IN 80; MORE IN 81 CONTRACTORS SELECTION IN PROGRESS NRC COORDINATION EXCELLENT PROJECT TEC SLIGHT INCREASE
' PROJECT SCHEDULE CAN BE ACHIEVED BUDGETS POTENTIAL PROBLEM STAFFING ADDITIONAL STAFF NEEDED O
U M T F4 A Si 9/81