ML20059M945
| ML20059M945 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/16/1993 |
| From: | Joseph Holonich NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Chernoff A ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-62 NUDOCS 9311300013 | |
| Download: ML20059M945 (11) | |
Text
r t' l E b0 Mbert R. Chernoff, Project Manager Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action s
Project Office U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115
Dear Mr. Chernoff:
On August 4 and 5, 1993, Daniel Rom of my staff made construction review visits to the Grand Junction and Rifle, Colorado, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project sites.
Both visits were routine and announced.
The primary objectives of the visits were:
(1) to observe ongoing construction operations which consisted primarily of the movement and placement of tallings in engineered cells, and (2) to review records of testing and inspection.
On August 4, Mr. Rom observed the operations at the Grand Junction processing site from Orchard Mesa.
Following the trip to Orchard Mesa, Mr. Rom travelled to the site at Cheney where he observed disposal cell operations.
On August 5, Mr. Rom observed the operations at Rifle and Estes Gulch.
Construction testing and inspection records were reviewed at the Remedial Action Contractor offices at each site.
Enclosed are the Grand Junction and Rifle on-site construction review reports for your information. No open issues were generated from the reviews.
If you have any questions regarding the site visits or the enclosed reports, please contact Daniel Rom on (301) 504-2573.
Sincerely, 6531 EMB W Joseph J. Holonich, Acting Chief 22'1',-
Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
J. Pape, DOE, AL S. Arp, DOE, AL C. Smythe, DOE, AL DISTRIBUTION: Central File LLWM r/f JGreeves PLohaus JAustin MBell NMSS r/f JSurmeier MFliegel LJCallan R-IV RHall URF0 Mark'Small Boxes in ' Concurrence Block to: Define Distribijtion CtipyfPreference.
In small Bok ' on "0FC:" lin'e enter: C = Cover E'= Cover & Enclosur'e N = No Copy
~
- See Previous Concurrence OFC LLUR*
LLURn,,f 6
LLURElfa6 E
NAME DRom/jj DGil JHolInkh R
DATE 11/16/93 D /6/93 k
u/d/93.
S:\\LLWMTYPE\\JOAN\\ INSPECT 2.G&R OFFICIAL RECORD COPY In small Box on "DATE:" line enter: M = E-Mail Distribution Copy H = Hard Copy PDR. YES X
NO ACNW: YES ~ N0 __
Category:
Proprietary or CF Only X
4 IG: YES NO x
Delete file after distribution:
Yes No kI//
9311300013 931116 h
I I
PDR i) h WASTE l
Mf-62 ppg
Albert R. Chernoff, Project Manager Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project Office U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115 N
Dear Mr. Chernoff:
N On August 4 and 5,1993, Daniel Rom of my staff made construction review visit,s to the Grand Junction and Rifle, Colorado, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedlal Action Project sites.
Both visits were routine and anrMaunced.
The primarfxobjectives of the visits were:
(1) to observe ongoing construct Un operatichp which consisted primarily of the movement and placement of tallings in engined ed cells, and (2) to review records of testing and inspection.
On August 4, h rd Mesa.ir. Rom observed the operations at the Grand Junctien processing site from Orc Following the trip to Orchard Mesa, Mr. Ram travelled 1
to the site at heney where he observed disposal cell operations. On August 5, Mr. Roq observed the operations at Rifle and Estes Gulch.
Construction testipg and inspection records were reviewed at the Remedial Action Contractor dffices at each site.
N Enclosed are the Gran unction and Rifle on-site construction review reports for your information.
o open issues were generated from the reviews.
If you have any questions regar'd contactDanielRomon(30}ingthesitevisitsortheenclosedreports,please
') 504-2573.
x
\\
Sincerely,
\\
\\
Joseph J. Holonich, Acting Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Low-level Waste Management
\\andDecommissioning 0(ficeofNuclearMaterialSafety
)nd Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
J. Pape, DOE, AL S. Arp, DOE, AL C. Smith, DOE, AL DISTRIBUTION: Central File LLWM r/f JGree4 s PLohaus JAustin MBell 9
NMSS r/f JSurmeier MFliegel LJCall a-R-IV RHall URF0 MarkismallEB6xesKin' ConcurrencejBlocklto Dsfine 'Distribut'iddicopylPrifnence!
In small Box on "0FC:" line enter: C = Cover E = cover & ' Enclosure N = No Copy
~
s
\\
0FC LLUR 6-LLUR LLUR
\\
DRom/jjObf DGillen JHolonich
\\
NAME DATE U /@/93 H
/ /93
/ /93
\\
S:\\LLWMTYPE\\J0AN\\ INSPECT 2.G&R OFFICIAL RECORD COPY M=E-MailDistributio\\nCopyH=HardCopy In small Box on "DATE:" line enter:
PDR : YES ACNW: YES __
NO Category:
Proprietary or CF Only i IG: YES __._ N0 NO Delete file after distribution:
Yes No
/
.j e
On-Site Construction Review ReDort Facility Name: Grand Junction UMTRA Project Site Grand Junction, Colorado Review Conducted: August 4, 1993 NRC Personnel:
Daniel S. Rom Ted Johnson Review Summary:
Areas Reviewed:
Cleanup operations were underway at the processing site.
Remediated areas could be viewed by driving by the site and from Orchard Mesa without entering the controlled area.
The vantage point from Orchard Mesa was sufficient for staff to view the cleanup operations.
The train-transfer operation had terminated, and all future hauling will be by truck. A driving and walking tour of the disposal cell at Cheney was made. The contaminated naterial in the cell and riprap which had been placed were observed.
Details:
1.
Persons Contacted:
Chuck Cormier - Department of Energy (DOE)
Lyle Lauer - MK-F (Site Manager)
Paul Oliver - Colorado Department of Health (CDH)
Dan Lewis - MK-Ferguson (MK-F)
Mike Best - MK-F Dan Powers - MK-F 2.
Eguioment On Site:
Grand Junction Processing Site:
2 Extendahoes 1 Water Truck Cheney Reservoir Disposal Site:
2 Extendahoes i Dump truck 1 Roller 3.
Site Review:
The following discussion correlates to the scope of the review, as presented in the attached On-Site Construction Review Plan (OCRP):
Proaress Vodate (0CRP ltem 11 NRC Staff met with the other participants at the MK-F office in Grarid Junction at 7:50 AM. After introductions were given and the plan was presented, a safety introduction was given by MK-F.
Lyle Lauer reported on the project status at both the processing and disposal sites.
Processina Site (OCRP Item II)
Visual observations confirmed that the site was substantially cleared of tailings and vicinity property materials. Minor excavation work was underway on the banks of the Colorado River. The transfer station was no longer operational. The extent of wetland areas was pointed out from Orchard Mesa.
No open issues were generated from observations at the processing site.
Disposal Site (OCRP ltem I)
There was no placement or compaction of contaminated mgerials occurring at Cheney at the time of our visit.
Riprap had been pladed on portions of the cell sideslope where radon barrier placement had been completed. Also, we were able to observe the rock stockpiled at the site.
Riprap had been placed on portions of the 5:1 sideslope by dumping from trucks.
The riprap had segregated due to the method of placement, with larger sized material more prevalent near the toe of the slope. DOE informed us that the contractor's method of placement accounted for the segregation, and that remedial work would be performed so that the gradations would be brought within the specifications.
DOE discussed some past problems with the rock shape being excessively elongated.
DOE informed staff that the problem had been corrected by installing another bar across the grizzly, so that the maximum dimension of stone would be about 12 inches in each direction.
Staff was also informed that care had been exercised in the select hand placement of the elongated riprap, and this was evident by visual inspection.
The excavated disposal cell had been brought nearly to grade with the placement of contaminated materials.
Tailings placement was nearly complete.
Asbestos-containing drums were set up in the disposal cell in preparation for approved burial.
Record photographs of the cell wea were made, and the field laboratory was observed.
The NRC Staff conducted informal interviews with MK-F personnel as the group made its observations at the disposal site.
The MK-F representatives appeared to be knowledgeable of the project requirements and status.
4.
Records Review (0CRP Item 111)
Mike Best (MK-F) presented QC reports at the MK office, and the reports were reviewed by NRC staff. The reports had the content required by specifications and the Remedial Action Inspection Plan.
The reports were 2
considered adequate in content and thoroughness. Compaction, quality assurance, and personnel qualification records were reviewed.
MK-F reported that approximately 300,000 cubic yards of vicinity property materials had been collected from 40 sites.
It was further reported that an i
additional 200,000 cubic yards of vicinity property materials could be handled if necessary.
j No diffusion coefficient or moisture content measurements had been made recently. MK-F indicated that tests would be conducted as the radon barrier materials were placed, S.
Exit Interview (OCRP Itee III-El A closeout meeting was held, and NRC Staff indicated that there were no open issues or discrepancies generated from this review. The contractor was advised that next year's review would include a comprehensive. review of field reports and test results since multiple operations including radon barrier and riprap placement would have occurred.
The meeting was concluded at 3:45 p.m.
3 l
a ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION REVIEW PLAN GRAND JUNCTION UMTRA PROJECT SITE CONTACT:
Chuck Cormier, DOE Site Manager 505-845-4039 DATE:
August 4, 1993 (Announced)
TEAM MEMBERS, ASSIGNMENTS:
Daniel Rom - Geotechnical Engineering Ted Johnson - Surface Water / Erosion Protection PURPOSE:
Routine on-site review of construction operations; Observation of oversize rock in response to PID #05-S-47; observation of floodplain area in response to request for supplemental standards.
SCOPE:
1.
Chenev Disposal Site A.
Meet C. Cormier (D0E) at Office @ 8:00 a.m.
Discuss draft PID regarding rock shape problems and travel to site.
B.
Observe rock produced and stockpiled at Cheney.
C.
Observe placement and compaction of tailings if possible.
D.
Observe density testing if possible.
E.
Take photographs of open cell area.
Find out how long the cell will remain open.
F.
Observe on-site laboratory facility.
G.
. Conduct informal interviews with personnel.
II Grand Junction Processina Site A.
_0bserve operations at processing site.
B, Observe wetlands area in Colorado River floodplain; verify.
approximate extent of the wetland area. Observe location of 30,000 cy scheduled for excavation at Colorado River.
Attachment
III. MK Grand Junction Office A.
Review written records.
B.
Discuss the number of vicinity properties, volume of material to be remediated, and schedule.
C.
Discuss results of any recent diffusion coefficient or moisture measurements for the radon barrier material.
D.
Conduct informal interviews with personnel.
E.
Conduct Exit Interview.
CONSTRUCTION REVIEW SCHEDULE AND ROUTINE:
Entrance meeting:
8:00 a.m., August 4, 1993 Exit Meeting:
3:00 p.m., August 4, 1993 Normal hours:
Tentatively 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Motel:
Grand Junction Holiday Inn Confirmation #68850202 (Rom)
- 68846506 (Johnson)
Telephone #: 303-243-6790 Government rate $41 Signature:
A Date:
8-/2-93
_eam Leader / Reviewer Approval:
OFi.
b1 Date:
P/t2/93 Section Leader 2
On-Site Construction Review Report Facility Name: Rifle UMTRA Project Site Rifle, Colorado Review Conducted: August 5, 1993 NRC Personnel: Daniel S. Rom Review Summary:
Area Reviewed: Disposal Cell at Estes Gulch, Colorado On August 5,1993, a routine review was conducted at the Rifle project processing and disposal sites. The hauling and placement of tailings was cunderway at Estes Gulch. A copy of the On-Site Construction Review Plan (OCRP) is attached.
Details:
1.
Persons Contacted:
Sharon Arp - Department of Energy (DOE)
Jim Hams - Colorado Department of Health (CDH)
Randy Withee - MK-Ferguson (MK-F)
Steve Wille - MK-F 2.
Eauipment On Site:
16G Grader ABG-194 Roller 21 Tailings trucks 3.
Site Review:
The following discussion correlates to the scope of the review, as presented l
in the attached On-Site Construction Review Plan (0CRP):
Proaress Vodate (0CRP Item I)
The reviewer met 00E and MK personnel on-site at 8:00 AM.
Site orientation procedures were performed, and we proceeded to the disposal site at Estes Gulch. Activities at the processing site were observed from outside the contaminated area. The NRC observer witnessed the placement of contaminated materials onto transport vehit:les at the New Rifle site. Since no activity was occurring at Old Rifle, a drive-by visit was sufficient for confirmation.
New Rifle Processina Site (OCRP Item I)
Tailings were being removed from the main pile. A conveyor belt system was set to load tailings trucks; however, the belt was reportedly not fully operational. When the belt was not running,' tailings were loaded with conventional earthmoving equipment.
DOE reported that vicinity property materials within wetland areas will be relocated following Corps of Engineers permitting procedures.
E O
f)tes Gulch DiSDosal Site (0CRP ltem II)
Contaminated fill placement operations were underway. A conveyer belt was set up at the east side of the cell; however, the belt was not yet functional.
For this reason, tailings were being deposited by truck. About 400 truckloads per day were being placed. MX-F indicated that the number of truckloads placed daily will likely increase to about 600 when the conveyor at Estes Gulch becomes operational. The conveyor system is also intended to speed up decontamination operations.
A sand-cone density test was observed. Testing procedure was satisfactory; however, MK-F personnel were advised to use caution in running the test when heavy equipment was, operating nearby.
Infiltration testing field operations had been completed well before the time of our visit.
DOE indicated that a comprehensive report was under-preparation, and that it would be provided to NRC formally on completion.
4.
Records Review (OCRP Item III)
Fill placement, density control, quality assurance, and inspector qualification documents were reviewed.
The records were found to be thorough, with minimum testing frequency criteria maintained.
5.
Exit Interview (0CRP Item II)
At the close of the review, the reviewer met with DOE and RAC representatives.
The attendees were informed that no new open issues were
.aised.
Construction and record-keeping operations will become more complex next year with radon barrier and cover material placement.
i
']
i 2
1
ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION REVIEW PLAN RIFLE UMTRA PROJECT SITE CONTACT:
Sharon Arp, DOE Site Manager 505-845-5668 DATE:
August 5, 1993 (Announced)
TEAM MEMBER, ASSIGNMENTS:
Daniel Rom - Geotechnical Engineering PURPOSE:
Routine observation of construction operations; Observation of hauling and placement of tailings, construction records review.
SCOPE:
I.
New Rifle Processina Site A.
Meet S. Arp (DOE) at Project Office @ 8:00 a.m.
Discuss construction progress and any other issues pertaining to current on-site activities.
B.
Observe excavation operations at processing sita, if any.
C.
Observe any watlands which DOE proposes to remain unremediated.
II. Old Rifle Processina Site A.
A drive-by will be conducted at Old Rifle.
It is our understanding that no work is underway at this site.
II.
Estes Gulch Discosal Site A.
Review in detail records of construction activity and infiltration testing.
B.
Observe testing which may be underway, such as sand-cone density test.
C.
Conduct informal interviews with personnel.
D.
Conduct Exit Interview.
III.
MK Rifle Office A.
Review written records.
B.
Conduct informal interviews with personnel.
-Attachment
s REVIEW SCHEDULE AND ROUTINE:
Entrance meeting:
8:00 a.m., August 5, 1993 Exit Meeting:
4:00 p.m., August 5, 1993 Normal hours:
Tentatively 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Motel:
Grand Junction Holiday Inn Confirmation #68850202 (Rom)
- 68846506 (Johnson)
Telephone #: 303-243-6790 Government rate $41 A
Date:
- -#2^93 Signature:
Team Leader / Reviewer Approval:
M-Date: 9 12 M Section Leader i
.