ML20127K125

Forwards on-site Const Review Rept & Insp Plan for Gunnison Umtra Project Dtd 921116.Rept Provides Details of Routine Insp of Const Operations at Processing & Disposal Sites

ML20127K125
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/08/1993
From:	Surmeier J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Chernoff A ENERGY, DEPT. OF
References
REF-WM-61, REF-WM-62 NUDOCS 9301260045
Download: ML20127K125 (12)

Text

.. j ,11bert R. Chernoff, Project Manager Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project Office JAN 0 81933 U.S. Department.of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office-P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115

Dear Mr. Chernoff:

On November 16 and 17, 1992, Daniel Rom of my staff made construction review visits to the Gunnison'and Rifle, Colorado, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project sites. The Rifle visit was an important follow-up to view the fully exposed disposal cell subgrade, which could not be observed on our previous review on October 6, 1992. Although work at the Gunnison site had been shut down for the winter and no tailings had been moved yet, a routine review was conducted while in the area.

At Gunnison, Mr. Rom observed the limited construction operations to be _in accordance with the Remedial Action Plan. While on the review, he was requested by Mr. Don Leske to visit the MK Grand Junction Project Office to discuss Project Interface Document Number 05-S-49. The Grand Junction meeting was accomplished on the morning of November 17, 1992.

At Rifle, the disposal cell had been fully excavated, and Mr. Rom was able to observe the base of the cell in its entirety. In addition, he observed double-ring infiltrometer testing in various stages of operation. This Rifle review closes open issues from our October 6, 1992, review.

Enclosed are the Rifle and Gunnison on-site construction review reports and a summary of the Grand Junction meeting for your information. If you have any questions regarding the site visits, please contact me at FTS-8-301-504-3439, or Daniel Rom at FTS-8-301-504-2573.

" " E' (5 G;gg; s- ~ au ) w John J. Surmeier, Chief, *n Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Enclosures:

As stated cc: P. Mann, DOE, AL S. Hamp, DOE, AL S. Arp, DOE, AL Distribution: < Central File # - NMSS r/f R8angart WBrach JAustin PLohaus MFliegel MLayton AMullins EBrummett LLUR r/f RHall ,URF0 LCallan,RIV POR YES X' NO Category: Proprietary or CF Only NO ACNW SUBJECT ABSYES A' TRACT:

GURNISON AND RIFLE, C0 UMTRA PROJECT SITES REVIEW REPORTS OFC LLUR 6 LLUR 6 LLUR o b NAME h DRom/eb DGi en dr' [

urmeier hl),h %

DATE 1/8 /93 1/ 8 /93 '1/8/93 0 S:\LLWMTYPE\EDIE\ INSPECT.G&R OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9301260045 93010s (C= COVER /E-COVER & ENC /N-N0 COPY) \ ,[ , 1 PDR WASTE ~

WM-61 PDR

. On-Site Construction Review ReDort Facility Name: Gunnison UMTRA Project Site Gunnison, Colorado Review Conducted: November 16, 1992 NRC Personnel: Daniel S. Rom Review Summary:

Areas Reviewed: The_NRC staff was aware that only excavation had occurred at the disposal site, and construction had been shut down for the winter. However, while in the area to conduct a review at the Rifle site, staff decided to take the opportunity to review Gunnison. As indicated in the On-site Construction Review Plan (0CRP) attached, the limited review included the processing site at Gunnison, the haul road to the disposal site, and the disposal site.

Details:

1. Persons Ct acted:

Steve Hamp - DOE ~

John Inness - MK-F (Site Manager)

Frank Guros - MX-ES Allan Htay - MK-ES Alan Erickson - MK-F

2. Eauipment On Site:

The earthwork contractor had recently shut down operations for the winter.

Excavation and hauling operations were not underway, thus scrapers, loaders, and other equipment were not opert. ting..

3. Site Review:

The following discussion correlates to the scope of _the review, as presented in the attached OCRP:

Proaress Update (0CRP Item 11 The participants met at the processing site office at 10: 13 AM. After introductions were given and the plan was presented, a safety introduction was given by Mike McQuiston of MX-F. John Inness reported on the project status'at both the processing and disposal sites. Since the earthwork subcontractor had recently shut down, there was no major construction activity underway at-either site.

Enclosure-1 l

Processina Site (0CRP Item II) i A walking tour of the processing site showed that the mill structures had been demolished, tailings piles fenced and marked, and roadway construction begun. The only active work was on the decontamination pad which was under construction. The partial realignment of Gold Basin Road-was observed, and found to be passable. _ Paving operations had not been conducted. The wetlands areas-on and adjacent to the site had not been visibly affected by construction performed to date. The decontamination-pad was under construction, and minor concrete work was underway. The debris from the dismantled mill structures was placed within the 4 restricted area for temporary storage. The on-site water treatment ,

facility was excavated, lined, and fenced, but was not yet operational.

No open issues were generated from observations at the processing site.

The campground west of the processing site was apparently not affected by construction activities to date; however, it was closed for the season.

The Dos Rios subdivision is west of the campground, thus was protected from dust and runoff by its-distance from the construction site.

Haul Road (0CRP ltem 111)

The reviewer viewed the haul road and new bridge which led to the disposal site. Since construction had ceased for the season, active traffic and--

dust control were not occurring.

Disposal Cell Site and-Excavation (0CRP Item IV)

The disposal cell excavation was reportedly approximately 95 percent complete. Excavation will be completed in the spring, prior to movement of tailings. The NRC reviewer was able to observe the texture and makeup of the materials at the base of the disposal cell. The exposed material-appeared to match the RAP description, thus RAP conclusions regarding permeability and support could be substantiated. At the time of the review, the base of the cell showed only minor deterioration due to weathering. Some of the rock h.ad weathered to a soil-like consisten_cy; i

however, rutting and ponding were not in evidence. It is likely that additional deterioration due to_ weathering will oce.ur over the winter months. Deterioration of the cell base, if any, will require improvement I

as the final excavation work is completed in the spring.

The reviewer conducted. informal interviews with Messrs. Inness, Erickson',

l and Htay as the group made its observations at the disposal site. The MX r

representatives appeared to be knowledgeable of the project requirements l and status. An additional point of observation near the disposal site was

! the groundwater monitoring wells 750.and 751 near the Landfill to the l northeast of the site. Neither well could be physically examined due to i fencing; however, both were viewed from a range of-5 to 10 feet. ~Both wells appeared to have satisfactory above-ground construction (apron, i

riser, and cover) based on visual observation. 00E has indicated that they will not likely use these wells becau'se of lack of information on the well construction controls. Closer observation of these two wells is not necessary unless DOE elects to use them in the future.

i 2 l- -- - .- -

. 4. Records Review (0CRP ltem V.A):

Richard Valdez (MK-F) presented QC reports at the MK office. and the reports were reviewed by NRC staff. The reports met the format required by specifications and the Remedial Action Inspection Plan. The reports were considered adequate in content and thoroughness. Since most of the earthwork to date involved excavation rather than placement, there were no compaction records of consequence. It was noted that next year's routine review

• ould concentrate additional attention on the records review since tailings will have been placed and compacted at that time.

5. Exit Interview (OCRP lten V.C):

A closecut meeting was held, and the reviewer indicated that there were no open iss.n: 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. The meeting was concluded at 3:50 PM.

3

INSPECTION PLAN FOR GUl#IISON UNTRA PROJECT (On-Site Construction Review Pla CONTACT:

Steve Hamp, DOE Site Manager FTS 8-505-845-5640 DATE: November 16, 1992 TEAM MEMBER, ASSIGNMENTS:

Daniel Rom - Geotechnical Engineering PURPOSE:

Routine inspection of construction operations at the processing and disposal sites.

SCOPE:

1. troorgJs Vodate A.

Meet S. Hamp and TAC STAFF at Gunnison Project Office at approximately 10:00 am. Discuss progress of cell excavation and haul road and any other issues pertaining to current on-site activities.

B.

Receive site safety indoctrination, if required (15 minutes).

II. Processina Site A.

Observe haul road.construction of realigned Gold Basin Road and beginning of Note traffic, dust control, public use.

B.

Inspect the wetlands areas on the processing site (to be removed) and on adjacent windblown properties (considered for supplemental standards).

C.

Observe the decontamination pad, other facilities, stored debris, and the general area. Note proximity of habitable structures, tour Oos Rios Sub., and site of water treatment facility construction.

111. Haul Road Observe impacted wetlands, dust control, traffic.

IV. Discosal Cell Excavation A. Observe soll (particle size, moisture) excavated from the cell site and remaining at bottom of the cell.

B. Observe subgrade exposure.

Attachment

C.

Observe applicable.any other construction activities of importance, if D.

Conduct informal interviews with field personnel.

E. Note terrain towards county landfill.

V, MK Gunnison Office A.

Review written records pertaining to construction of disposal cell.

B. Conduct informal interviews with personnel.

C. Conduct Exit Interview. <

Note:

This visit will constitute the first formal construction inspection for this project. The final RAP arrived October 27, 1992. Nineteen open issues covering all disciplines except erosion protection, remain to be resolved.

Some discussion of open issues may be held.

INSPECTION SCHEDULE AND ROUTINE Entrance meeting: 10:00 am, November 16, 1992 Exit Meeting: 3:30 pm, November 16, 1992 Motel: Best Western Tomichi Village 1-800-528-1234 (Rate: $38.23 no tax)

Reservation #8184Q0Q606045 Non-smoker Room 7L7Q4w4Y-06045 Signature: Date: UOE Team Leader / Inspector ,

Apprdval: A Date: 18 it Section Leader 2

--m'

Grand Junction Meeting

}

Facility Name: Grand Junction l MK Project Site Office I Grand Junction, Colorado Meeting Conducted: November 17, 1992 NRC Personnel: Daniel S. Rom

1. Persons Contacted:

Dan Lewis - MK Faul Oliver - CDH Charlie Bull - MK-F Don Leske - DOE

2. Meetina Summary:

While I was in the area to perform construction reviews at the Gunnison and Rifle UMTRA project sites, Don Leske of DOE requested that I visit the MK Project Office in Grand Junction to discuss Project Interface Document (PID) 05-S-49, which proposes methods to dispose of tailings contaminated with asbestos. The NRC staff recently had approved the proposed PID by letter dated November 13, 1992. However, a new alternate' disposal plan, proposed by the subcontractor, was presented. The new plan provides for vertical placement _of drums within the cell, and careful compaction by mechanical devices around each drum. Drum lids would be removed, plastic bags would be cut, and additional soil would be placed and compacted within each drum.

I indicated that there would likely be no objection to this plan in theory, provided sufficient cover _would be placed over the drums, but that the details of the revised PID needed to be reviewed on its submittal. I further indicated that the proposed method may-not be the most economical; however, cost is understood to be a subcontractor responsibility. I cautioned that drums may deform as fill was placed and compacted, and that the lids should be checked to make sure no release of asbestos occurs during the compaction phase. I was informed that a new PID would be issued to fully discuss the proposed drum burial procedure.

Enclosure 2

e On-Site Construction Review Repor1 1

. l Facility Name: Rifle .

VMTRA Project Site  !

Rifle, Colorado Review Conducted: November 17, 1992 NRC Personnel: Daniel S. Rom Review Summary:

Area Reviewed: Disposal Cell at Estes Gulch, Colorado On October 6,1992, a routine review was conducted at the Rifle project site.

One of the objectives of the October review was to view the fully-exposed base of the disposal cell, since critical " bath-tubbing" issues depended on the nature of the exposed base. Although the base was reportedly exposed in October, it was, in fact, still not to grade at that time. Consequently, an open issue in our review resulted, and it was determined that a follow-up review was necessary. In summary, the physical makeup of the cell base will control moisture flux from the embankment. If the flux through the base of the cell can be determined to be greater than 10 cm/sec, then the construction of a test embankment for the cover could be eliminated from the RAP. It was believed that direct physical observation and mapping of the fully exposed cell subgrade would provide the best estimate of flux at the base of the cell. Since open issues from the October 6 review were only applicable to the disposal site, a second review of the processing sites was not required. A copy of the On-Site Construction Review Plan (0CRP) is attached.

Details:

1. Persons Contacted:

Sharon Arp - DOE Jim Hams - CDH Randy Withee - MK-F Wendy Naugle - CDH Jose Guros - MX-ES

2. Eauipment On Site:

5 scrapers

• Dump Trucks (number undetermined) 2 Loaders 1 Grader

• 1 Smooth-wheel Compactor

• 2 Backhoes **

1 Water Truck *

• Not Operating

• • One operating Enclosure 3

1 J

n - .

3, 11_te Review:

Proaress Up.date (0CRp Item 1)

The reviewer met DOE and MX personnel on-site at 10:45 AM. We were  !

informed that cell excavation was complete, and that we could fully observe the exposed subgrade, in addition, double-ring infiltrometer testing was in progress in various phases of operation, thus, we could observe the test program in a representative fashion.

Disposal Cell Subar_ade (0CRP ltem 11.0)

Gradational and color changes in the exposed subgrade are indicators of the parent rock type. The various parent rocks will have different hydraulic conductivities, thus a "best estimate" of flux from the cell can be determined by comprehensive mapping and field testing.

Since excavation was complete, we were able to walk throughout the site ,

without encountering active work zones. The fully exposed-subgrade was being mapped by MK personnel. Geologic maps were not completed or available for review. The gradational and color changes evident ce the sides of the excavation on our previous visit were reasonably discernable on the base of the cell. For this reason, it was judged that geologic mapping should provide a satisfactory basis for distinguishing-the strata and evaluating hydraulic conductivity of the base of the cell.

Infiltration Testino (0CRP Items II. C.0)

Double-ring testing was observed in each of the various phases from initiation to steady-state saturation. New test locations were being excavated and cleaned. A prepared test site was observed prior to and during the initial introduction of water. Finally, pre-existing test sites which were in the steady-state saturation phase were observed.

The double-ring infiltrometer tests were apparently-functioning: reasonably -I within the design expectations. Actual test locations were moved as necessary to avoid rock fractures. A freshly-exposed double-ring test location was found to be clean and founded on rock. A vertical crack was observed in the side of the test excavation. Since the crack was. exposed prior to testing, DOE moved the double-ring test site away from- the .

probable influence of the crack. On filling the excavation with water, an eddy was observed above the crack, thereby justifying DOE's relocation of the test site. Also, on addition of water to ~ the excavation, the grain and microstructure of the rock was visually enhanced. DOE's-methods were >

considered to be satisfactory based on the care being taken in conducting ];

the tests.

Other Activities (0CRP ltem UJh e No excavation or fill placement operations were underway.

i 1

g . .

4. Records Review (0CRP Item II.E):

There were no formal test results from DOE available to review. The DOE Project Manager indicated that geologic mapping and infiltrometer test results would be made available to NRC staff at a later date. G3neral findings from the testing performed to date, including iafiltrometer results and geologic mapping progress, were verbally related to NRC staff.

5. Exit Interview (OCRP ltem II.H11 At the close of the review, the reviewer met with DOE and RAC representatives. The attendees were informed that this review cleared previous open is'"as regarding observation of'the fully-exposed base of the cell. It was .cquested that DOE provide NRC with mapping and test results as soon as they become available. The data wi?1 need to be included with any PID addressing a change to the RAP requirement'of a test fill for the cover.

3

d 8

• INSPECTION PLAN FOR RIFLE UNTRA PROJECT (On-Site Construction Review Plan)

CONTACT:

Sharon Arp, DOE Site Manager FTS 8-505-845-5668 OATE: November 17, 1992 (Announced)

TEAM MEMBERS.

ASSIGNMENTS: Daniel Rom - Geotechnical Engineering PURPOSE:

Follow-up to inspection of October 6,1992, to view fully exposed base of disposal cell and further observe field hydraulic conductivity testing.

SCOPE:

I. New Rifle Processino Site A. Meet S. Arp (DOE) at New Rifle at approximately 10:30 am to discuss inspection p?an, Discuss progress of infiltration testing and any other issues pertaining to current on-site activities.

II. Estes Gulch Discosal Site B.

Observe fully excavated and exposed disposal cell subgrade.

C. Observe setup of infiltration testing equipment.

D. Observe infiltration testing.

E. Observe any other construction activities of importance, such as fill placement, if applicable.

F. Conduct informal interviews with personnel.

-J G . Conduct informal interviews with personnel.

H. Conduct Exit Interview.

Note: The only open inspection issue from previous site visit is item B, above. A telecon prior to leaving 0WFN will confirm that the site is ready for the inspection as planned.

1 Attachment I

-s.

l. .

INSPECT 10H SCHEDULE AIS ROUTINE Entrance meeting:

Approximately 10:30 am, November 17, 1992 Exit Meeting: Open, November 17, 1992 Normal site hours: 10:30 am - as required Hotel: None (Staying in Gunnison 11-16-92, see Gunnison Inspection Plan)

Signature: "

Date: //' I

• 92-Team Leader / Inspector ~

Approval: M' ~

Date: te ks. 9t Section Leader '

i e

I 2

. - _ _ _ - - - -