ML20129D881
| ML20129D881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/26/1996 |
| From: | Gillen D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Sena R ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-62 NUDOCS 9609300218 | |
| Download: ML20129D881 (3) | |
Text
l j_.
September 26,1996L Mr.7 Richard Senal Acting Director:
Environihental Restoration Division Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project U.S. Department of Energy 2155 Louisiana NE,- Suite 4000 Albuquerque, NM 87110
SUBJECT:
FINAL NRC CONCURRENCE ON PROJECT INTERFACE DOCUMENT (PID)
NO. 06-S-47 FOR THE RIFLE, COLORADO URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION PROJECT SITE
Dear Mr. Sena:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has reviewed the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) June 7,1996, submittal of PID 06-S for the Rifle, Colorado remedial action project site.
Because PID 47 describes changes-to.
= the disposal cell design that could potentially impact cell performance, the NRC staff does not agree that the changes proposed in PID 47 should be
. considered as Class II. As a result, NRC has treated the PID as Class I.
The information-and the calculations that DOE provided for the PID were sufficient for NRC staff to complete a Class I level review of the proposed changes. Based on the information provided in the submittal and a site visit to observe the proposed changes, the NRC staff has concluded that the design changes in PID 47 should not adversely affect the performance of the Rifle disposal cell. Therefore, the staff concurs with the PID.
An NRC staff Technical' Evaluation Report, which discusses the NRC review of the PID in more detail, is enclosed.
If you have any. questions, please contact the NRC Project Manager, Janet Lambert at (301) 415-6710.
Sincerely,
[
/s/ Charlotte Abrams For Daniel.Gillen Daniel M. Gillen, Acting Chief i
Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management 9609300218 960926 PDR WASTE Office of Nuclear Material Safety WM-62 PDR and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
S. Arp, DOE Alb S. Hamp, DOE Alb J. Virgona, DOE GJP0 E. Artiglia, TAC Alb L
DISTRIBUTION:
LMie:Canteg3 URB r/f PUBLIC CCain RIV MSSr/f Il JSurmeier
~ ;TJohnson y
DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\JAL\\RFLPID47.LTR g,gpf 0FC UFS }
b URB i /k URB a,pf NAME Nbert CAbrap[
DGil l
DATE b 9/a(,/96-y; 9/$/96 9/2k9h l
0FFICIAL RECORD COPi-1300072 4
s
1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF RIFLE PID NO. 06-S-47 DATE:
September 25, 1996 FACILITY:
Rifle, Colorado Uranium Mill Tailings Project Site PROJECT MANAGER:
Janet Lambert TECHNICAL REVIEWER:
Ted Johnson
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS:
By letter dated June 7, 1996, DOE submitted Project Interface Document (PID)
Number Or S-47, as a Class II PID indicating its intention to change the disposal cell configuration and to change the gully design downstream of the cell. DOE indicated that significant reductions in the volume of material placed in the cell required that the cell design be modified.
DOE also indicated that the design for the gullies at the toe ditch had to be modified because they were filled in during the construction of the retention basin.
Because PID 47 describes changes to the disposal cell design that could potentially impact cell performance, the NRC staff does not agree that the changes proposed in PID 47 should be considered as Class II, and has treated the PID as Class I.
The information and the calculations that 00E provided for the PID were sufficient for NRC staff to complete a Class I level review of the proposed changes.
Based on staff's review of the DOE submittal, staff concludes that the design changes should not adversely affect the performance of the Rifle disposal cell and the revisions are acceptable.
DESCRIPTION OF DOE'S REQUEST:
Disposal Cell Configuration DOE provided drawings to show the revised configuration of the disposal cell, resulting from a reduction in the amount of contaminated material available for placement in the cell. The most significant change in the design was th, riattening of the top slopes of the cell.
Gully Design The three gullies abutting the permanent toe ditch were filled in during the construction and regrading of the temporary retention basin.
00E had orignially proposed that gully protection be provided in these gullies near the toe of the cell.
DOE now proposes to regrade and fill in this area and to provide the erosion protection at a location 600 feet away from the toe. A design which incorporates a riprap protected slope and a rock toe will be provided at the new location.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION:
Disposal Cell Design Because DOE proposed to maintain the same rock size on the redesigned, flatter top slope of the cell, staff agrees that the new design is obviously conservative.
The staff also visited the site to observe any other changes that may have resulted from the modification to the cell configuration.
Based on those observations, the staff concludes that no other significant changes were made to the cell.
Based on the acceptability of the original design, the staff, therefore, coricludes that this design change is acceptable.
Gully Design Based on a review of the calculations and information provided by DOE, the staff concludes that the revised design is acceptable.
The rock-protected slope and rock toe will be capable of preventing extensive headward erosion toward the cell.
The staff concludes that minor gullying will occur between the cell and the new rock protection, but that the current toe ditch and rock-protected area at the toe will be capable of preventing headward erosion into the cell.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed change is acceptable.
A