ML20133N327
| ML20133N327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/03/1985 |
| From: | Haisfield M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Martin D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8510290163 | |
| Download: ML20133N327 (3) | |
Text
Distribution QCTh,[*.
3y;iS6h t _
LU r/ f Yl?.i a::T +-
y.
NMSS s/f
',~ ; g _ __
LB Higginbotham l,j ~ ~
J0 Bunting L
WM-3 / /10/01
?l ~ ~ ~~~ RE Browning MJ Bell N__
-[ Q
}
- Dan,~ Martin,_WMLU-p ~
MEMORANDUM FOR:n FROM:
Mark Haisfield, WMLU SUBJ:CT:
MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 27, 1985, MEETING WITH DOE ATTENDEES:
See Attached List PURPOSE:
FOR DOE TO DISCUSS COST ESCALATION OF UMTRAP AND POTENTIAL COST REDUCTION TECHNIQUES
SUMMARY
Mr. Baublitz discussed the fact that based on experience to date UMTRAP current cost estimates are expected to rise three times from earlier cost estimates and the program Lill take longer than seven years to complete. DOE will be attempting to reach agreement with EPA and NRC on ways to interpret " reasonable assurance" which could provide cost savings in the $100 million range. The DOE /NRC working groups are developing general procedures and criteria for design and review of sites. Significant results, of a cost saving nature, from these groups as presented by Roger Williams are:
1.
Protection from flooding - If the incremental cost to design for a PMF increases 15 to 20% above a SIP design flood (yet to be determined), then backing off from the PMF might be appropriate.
Potential savings are $13 to $21 million.
2.
Erosion protection from on pile PMP's - DOE would design for the PMP, but would not add extra measures for flow concentration.
Potential savings $5 to $10 million.
3.
Rock durability - DOE would like to be able to use less durable rock when readily available and then monitor more closely for deterioration that would need repair.
Potential savings $5 to $10 million.
4.
Radon barrier cover thickness - DOE would like to use moisture contents higher than the wilting point. NRC will agree if DOE can justify.
Potential savings $20 to $40 million.
5.
Seismic regime - Use MCE for a 10,000 instead of 100,000 year recurrence interval. There is a disagreement between NRC and DOE regarding acceleration assumptions which result in significant design 8510290163 851003 PDR WASTE l-WM-39 PDR OFC :WMLU:rb l_____:..._________:_______.___:___________.:.____...____:....___..__.:...___......::______
NAME :M Haisfield:
DATE :85/10/
l
I e
OCT g igg
-WM-39/85/10/01 2
change.;. Potential savings by using DOE assumptions would be up to
$50 million due to the not having to move up to eight sites.
6.
Groundwater - NRC has agreed with DOE that institutional controls can be used when aquifer restoration does not appear to be feasible.
Also, although quarterly sampling is a DOE goal, it will not be done in all cases.
Because of the existing uncertainty as to what has been agreed to by NRC and DOE at the working groups, it was agreed that we need to get the groups together to straighten this out. Based on NRC comments during and after this meeting, NRC/ DOE working group agreements have not been reached in many of the above six areas.
00E indicatea that based on the current cost experience, they will be asking EPA to relook at Title I standards. Since the current standards used some cost / benefit analysis in their development, the additional data should allow EPA to examine these standards and evaluate their current appropriateness.
DOE will be formalizing the above information and will be sending letters to NRC and EPA.
Mark Haisfield, Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards e-0FC :WMLU:rb c.... :......._y :
[AME :M Haisfield:
c....:._____....._:__.__..____..: ___________:___________.:......______:__....._____:___...__...
? ATE :85/10/3 L
1-
l YW h Pf t s /
- kt 1
77 tad s/d-umu m-vm
/}laeHm NEset N/C - &&T 4t?- 4744 w
Ay :.rr$
')
Ms WNe4r yp c-wars 4.z7-Hi7
& /,,,,/ cQ,6 5 sac wcc~
f27 -fryy
$n. Y C%rne.-t!e s A!f c - u /s & cq-
+'a ? it 7 3 y Q4N E. $kRTW NAC/tym.O
%.7-4607
- Aes A-Te Dee - vers eq 3n-m e Dey Sieacus i.
erasni
- _..,.d.. ~~ /_/_..
G rF
./ !,1 m, /l.7 2:l 'l-5-? :/ /
E $-
Sub l' ZbCllq 3 [3 - SQ 7Q _ _
- ~.^.
- l.;.).
.?~i-Nt.'.' /M]i ;
'/2 7-yy:R I'.
[AC fb$t ccin
[tvkPP
/Vit c ltsw W
'fa7 </737 Wlpn FXefe./
en-y o ry
'f 4JiLi P 5. $ s 7 0 5 MRc, Geotec.j.6cofkfvc5 3ol-427-96 frL/
[M I
i l
l i