ML20195B988
| ML20195B988 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/19/1988 |
| From: | Hawkins E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Arthur W ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-64 NUDOCS 8811020282 | |
| Download: ML20195B988 (3) | |
Text
"y <* o o ato uNITO STATES
,. p g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
< o Ea REGloN IV
,o URANIUM RECO FIELD OFFICE DENVER, COLORADO 80225 0CT I 91988 UPF0:EFH Docket No. WM-64 W. John Arthur, III, Project Manager Uranium Mill Tailings Project Office U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operetions Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115
Dear John:
This is to confirm the conference telephone conversation of October 6,1988, with representatives of the State of Oregon, t.ne DOE Urtnium Hill Tailings Project Office and the NRC Uranium Recovery Field Office. The subject of the conversation was. the bedding material to be used at the Lakeview UMTRA disposal cell, based on ( letter from you to me that was transmitted by facsimile on October 5, 1988. -
As background, you will recall that in the summer of 1987, you requested to be allowed to use some riprap from Pepperling quarry that had already been crushed, screened and stockpiled, even though it did not meet the rock ,
specifications proposed by 00E and approved by HRC and the State of Oregon.
After review of the rock quality of this stockpiled material, NRC and the State of Oregon agreed to allow you to use the material if you oversized and overthickened it by 15 percent. We were assured at that time that rock that met the approved specifications was readily available from several sources nearby, and that no more rock would be obtained from the Pepperling quarry since it could not meet the specifications.
In the letter of October 5,1988, you requested that 00E be allowed to use already crushed and stockpiled material from the Pepperling quarry for bedding, even though the material does not meet either the original approved specifications nor the relaxed specifications t. hat were agreed to by DOE, URF0 and the State of Oregon on August 30, 1988. The basis for the request was that 00E had been able to find rock that would meet the specifications at only two locations, and the costs for rock from these cources would be well above the cost of the aircady crushed material at the Pepperling quarry. Furthermore, DOE contended that there was considerable risk that rock from the Sheer quarry might not meet the specifications after crushing and screening. Therefore, DOE contended that the original specifications could not reasonably be met.
Instead, 00d requested our concurrence in using the Pepperling bedding material with the application of the scoring criteria developed by NRC for rock of marginal quality.
8811020202 001019 (CD PDR WASTE
M 2 OCT I 9 l968 Insufficient information on cost estimates of obtaining bedding material from the three sources (Pepperling, Choate and Sheer quarries) was provided that would allow us to independently verify your contention that costs from Choate and Sheer quarries were too high. Therefore, I asked you, as the Project Manager of the UMTRA Project, to affirm that all cost estimates were fair and valid, and that the estimates were not unfairly biased to favor the Pepperling quarry since bedding material was already stockpiled there. It is my understanding that you did affirm that the figures are valid for the purposes of comparing costs from the different sources. Based on that affirmation and having no information that would cause me to think othetvise, I agreed that costs for bedding material from Choate or Sheer quarry were unreasonably high in comparison to Pepperling quarry. Therefore, it is NRC's position that bedding from Pepperling quarry can be used at the Lakeview disposal cell if it is oversized to match the oversized riprap that will be placed on it.
Furthermore, it is our position that the stockr fled bedding material will be required to meet the approved gradation specifi ations. The material should be tested both in the stockpile (after any necessat / rescreening) and again in place at the disposal site to assure complian,e with the specifications.
These positions are also based on the rock qualiti information that was supplied as Table 2 of your September 30, 1988 let+.er. However, any bedding material that would not score at least 65 using the NRC methodology should be rejected. If these conditions are met, it is NRC's p mition that the material will be acceptable for bedding.
It is my understanding that you, your contractors and the State of Oregon are continuing to review and refine the cost estimates. Please note that if these result in significant revisions, the NRC will re-evaluate the positions stated in this letter. NRC's positions are based on the information referenced in this letter and your affirmation. If you disagree with any of these bases, my characterization of your affirmation, or have additional information that should be considered, please inform us.
Sincerely, C .
+
fN -
E ward F. law ins, of '>
Licensing Branch 1 Uranium Recovery Field Office Region IV cc: Felix Miera, Oregon DOE William Dixon, Oregon DOE l
t t
r
.% m ,
s WM-64/EFH/88/10/18/L
-DISTRIBUTION.
Docket File 40-WM064 ePOR/DCSt.
.RBangart, RIV EHawkins RCPD, NM LLO Branch, LLWM URF0 r/f CONCURRENCE: DATE:
EHawkins/URF0/db /8/f/ /8 I
I
(
. hp 4 p& %-e.-- g-M.w T-M~w**t1t P 'T P 9'P"NP""" -^*""*##