ML20198J159
| ML20198J159 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/25/1987 |
| From: | Browning R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Hale P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| REF-WM-48, TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9710140092 | |
| Download: ML20198J159 (68) | |
Text
--, p----------
- - - =
- - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JDON 9/24 M2: HALE-1-
SEP 2 51987-Mr. Paul Hale f
-12912sE.:24th.St.
' Tulsa, OK--74134 e
j ear Mr.- Hale:-
D c
_This is in response to your letter dated September 2,1987. Due to tne nature of your questions and the fact _ that you are presently working as a DOE centractor or subcontractor, we would refer you to your organization's.
contracting officer for further information. Your contracting officer should D
make the appropriate contacts at DOE to address your concerns.
If DOE-U
-requires NRC.to consult with them on these questions they should notify us
~ hrough the normal channels, t
We have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Licensing and Regulatory
- Division within DOE's Office of Geologic Repositories for. their review and action.
In the future, we recommend that any similar questions be directed to 00E. -
,,&?
s'y Robert E. Browning, Director Division of High-Level Waste Management-
/
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
./
and Safeguards fs
\\.~
~
_cc: James Knight,-(DOE) 9710140092 870925 PDR WASTE WM-48 PDR a
s
y
...~........ -
j), f 10 JDON 9/24 M2 HALE. -
0FFIGAL CONCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION RECORD LETTER T0:-
Mr. Paul Hale 12912 E. 24th St.
Tulsa, OK -74134 FROM:-
Robert E. Browning, Director
- DHLW/NMSS
.t]~
+
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO. LETTER DATED 9/2/87 REQUESTING INFORMATION PERTAINING TO QA AND THE TRANSP0 RATION AND SAFEGUARDS OF HLW-W DATE:
DISTRIBUTION
' HLW/S NMSS RF RBrowning, HLW MBell, HLW RBa11ard, HLTR
.1 Runting HLSE JYoungblood, HLOB SCoplan, HLOB RJchnson, HLOB JKennedy,- HLOB JLinehan, HLOB DGillen, HLOB:
~KStablein, HLOB
_ H LOB /.f-HLOB r/f-JGiarratana -HLSE
'PDR RCoot PPrestholtL Orignatior r/f JDonnelly, HLOB CMacDonald,-SGTB-CONCURRENCES ORGANIZATION /CONCUREE INITIALS DATE CONCURRED-HLOB/ JDonnelly
/L M 87/9/4/
HLOB/ JKennedy b O E7/7 /
- k HLOB/ BJYoungblood 87/f/ A DHLW/ MJBell Ml 87/ f/ /
DHLW/ REBrowning (R,D 87/'7/ S S y
1
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page J.__of ___
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED COMMENTS No.
NUMBER REV BY 1
00410 A
Bid schedule-Additional calculation support is needed for the following quantities:
Eng p 2-8 Item Spec.
Approx.
No.
Section Description Unit Quantity 108 02200 Excavation for permanent drainage ditches C.Y.
41,813 109 02200 Excavation for retention and evaporation basins C.Y.
28,850 110 02200 Excavation of non-tailings material from areas adjacent to the embankment and place-ment in spoil C.Y.
33,000 111 02200 Excavation for temporary drainage ditches C.Y.
3,760 m
)dh
}
112 02200 Excavation of non-tailings borrow material
~
(S and placement as fills at Bodo Canyon disposal site C.Y.
11,600 O
s 113 02200 Compaction of natural ground under non-tail-i((
ings fills placed on site S.Y.
31,100 7p 5
uo
)3 114 02200 i' reparation of subgrade under the aggregate base course of the permanent roads 5.Y.
3,780 L_
120 02728 Furnish and install 36-inch corrugated steel 7Q pipe L.F.
180 p
g x
g Su v4 C
.. ~
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page 2_of_ _
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
DURANGO PREl.ll41 NARY DESIGN - Subcontract' Documents - Bid Schedule Un8TRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF I PREPARED COMMENTS No.
NUMBER REV
'BY 1
00410 A
Item Spec.
Approx.
Eng (cont.)
No.
Section Description Unit Quantity 122 02728 Furnish and install 54-inch corrugated steel pipe
- t.. F.
40 124 02771 Furnish and install membrane liner for waste-water retention basins, emergency spillways and temporary drainags ditches S.Y.
48,387 604 02500 Furnish and place asphaltic concrete paving for decontamination pads Ton 340 701 02200 Excavation of non-tailings borrow material and placement as fill at Durango processing site for finish grading C.Y.
736,900 702 02200 Excavation of non-tailings borrow material and placement as fill at Bodo Canyon dis-posal site for finish grading C.Y.
167,600 2
P5 301
" Excavation of tailings material and placecont in embankment" needs to be Eng.
changed to " Excavation of tailings and contaminated materials and place-ment in embankment".
3 P5 302
" Furnish and install displacement monuments" should be deleted. These Eng will not be needed at Bodo Canyon.
DOE ANOVALIDATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page 3,,__
CITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule LMATRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED COMMENTS No.
NUMBER REV BY 4
00410 A
The following should be included in the specifications:
Eng (cont.)
Upon completion of remedial action, identification of the site shall be desig-nated with monuments, markers, and signs as follows:
(a) Horizontal and vertical control A minimum of three permanent survey monuments shall be established at the disposal site at the direction of the contractor. These shall be refer-enced to the USGS or National Geodetic Survey (NGS) control networks, and the State Plane Coordinate System. Horizontal and vertical control shall be to a minimum of second order standards.
If durable bedrock is at or near the surface, monuments shall be installed by setting a standard, flared aluminum cap, 3.25 inches in diameter with a three-inch-long stem set in solid bedrock.
The standard shall be installed in a pilot hole in the rock and cemented in with "rockite" grout or equiva-lent (Figure 1).
In the absence of solid bedrock in appropriate locations for such an instal-lation, an alternative procedure shall be to set a precast concrete or granite-type monument. The form of the monument shall be a truncated cone or pyramid (frustum) with a standard metal cap cast into its top. The monu-ment shall contain a reinforcing bar or a magnet to allow for discovery with a metal detector. A typical monument shall have a diameter of six inches at the top,12 inches high, and have a diameter of eight inches at the base.
The monument shall be set in concrete which has been poured into a hole that extends at least 18 inches below the frost line. The monument shall be set so that about one-fourth is above the ground surface (Figure 2). The diameter
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page 4_of.,_,,
CITE NAME DURANGO TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule LMATRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED BY-No, NUMBER REV 4
00410 A
of the hole shall be at least twice the largest diameter of the monument.
Eng (cont.)
(b) Boundary monuments Boundary monuments shall be set at all corners an the legal boundaries of the Lakeview disposal site. The position of the boundary monuments shall be determined by a survey of the same precision as used in establishing the permanent survey monument as discussed above.
The Berntsen Federal aluminum survey monument (Model A-1), or equivalent, shall be used (Figure 3).
The standard monument length is 30 inches, but is available in lengths up to 10 feet. Monuments shall be set to a minimum of 12 to 16 inches below frost line.
(c) Site markers Two granite (or equivalent) site markers shall be established on the disposal site at the direction of the contractor. The site markers shall identify the site and the general location of the tailings on the site; and show the date of closure, the tonnage of tailings, and the curies of radioactivity.
One site marker shall be placed at the entrance to the site, or, if there is no defined entrance, on the boundary of the site closest to the nearest public highway. The second site marker shall be placed near the center of the stabilized tailings.
The site markers shall be unpolished granite with minimum dimensions of 36 inches in length, 24 inches in width, and 18 to 24 inches in depth. Lettering and other marking shall tx3.ncised 0.25 to 0.50 inch.
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page 5,_of _,_
l TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
CITE NAME DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule LMATRA ACCESS No.
PREPARED CMT DOCUMENT REF BY No.
NUMBER REV 4
0041b A
The site markers shall be set in a bed of reinforced concrete which extends Eng f
( cont.,'
below frost line unless it disturbs the integrity of the radon barrier. The incised face shall be approximately horizontal, but with sufficient slope to prevent the accumulation of water, ice, or soil. The site markers shall be slightly above ground (18 to 24 inches).
l The elevation and position of the site markers shall be determined by a survey of the same precision as used in establishing the permanent survey monuments.
(d) Signs Signs displaying the international symbol that indicates the presence of radioactive materials, shall be placed at intervals around the perimeter of the site. The signs shall indicate that the site is government property, that it contains uranium mill tailings, and that trespassing is forbidden (Figure 4). The perimeter sign at the entrance to the site shall display the same information plus the name and telephone number of the responsible agency (Figure 5).
Perimeter signs shall be locatid so that one or more signs will be visible in daylight to a person approaching from any direction.
In no instance shall they be'more than 500 feet apart.
The signs shall be 18 inches by 24 inches, and shall be mounted on a dual steel standard of the type used by highway departments for highway E.igns.
Signs shall be metal (similar to highway signs) and shall have a yellow back-cc ground with black letters and numbers.
. ~. _. - _. _ _.. _ _
f s
e l
3 1/4' l
i I
]
7 L
2 1/2' MAGNET
- D 4
L-L a.
SIDE VIEW t
i MAGNET y-.xg i
13/8
)
4 v
I BOTTOM VIEW i
P i
k 1
l i
FIGURE 1 BERNTSEN RT-1 MARKER OR EQUIVALENT i
1 l
l J
s i
i
)
r.
[I s -- -
4
/6 g
t, 12' e
R:
/
o s
i e->i a
s i
l q'
1 s
4 0
q CONCRETE POURED [
t IN PLACE 4
E
>\\^
xq N'
\\
AVERAGE DEPTH 36' k s
'l 'M
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\g g j.
I FIGURE 2
- PRECAST MONUMENT SET IN SOIL LAKEVIEW SITE d
I
e
,,c put.0C
),,
o E
E o
r~~
K
\\\\
i
,. ~..* * * * *
+,
. 's J
$\\
.a
\\\\
^
y @k$
u g
. Il
(
\\
\\
9
.*. *.*. W ~J
\\\\
ft U
rd O
8 eE(
JL E
o I
j 4.96/C 3+4 w
-- w g.J b
(
2 E
et#8 I 3
2H 3
O,o n
r o o g
O y
E w
0
\\
0 wa
-=
M M3 0
m W
e
'n
+---. t1 % C
=
O mE an y
W p
y@'
Y r
N c
E 9
y o
i
c e
g 3
w o!
t,1 2
8 u
.s
' ' >,, 8 sn U
L e,tti C p
I w
= 5 g i 30 O
O U
4
>o o u
5 1
,m
)
O p" o 1
g rMe 2
O o
O L.J mo
,P
\\
\\
z<e M
N 9
(
YELLOW BACKGROUND BLACK LETTERS 6'
G LETTERS 2' HIGH
_L 18' NO TRESPASSING URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REPOSITORY U.S. GOVERNMENT PROPERTY A
\\
8 r'i 24" P
'=
I FIGURE 4 PERIMETER SIGN - LAKEVIEW SITE 1
i 10 T
l i
7 YELLOW BACKGROUND l
BLACK LETTERS 6~
LETTERS 2 HIGH I
1 is-NO TRESPASSING l
1 i
l LAKEVIEW, OR, URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REPOSITORY l
I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (505-844-5291) l i
4 i
U.S. GOVERNMENT PROPERTY l
i i
i I
i 1
I l=
2 4~
=j FIGURE 5 j
ENTRANCE SIGN - LAKEVIEW SITE l
i
DOE APPROVAufMTE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Pase1 Lee _
SITE NAME "U
DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
PREPARED CMT DOCUMENT REF SV No.
NUMBER REW 00411 A
Special Conditions 5
P1 6
Change orders with a value exceeding established criteria must be Site Mgt.
approved by the Change Control Board.
Proj. Int.
6 P 3.
37 The necessity of widening C.R. 211 and 212 for the truck transporta-Proj. Int.
tion option is likely to be a costly and time consuming item for the Site Mgt.
subcontractor. As much as 190,000 cubic yards of soil and rock may Env. Serv.
need to be excavated to widen the road to 30 feet. Buried utility lines are present along the road. Road widening should be listed as a line item in bid specificat%ns rather than listing it at the sub-contractor's convenience. However, the special conditions should emphasize that road widening, improvements, and acres disturbed should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
7 P6 A.39 The proposed definitions for low-level and high-level radioactively Rad. Serv.
A.40 contaminated materials contradict definitions that have been adopted by Federal agencies.
Items 39 and 40 should be deleted.
8 P7 SC-3.D The sentence should be continued as follows:
Env. Serv.
....if truck transport is the primary mode of transportation; if conveyors are the primary mode of transportation the work shall be-perfomed during the period of 1 March through 30 November.
9 P 23 Add Item D In the event of a roadkill of elk or deer along C.R. 211/212, or Env. Serv.
on either site subcontractor personnel will be responsible for reporting the incident on a form delivered to the Site Manager. Foms I
l similar to the attached example will be supplied by the Contractor.
t____
---u-l
12
(
Colorado' Division of Wildlife.
No.
. ANIMAL-VEHICLE KILL REPORT' Fill out one. form for each big.
game animal killed.
- 1. Deer Elk Other 2.Date of Accident:.
Actual Estimate
- 3. Time of Accident: (if known)
A.M.
P.M.
- 4. Highway No.: Federal Stt.te County
- 5. County of Accident:
- 6. Age of Knimal:
Sex:
Young Yearling Mature Unknown
- 7. Location of Animal-Vehicle Collision (nearest 0.1 mile from identifiable structure).
- 8. Signature:
i N M O N DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Peee }.3 of-S8TE NAME -
TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
l CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED i
No.
NUMBER REV By
[
00411 A
l (cont.)
10 P 23 Add Item E The archaeological sites shows, on Drawing A (attached) shall be Env. Serv.
avoided by construction activities.
j 11 00412 A
Section 01010 Summary of Work i
t 12 P1 1.1.C.2.a This states "The site encompasses about 80 acres in the eastern Eng half of section 36, R10W, T 34 1/2 N and....". This should be changed to "The site encompasses about 80 acres in the w tern l
half of Section 36, R10W, T 35N and...".
13 1.1.C.2.b This states "are owned by the state of Colorado as a e;e of the Eng Bodo Canyon Wildlife Refuge". This should be changeu 5 "are owned by the State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Wild-i life".
l 14 P4 1.3.B.2 Alternative One - Conveyor Eng i
Af ter 1.3.B.2.q insert "r.
Grading of the borrow areas to provide positive drainage."
i 15 P5 1.3.B.2 Alternative Two - Truck / Conveyor:
Eng Should be renumbered 1.3.B.3; and 1.3.B.3 Alternative Three - ~
f' Truck: should be renumbered 1.3.B.4.
4 l
i r
I 5
(--,-------------
i b
t.5.N ZML.
&5 o-
DOE N N DATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Pese 15,,,_
SITE NAME NT-l DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED COtadENTS No.
NUMBER REV BY 00412 A
i (cont.)
t i
16 P6 1.3.B.2 Alternative Two - Truck / Conveyor:
Eng l
After 1.3.B.2.r insert "s.
Grading at the borrow areas to provide positive drainage."
j 17 P7 1.3.B.3 Alternative Three - Truck:
Eng l
After I.3.B.3.p insert "q.
Grading at the borrow areas to provide l
positive drainage.
18 P 8-9 1.4.A.3 States "the rock-soil matrix". This should be changed to " site Eng
['
i restora tion".
19
'P9 1.4.A.3 States "as required materials are excavated, the low permeability Eng j
clayey soil layer w.11 be constructed." Since this layer lies under the' cut portion of the pile, the statement appears to imply an impossibility. The suggested rewording is "After the required materials have been excavated...."
[
t 20 P9 1.4.A.6 At the processing site uncontaminated fill should be placed as Eng i
necessary to promote positive drainage but placement fill will not ensure stability of Smelter Mountain if excessive excavation is t
i performed in this area. This section should be reworded.
i g
,e g
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Peen 16,,,,__
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED C N MTS No.
NUMBER REW BY 00415 A
Section 01030 Alternatives Eng 21 P 2-1.3.B States "Approximately 14,300 feet of conveyor system shall be con-structed from the Durango site to the Bodo Canyon site.
In addition to this, a shorter conveyor shall be constructed for the transport of cover material from the borrow area to the disposal site." This is incorrect, the 14,300 feet of conveyor includes the piece of conveyor going from the borrow area to the disposal site.
22 P3 3.1.R This section. should be revised to include the following statement:
Env. Serv.
"...shall be graded, seeded and otherwise reclaimed in consultation with the Colorado Division of IJildlife and the Soil Conservation Service to the conditions...."
23 00417 A
Section 01300 Submittals Eng 24 P1 1.1.B There are no General Provisions or Federal Conditions included in these specifications.
25 P3 1.3.A There are no General Conditions included in these specifications.
Eng 26 P5 1.5.B.1 There are no General Conditions included in these specifications.
Eng 27 Requirements for submittals shall include the following baseline data documents:
Eng (a) As-built drawings of the completed remedial action.
O
-e.<-
ee--
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Page.I7.of __
SITE :.MME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents -sBid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
PREPARED CMT DOCUMENT REF sy No.
NUMBER I REV 00417 A
(cont.)
(Requirements for submittals cont.)
Eng (b) Site map and final topographic survey as follows:
Develop a site map based upon a topographic survey of the final site after the completion of the remedial action. The topographic survey and the resulting site map shall meet the following specifications:
o The scale shall not be less than 1:200 feet.
o The contour interval shall be two feet.
The survey shall be done to the standards of the o
Manual of Photogrammetry, 4th Edition (ASP,1980).
l In addition to topography, the site map shall show property boundaries, fences, roads, access paths, monitor wells, sur-veying control stations, monuments, markers, and other sur-veillance features. The coordinates in degrees, minutes, and seconds for each feature, or selected points of a feature such 1
as a fence or road, shall be shown on the site map.
l 00418 Section 01500 Temporary Facilities Eng 28 P2 1.5 Drawing Nos. DUR-PS-10-0313 and DUR-PS-10-0315 show two contractors offices, one at the north end of the processing site and the other to the south. Be consistent. Will there be two locations for trailers?
DOE MOVAUDATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page _18__of _
SITE NAME DURANGO TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
A D
CMT DOCUMENT REF COMMENTS BY No.
NUMBER REV Eng 00418 A
Section 01500 Temporary Facilities 29 P8 1.16.A There are no General Provisions or General Conditions included in these specifications.
30 P9-1.19. B.1 This section states that " conditions existing prior to the start of Eng the Subcontract." Needs to be worded " conditions existing prior to the start of subcontract or better."
31 P9 1.19.B.2 States "... and restore the areas to their original contours by Eng grading and... Rewurd to say "...to their original contours by grading to provide positive drainage and by seeding the area to Site Mgt.
match surrounding vegetation in consultation with the Soil Conser-vation Service, and the Division of Wildlife for Bodo Canyon."
Eng 00419 A
Section 02050 Demolition 32 P1 1.1.A.1 It has not yet been determined if the smelter stack is to be demo-lished.
00422 A
Section 02110 Site Clearing Eng 33 P2 3.2.A.1 This specification o'nly provides for stripping "beneath fills on slopes....". The specification should be broadened to include "beneath all fills," whether on slopes or not.
34 P2 3.3 This specification allows for the disposal of slash, however, no Eng mention of where these approved disposal areas are is made. A l
discussion of the location of these approved sites should be incird-l ed for final design.
~
N AMMAUDATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS pmI SITE NAME T m W E M NT:
DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
t CMT DOCUMENT REF COMMENTS Noo NUMBER REV BY 00422 A
(cont.)
35 P3 3.4 This specification allows for the stockpiling of topsoil, however, Eng no mention of the location of the areas approved for stockpiling is made. A discussion of the location of these approved locations should be included for final design.
36 00423 A
Section 02140 Dewatering Eng P2 3.1.A The phrase " dirtier by comparative analysis" should be better I
defined. This phrase should be defined such that the outflow could be checked by field testing methods, i.e., the specification should contain criteria to be met which could be measured in the field.
00424 A
Section 02200 Earthwork Eng i
37 P l-24 1.4.P.1 The embankment design as presented in the dRAP/SCD calls for dif-ferent layers of lesser contaminated materials to be placed on top of the tailings. This is not clear in the specifications.
For clarification the text should be changed as follows:
" Layers of select..." should be changed to " layers".
38 P7 1.6.F.2 Embankment slopes should be completed to plus or minus 0.1 feet of Eng slope grade specified. A tolerance of plus or minus six inches would allow for the possibility of ficw concentrations.
m
-s w
--~
N APPROVAUDATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page _20__of _,
i SITE NAME T M N N NT-
.DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS Mo.
4 CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED COMMENTS No.
NUMBER REV SY 00424 A
j (cont.)
4 39 P8 2.1.A.1 Previous discussions by the RAC have indicated a potential for cost Eng savings if the subcontractor is allowed to obtain his own borrow areas. ~ is comment is to the contrary and suggests that all borrow areas are to be obtained by the RAC. This specification should be rewritten to give the responsibility for borrow acquisition to the subcontractor so as to take advantage of this cost savings.
40 P9 2.1.E Change to read " select contaminated mesterials."
Eng 41 P9 2.1.C.2.6 Specification for the radon barrier and low permeability clayey Eng i'
layer which are based on permeability criteria are impossible to enforce because of the inaccuracies involved with field testing for i
the required permeability. These specifications should be rewritten based solely on compaction criteria, which should be backed by laboratory correlations with the permeability achieved at each com-paction effort. Therefore, a laboratory compaction program, coupled with permeability correlations at each compaction effort, should
{
be implemented and used to specify the radon cover and clayey layer's permeabilities.
f 42 P9 2.1.F.c Item "c" should be rewritten to be more specific as to the compac-Eng tion criteria for the radon barrier material. The specification i
should state " material shall be compacted to at least...". Also, j
the moisture must be controlled so it is placed at between zero and three percent above optimum moisture.
i i
i i
L
,I
r DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Page __of__
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
{
DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED I
No.
NUMBER REV SY 00424 A
(cont.)
43 P 11 3.2.B.2.a There is no specification on the silt fences.
Eng 44 P 11.
3.2.B.2 A discussion should accompany the specification which does not allow Eng i
a cut in the tailings material to be left exposed during seasonal shutdowns. This discussion should explain the grading configuration
-equired at shutdown, as well as the reason for not leaving the cut exposed.
45 P 12 3.2.B.6 This specification should be made clearer so the reader realizes Eng the intent is to keep all unstable bottom material out of the 24 inch basal recompacted clayey layer.
46 P 12 3.2.B.7 In addition to backfilling the excavations, the fill material should Eng be recompacted to the surrounding conditions, or better.
47 P 13 3.2.E.2.b.3 Why do temporary ditches require a membrane liner? Contamination Eng which would be deposited in the ditches during the construction period would be negligible.
It would not be necessary to clean l
contamination until the ditch is removed. Provide rationale or eliminate liner from design.
48 P 13 3.2.E.2.c.1 Provide explanation of how erosion of the ditch excavation can be Eng i
repaired with a seepage barrier.
49 P 14-15 3.2.E.5 The specification for compaction of the 24 inch low permeability Eng layer should be expanded to include moisture control at zero to i
i 6
f
-r---
N A N m /DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Pese 2,_2_,,_
SITE NAME TN W DOCUMENT-DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Doct nents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
PREPARED CMT DOCUMENT REF Sy No.
NUMBER REV 00424 A
(cont.)
49 P 14-15 3.2.E.5 three percent above optimum. By keeping the moisture at or above Eng (cont.)
the optimum, the permeability will remain 9reater than the cover layer, thereby, reducing the potential for the " bathtub effect."
50 P 17 3.4.A The dRAP states that no more than five percent, by volume, organics Eng be placed in any portion of the stabilized embankment. This should be included as part of these specifications for full requirement.
51 P 17 3.4.A Any rubble placed in the pile should be reduced to the minimum size Eng practicable and carefully compacted in-place such that there are no adjacent voids or loose soil around it.
This requirement appears in the dRAP, but is omitted in these specifications and should be added.
52 P 18
'3.4.C.1 The tailings and windblown tailings material are not to be compacted Eng to 95 percent, but r.
90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698.
53 P 18 3.4.C.2 The tailings, and other contaminated material, should be placed at Eng zero to two percent below optimum moisture content.
l 54 P 21 4.1.B Tbc embankment design as presented in the dRAP/SCD calls for dif-Eng ferent layers of lesser contaminated materials to be placed on top of the tailings. This is not clear in the specifications. For clarification the text should be changed as follows:
I
DOE ANVAUDATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page 13,g__
iTITLE OF DOCUMENT:
SITE NAME DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARE 3 COMMENTS I
No.
NUMBER REV BY 00424 A
(cont.)
54 P 21 4.1.B (cont.)
Insert after No. I the following:
Eng 2.
Excavation of contaminated materials from raffinate pond, vicinity property and windblown material and placement in the embankment.
3.
Excavation of contaminated materials from mill yard and other mill areas and placement in the embankment.
l 55 P 21 4.1.B.3 The purpose of Item No. 3 is not clear. What is to be done with Eng the excavated material adjacent to the embankment? Needs to be clari fied.
00425 A
Section 02278 Eros"
~ otection Eng 56 P2 2.1.B A ~
stion of the manual and visual durability tests to be con-duc.eu in-situ and after processing / quarrying should be included.
57 P4 2.1.C.4.a The D100.nax values for each type of rip-rap appear in specification Eng 03-527-02, but do not appear in the general specifications, tnereby not specifying an upper size limit.
First, the D100 max values should appear in both sections. Second, the DIO0 max values from speci fication 03-527-02 do not always agree with the size ranges specified in the general specifications.
I
DOE APPROVAUDATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Paeo Sof SITE NAME DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
PREPARED CMT DOCUttdNT REF SV No.
NUMBER REV 00425 A
(cont.)
58 P4 2.1.C.4 The 13/4-inch and 1 inch ranges in the Type A distribution :pecifi-Eng.
cation require a gap between 50 and 75 percent passing. This gap is unnecessary and the specification should be rewritten to include a more continuous size range distribution.
9 5 2.C.4.b The Type I bedding specification allows an excessive amount of Eng 59 fines, i.e., 40 percent minus number 40 sieve.
It is recommended that this specification be more restrictive to include not more than 5 percent minus number 200 sieve.
60 P5 2.C.4.b The plot of the size distribution range of the Type I bedding is Eng uneven and may suggest gap grading. This specification should be rewritten to give a more smooth, even distribution band for the gradati.a plot.
61 P6 3.1.B A discussion of the compaction requirements for the bedding should Eng be included. A 12 inch lift, compacted by four passes of a bull-dozer, is not sufficient for goality control monitoring during con-struction.
l 62 P6 3.1.C from a quality control standpoint, rip-rap placement by dumping Eng and spreading by bulldozer is the least desirable. A discussion should be included as to any special handling requirements to be employed, such as the maximum allowable height of drop during dumping, or any other measures to be imposed on the subcontractor to minimize the rock breakage.
DOE AMOVAUDATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Page 25__of,_
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED COMMENTS No.
NUMBER REV BY 00425 A
(cont.)
63 P6 3.1.F This specification should be rewritten since, as it now reads, an Eng irregularity of up to 102 inches would be an acceptable surface i rreguia ri ty.
This size of irregularity is excessive.
64 P6 3.1 Generally it is not acceptable to approve rio-rap size and/or Eng gradation at the source. A discussion should be included as to the procedure for final approval, which would be after placement, to assure proper size gradation in-place. This discussion should indi-cate the method (s) to be used to check the in-place gradation.
00426 Section 02500 Paving and Surfacing Eng 65 P7 3.1.C A compaction criteria of 95 percent maximum density is stated for aggregate which is cchesive. A cohesive aggregate material is not possible. A discussion is required here to further define this speci fica tion.
In addition, a maximum of eight percent passing the number 200 sieve is required.
The required compaction for the material specified as "cohesionless aggregate" should be changed fram 80 percent of relative density to 95 percent of maximum density, as determined by ASTM D4253 and D4254
DOE APPROVAUDATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Page2fi_of_
TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
MTE NM DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
PREPARED CMT DOCUMENT REF SV No.
NUMBER REV 00428 A
Section 02728 Site Drainage Eng 66 P 1-5 Calculations indicate that some of the temporary drainage facilities could be earth-lined.
This section should provide more detail and remain consistent with the calculaticns.
67 P3' 3.1.B This specification, which requires permanent drainage ditches to be
! ig compacted to 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM D698, does not agree with specification 2200, part 3.2.E.2.c.2, which requires 95 percent compaction for the same structure.
The two specifications should be reworked so they agree with each other.
00429 Section 02771 Membrane Liner Eng 68 P3 1.7 The waste-water retention basins are temporary structures used only over the two-year construction period. The five-and 20-year warranty cannot be justified without a discussion of the cost impact of such a requirement.
69 P 4-5 2.2 These specifications are excessive for a liner required to last two Eng construction seasons.
70 P5 3.2.A Any additional procedures required in areas where the soil sterilant Eng has been applied should be addressed so that future growth after revegetation will not be inhibited.
m
._.-m__-
M N M ATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS g_
SITE NAME T M W N NT-DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents - Bid Schedule UMTRA ACCESS No.
PREPARED i
CMT DOCUMENT REF NTS SY i
No.
NUMBER REV j
00429 A
(cont.)
71 P6 3.6.D This specification must be expanded to ensure that the disposal of Eng the membrane liner in the embankment (if required) would not induce settlement, inhibit water migration, or exceed the five percent limit on organic material (by volume).
00432 A
Section 14550 Conveyor Eng 72 P2 1.4 The temporary maintenance road for the conveyor should not be treated any different than the other haul / maintenance roads.
If a road width is specified for the conveyor maintenance road then road widths should also be specified for the haul roads and temporary access roads.
73 P 2-3 1.4.J This section should eventually be revised to include requirements Site Mgr.
j-of the division of Wildlife that are specific to operation of the conveyor. When negotiations with the Division of Wildlife have been completed, the conditions for conveyor operation agreed to by DOE should be added as specifications.
74 P3 1.4.i The permits required for the remedial action, who her tailings are Site Mgr.
transported by conveyor or truck should generally be obtained by the RAC or DOE. The exceptions to this would be for lice.asing of Proj. Int.
. vehicles, vehicle radios, and a permit for explosive materials. It f
is not reasonable to expect a subcontractor to obtain permits or.
land access agreements that may require a long lead time.
1
N NNDAM REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Page 28,.g_
j SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS Mo.
CMT DOCUMENT REF Cote 4ENTS No.
NUMBER REV BY 0G121 A
Section 02090 Sealing Abandoned Wells Hyd 75 Specifications for monitor wells to be constructed at the end of the remedial action at Bodo Canyon should be added to this section and the section title should be renamed. Three wells will be needed for surveillance monitoring as described in the following specifications:
Casing Fomation Well No.
Diameter Total Depth Screen Interval Screened DUR03-605 2-inch 10 ft below first Total depth -12' Fractured shale /
PVC water-bearing zone to T.D.
-2' sandstone lenses encountered (*v40'
( 28 - 38' )
of Cliff House otal?)
fomation DUR03-606 2-inch to top of shale TD-12' to TD-2' allevium 2
PVC bedrock (
- 50'
( 38-48' )
total?)
i DUR03-607 2-inch 10 ft below first 38 - 48' Shale / sandstone of PVC water-bearing zone Cliff House foma-( + 50' total) tion
i i;
DOE APPROVAUDATE t
i.
REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Page 1 % _
i SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
I UMTRA ACCESS No.
i CM*J,DLCUMENT REF PREPARED f
COMMENTS i '
NO- - 6MR REV EY c
l i
t 75 00421 A
Locations of the three' proposed wells are shown on the attached map. Specifica-i cont.
tions on the well installation procedures should be adopted from TAC cmanents on the Lakeview preliminary design.
L t
P i
T i
i L
l l-I l
l t
i
)
i i
l i
[
i 4
~
l i
i I
f
- - ~
'~
q, pA 5b f &e @ %
k6,,
,)..24 1
b
, e-1 l
~I,a j
ha\\
i; i
s,
,1 h
~"
k' 7
i
'~'
', d
)
'& W h
u,
-!kkp4%,
i, ldl l
-=
j
N ANVAUDATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Paga 3,1,,og,,_,,
SITE NAME TEE W EMNT-DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGH - Calculations Volumes I, II and III UMTRA ACCESS No.
r PREPARED CMT DOCUMENT REF COMMENTS gy No.
NUMBER REV 76 General:
A review of Volume I, II, and III of the General Construction Calculations Eng.
indicate the following:
A need to revise and supersede calculations where necessary and appro-1.
priate.
2.
In several places disagreement was found between the items listed in cal-culation number 03-535-01, " Bid Schedule Quantity Summary" and the Bid Schedule.
3.
Data in support of bid items was found in some instances to be omitted or inadequate.
In general the calculations are not explained well and it is difficult to follow a logical progression. A large amount of unnecessary calculations and additional pages have beer. included. Also, the calculations do not cover all of the quantities shown in the bid document. A number of the working drawings used in the calcula-tions have been revised as presented in the Bid Document, but these revisions were not checked as to effects on the previous calculation.
If during the review of a calculation, a significant error was identified, the re-mainder of the calculation was not checked.
i DOE M O W DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS 3bt EITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
DURANGO PRELIMINARY DESIGN - CALCULATIONS VOLLME I UMTRA ACCESS No.
t CMT DOCUMENT REF COtedENTS No.
NUMBER REV BY 77 Calc. No.
Temporary Holding Facilities Pad - Pavement Design I
03-504-01 Why is this holding pad constructed with asphalt paving.
It is alrea^
ENG.
I in an area with existing contamination requiring no liner. This appees to be an unnecessary expense that could have been designed much more economically.
l t
78 Calc. No.
Temporary Pad - Site Drainage
{
03-504-C4 In deter;;:ining the shear stress to size the rip-rap for the sides of
'ENG.
p.12 the channel a 5:1 slope was used. Yet the cross section on p. 16 of the same area shows a 2:1 side slope.
l 79 s.alc. No.
Borrow Area - Quarterly Estimate t
03-516-01 The borrow quantity required at processing site is uncertain until the ENG.
I depth of contamination under the pile is detemined. A more appropriate t
estimate is 300,000 cy, based on the assumption that supplemental standards i
I will be applied to Smelter Mountain.
l I
80 Calc. No.
Profile "Al" contains an unidentified soil type which is penetrated by ENG.
03-516-01 MK-BTP305. This profile should be labeled in a clearer manner.
j Sheet 3 L
L 81 Calc. No.
Boring and test pit logs should be included in the calculations to allow ENG.
i 03-516-01 the reader the chance for a more detailed review.
l I
82 Calc. No.
Disposal Site Decon Pad k EDLA ENG.
03-519-01 The design of the decon pad at the disposal site is based upon an 18 p.6 which will be loaded 50% of the time. However, almost all trucks leaving
[
the disposal site and hence entering the decon pad will be empty.
J
.,_4
,.....m
,,m.,
t DOE AMOVAUDATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Paged]_of__
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
PREPARED CMT DOCUMENT REF BY No.
NUMBER REV f
83 Calcs. No.
Processing Site Excavation Quantities l
03-526-01 Processing Site - Estimate of Contaminated Materials and l'
03-526-02 Excavation quantities of the large and small tailings piles are based upon ENG.
unsubstantiated estimates of pre-pile topography and thus are subject to RAD.
extreme variability. Additionally, excavation in all areas is based upon taking straight cuts rather than removing only the contaminated material.
The potential problem of slope stability hes not been addressed and should be considered since it may impact the P'Gits of excavation and thus quantity of contaminated materials that may taf 7dy be removed. Supplemental standards may need to be invoked in areas where excessive cuts required to remove all contamination from the face of Smelter Mountain are projected.
Estimated quantities appear to contain total excavation materials for the retention basins. Since the majority of excavation for these retention basins will consist of " clean" material, this fact should be taken into account. Clean material should not be combined with the contaminated mater ial and should not be placed in the final embankment.
Our present estimate of subpile contamination is six feet. M-K uses ten feet in their estimate.
(Either estimate may be valid, as there are no data to support any estimates for subpile contamination.)
The quantity of contaminated slag and material at the mill site (293,000 cy) was taken from the DEIS and not from the most current estimate of 186,000 cy presented in the DRAP/SCD (p. B-10), which is based on recent Bendix data used to estimate depths of contamination.
4 d
DOE APPROVALIDATE REVEWIRESOLUTIONS Pos.3_1.g_
SITE N TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF NN NTS No.
NUMBER REV BY 83 Calcs. No Although it'is difficult _ to determine from the reduced 30% preliminary Eng.
03-526-01 design drawings, it appears that more material is being removed in the Rad.
and raffinate ponds area than is necessary. As presented in the DRAP/SCD, 03-526-01 the estimated volume of contaminated material for the raffinate ponds l
Con'd vicinity properties, and windblown is only 113,000 cy. Figure B.1.2 l
~
as presented in the DRAP/SCD shows the depth of contamination of the Durango Processing Site and should be followed more closely when performing the final excavation. This is especially important at Bodo Canyon where there is limited space available for isolation of contaminated 3
materials.
i It is not clear if the estimated quantity of windblown contamination is included in either estimate of the two calculation sets 03-526-01.
The estimate by S.E. Botsford, using average end method, also does not include vicinity property materials.
There is a substantial disparity between the estimated quantities in l
the two calculation sets no. 03-526-01 and 03-526-02. The estimate by S.E. Botsford (not including vindblown and VP materials) totalled slightly more than 3 irillion cy. The check by P.O. Gregary totalled slightly less l
than 2.9 million cy. The independent evaluation by P.O. Gregary totalled
?
2.6 million cy. All estimates are significantly greater than the 1.75 l
million cy total contamination presented in the draft RAP /SCD (Page B-10).
3 t
4 h
I r
I
?
h
DOE AMMAUDATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page 35,g, SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF
^
COMMENTS l
No.
NUMBER REV BY 83 Calcs. No.
The TAC quantities are based upon mill records as confinned in the Summary Ra
- i 03-526-01 Report, " Phase I Study of Inactive Uranium Mill Sites and Tailings Piles,"
and prepared by the AEC. The estimated quantities presented in that report were 03-526-02 calculated by Foote Mineral personnel from auger drilling records and were Cont'd incorporated in the report by AEC.
The quantification of other contaminated materials at the Durango site, with the exception of tailings subpile contamination, is based upon the site survey
{
perfomed by Bendix. Using Bendix information on depth of contamination over a defined area, the volume of contaminated material was estimated. The actual depth of the subpile contamination has not been documented due to the lack of subpile data. Based upon general geologic infomation and the measured depth of contamination at the toe of the pile, an average depth of six feet was assumed for subpile contamination. The total volume of contaminated materials are estimated to ba (as presented in the draft RAP /SCD, page B-10):
Tailings 1,224,000 cy Subpile 230,000 cy Mill yard and other areas 186,000 cy Raffinate ponds, VPs, windblown 113,000 cy Total Estimated Contamination 1,753,000 cy The primary uncertainty is the depth of contamination under the tailings interface.
It is difficult to believe there is 1.25 million cubic prds of contaminated caterial under the pile. This would result in an approximate depth of contamination of 35 feet under the pile.
i i
l
DOE AMOVAL/DATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page 3 6,,,,,,_
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
a-UMTRA ACCESS No.
I A
D CMT DOCLEENT REF COMMENTS SY No.
NUMBER REV 84 Calc. No.
Natural Slope Under Piles 03-526-03 The estimate of natural topography uader the existing tailings piles is ENG.
used to estimate quantities for material removal to Bodo Canyon. The major pramise upon which this calculation is based is that the upper bedrock
~
slope can be projected downward. There is no supporting data presented to support this assumption. Additional data in the fom of boring logs should be provided to support this assumption.
Insufficient data is available to support the development of the rather large drainage swale south of the cross section Co 1C Topography of the same slope further south indicates a tendency for drainage swales l
to become less pronounced in the lower portions of the slope rather.than increasing as the developed profile suggests. Significantly different quantities may be obtained by incorporating slightly differing interpre-tations to the original topographic contours. This method of basing quantities upon postulated buried interfaces is inappropriate for final design. Accurate quantity estimates must be obtained by drilling or geophysical field investigations.
Provide this additional field data as a design basis.
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Page 3J.,of_
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
~
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED No.
NUMBER REV SY Calc. lo.
Riprap and Bedding Material Gradations 03-527-02 (Comments in addition to those on. specification No. 02278) i 85 Sheet 2 Each time a new variable is introduced into a calculation it should be ENG.
dafined.
In this calculation the tem W is not clearly defined 100 max before it is used in the fonnula.
86 Sheet 7 The method of calculating the D of the' bedding material for Types B and C ENG.
riprap 'is not.sufficiently descMbed in the calculation. Although the methodology may be correct, a clearer explanation of the calculation is required.
87 Sheet 7 Include a discussion of how the " reasonable gradation band" was established ENG.
for the bedding material on Sheet 3.
Erosion Protection - Riprap and Bedding Material Gradations 88 Calc. No.
Provide further discussion, and calculations as needed, on how a Type B.
ENG.
03-527-02 riprap (type 2 bedding) could be filtered by a Type C riprap.
Your previous calculations and discussion prove only that Type G riprap could filter
. Type,B riprap (type'2 bedding). Further discussions stating that Type C riprap could also serve as bedding for Type G riprap would be appropriate.
l Calc. No.
Erosion Protection - Disposal Site - Embankments 03-527-03 Could not locate in reference 2, UMTRA' De..gn Procedures - Morrison-Kundsen,
ENC.
equal to D50 "I"I*"", times 3/2. Provide l
89 Sheet 2 Engineers, basis for using D100 additional infonnation.
.___-_.._.:.___.....-=..-...
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Page}g,,,g,,,,,,
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT-UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED sy No.
NUMBER REV 90-Calc. No.
A description of the rationale used in detemining the. input parameters for ENG.
03-527-02 this program as well as' the. design criteria on which this program is based Cont'd are not presented.
It is impossible with the information presented to Sheet.5 detemine if the correct procedures were utilized in calculating the rock size.
.i Calc. No.
Erosion Protection - Embankment Toe J
03-527-04 ENG.
91 Sheet'2a The proposed embankment toe would require ongoing maintenance and as such would not meet the design objectives as intended under Public Law 95-604.
Even with ongoing maintenance if a PMP event occurs, there is no assurance that the toe' erosion protection as designed will not fail. The design I
should take-into account flow concentrations based upon gully erosion occuring on the embankment toe. Also it appears that interstitial flow was taken into account when sizing the rocks. This_is an incorrect assumption.
92 Sheet 5 There appears to be a mistake in the rock sizes generated from the computer '
ENG.
printouts on pages 3 to 22. An independent check on rock sizes perfomed by the TAC results in rock sizes two to three times larger than those presented 1
in this calculation.
It is impossible to _ determine where the error lies. -
A listing of the programs used in these calculations, i.e. " riprap" needs to be provided in order that we can complete our review.
I 1
N
k DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Peee12.et S87E NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF '
PREPAREts COtedENTS BY No.
NUMBER REV:
93 Calc. No.
Erosion Protection ' Disposal Site - Embanirment Toe 03-527-04
'ENG.
It was recommended in this specification that a stability. analysis be perfonned on the referenced " typical section" slope configuration after Sheets This " typical section" all of the backfill material had been eroded off.
2a, 2b also' includes a 2:1 unbankment toe. This stability analysis was not performed on the referenced slope configuration and should be completed for the final design.
Calc. No.
Erosion Protection - Riprap Zones and Quantity Estimates 03-527-0!
. 94 Sheet 1 The calculation has been numbered wrong. The Table of Contents is numbered ENG.
f as 03-527-05 whereas included calculation set has' been numbered 03-527-03.
i l
4 b
-S 4
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page42 of SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCES8 No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF NAE COMME m No.
NUMBER REV gy 95 Calc. No.
Include a discussion on the criteria for determining individual riprap layer ENG.
03-527-05 thicknesses versus the rock sizes in that layer.
Cont'd Sheet 6 96 Sheet 30 Where did the crit'ria come from for designing for 100 years?
ENG.
97 Sheet 11 This design calculation is very confusing. First computer runs for sizing ENG.
rock were made for a 100 year stom, yet the output from these runs was not used in detemining the rock size. Computer runs for the same areas were also made for a PMP event.
For example, on p.12, ditch 4 alternate Ic, the D
rock size for a 100 year stom is 16.5 inches and 29 inches for a PMP, yet sn tne ditch was sized for 24 inch rock. Also see comment on Calc. 03-527-03, i
Sheet 5.
ENG.'
98 Sheet 6 Riprap categories should be labeled the same as on drawings.
and 25 Calc. No.
Hydrology - Probable Maximum Precipitation 03-528-02 A curve fit should be detemined for the rainfall intensity distribution as ENG.
99 Sheet 6 recommended by the National Weather Service (ref. 3) rather than on an estimated curve for the intensity. The points obtained from the figure on p.9 appear to be incorrect and should not be used to obtain a curve fit.
For example, a 5 minute time of concentration should be (8.3)(.45)(6/3) =
44.8 in/hr, not 46.0 as shown in the table on p.6.
Attached is a curve fit for the intensity distribution given in ref.(3) and should be u.,ed in future calculations. This curve fit is more accurate and eliminates the need for generating new curve fits for different PMP events.
5 VALUES WITH OUTPUT CODE =
1
=
60 e 100 X( 1 ) Y( 1)
=
45 e 95 X( 2 ):Y( 2) 30 e 89 X(-3 ) Y( 3)
=
X( 4 ) Y( 4 ) =
15 e 74 5e 45 X( 5 ) Y( 5)
=
LEA 5T-SQUARE 5 CURVEFIT CURVE TYPE INDEX A
B
- w**u*****
uunnu amm num
- 1. Y=A+(BwX) 0.8249 52.4797 0.9071
- 2. Y=A*EXP(B*X) 0.7483 52.3859 0.0127 o
- 3. Y=A*(X**B) 0.9603 28,4971 0.3207
- 4. Y=A+(B/X) 0.9595 99.8576
-286.1280
- 5. Y=1/(A+Bux) 0.6715 0.0193
-0.0002
- 6. Y=X/(A*X+B) 0.9998 0.0089 0.0686 1
i TABLE FOR CURVE NUMBER 6
i.;
- 6. Y=X/(A*X+B) IS A HYPERBOLIC FUNCTION An 8.91491E-03 8=
0685532 X-ACTUAL Y-ACTUAL Y-CALCULATED RELATIVE ERROR 5
45 44.1978
.0178259 1
i 15 74 74.1558
-2.10561E-03 30 89 89.2856
-3.20915E-03 i
45 95 95.8009
-8.43096E-03 60 100 99.4287 5.7132E-03 TABLE.FOR CURVE NUMBER 0
- f. n,.
L /C. m ss...ks n 7,16 4w f,Yg Q s
4 9
G
=a ~ _*=~_v==_ m _om
_ _ ___ _,,?'
q
DOE AMOVAUDATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Pop 42og_
CITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF COMMENTS EY No.
NUMBER REV Calc.No.
03-528-02 (Cont'd) 100 Sheet 24 Item No. 2a should be 89.75%.
ENG.
Calc.N6.
Construction Facilities - Processing Site - Site Drainage 03-528-03
- 385 101 Sheet 2 The formula tc =.00013 L *22 f
Sf should only be used to estimate the t ENG.
from a small watershed for overland flow situations.
For channels, a velocity should be estimated using Manning's equation and then a t detemined based c
upon the estimated velocity.
For example, ditch I, page 2, the estimated channel t =.2352 hr. (14 min.), yet on page 7 he estimated channel velocity is 2.76 fk/sec which, with 850 feet of channel, results in a tc of only 5 min.((850/2.76)(60)).
102 Sheets On page 19, it is stated that the slope of the ditches is assumed to be 2:1 ENG.
20,23 &
where the ditches outlets into.the natural drainage channels as shown on 25 p.20.
However, on pages 23 and 25, the longitudinal slope input into the program appears to be 26% rather than 50%. Rocks should be sized as a minimum in these areas for 2:1 slope.
103 Anolysis of erosion protection requirements of ditch bends should be perfomed.
ENG.
and provided.
104 Ditch outlets--what is the design basis used in determining the size of the ENG.
ditch outlets? A minimum exit velocity should be specified and the outlet should be designed accordingly, with emphasis placed on a cost-effective utilization of riprap materials (size, quantity). This does not appear to have been done for this design.
I
DOE AMOVAUDATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page.4_3.,3,__
3 CITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
D CMT DOCUMENT REF COMMENTS BY No.
NUMBER REV Calc.No.
Site Drainage - Processing Site - Temporary Diversions 03-528-04
.105 Sheet 2 The temporary diversion ditches should be designed for the ten year I hour
.ENG.
stonn.
Also see comment on calculation 03-523-03, Sheet 2..
Calc.No.
Bodo Canyon Disposal Site - Pennanent Drainage Ditches Riprap Size and Ditch Depths 03-528-05 106 Sheet 4 The minimum time of concentration reconsnended for all calculations is 2.5 ENG.
minutes rather than 5 minutes (see the TAC's Technical Approach. Document).
This approach has been agreed to by the NRC. Also see comment concerning 1
I sheet 2 on calculation 03-528-03.
107 Sheet 7 Provide the rationale for using a porosity (P) of 0.25.
This value appears ENG.
to be underestimated. A more realistic value of 0.33 should be used for rocks less than 30 inches in diameter and.5 for rocks greater than 30 inches in diameter. New numbers that are selected should also be substantiated.
Calc.No.
Site Orainage - Disposal Site - Temporary Drainage Ditches 108 03-528-06 Page 3, see comment on calculation 03-528-03, Sheet 2.
ENG.
Calc.No.
Site Drainage - Disposal Site - Temporary Diversion Ditches 109 03-528-07 The temporary diversion ditches should be designed for the ten year 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> ENG.
stonn. Also see comment on calculation 03-528-03, Sheet 2.
m____
DOE AMOVAL/DATE -
REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Pageflof,_
CITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
A D
CMT DOCUMENT REF
. COMMENTS BY No.
NUMBER REV Calc.No.
Site Drainage - Disposal Site - Culverts for Access Road 03-528-0E 110 Sheet la Where did the criteria for designing for a 100 years for the long-tem
.ENG.
culverts come from?
111 Sheet 7 The south culvert is for the. larger drainage area and the north culvert ENG.
is for the smaller drainage area.
112 Sheet 7 Nomograph should be included with calculatior-ENG.
Calc.No.
03-528-09 Disposal Site Retention Basin - Slope Stability 113 Sheet 3 Since the final design will be incorporated into the RAP, it will be necessary ENG.
i to discuss how the soil parameters were detemined for both dike material as well as subsurface material. Sufficient detail should be. provided to allow evaluation of the ' selected parameters.
114 Even though the dikes are temporary and will last only two to three years, ENG.
a level of seismic risk exists.
Provide analysis under appropriate seismic conditions, such as Algemissen, et al's 90% probability of non-exceedence in ten years.
Calc.No.
Construction Facilities - Processing Site Culverts Under Access Road 03-528-11 Near South Edge of Site 115 Sheet 6 Culverts should be designed for ten year 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> stom.
ENG..
.C.a___;.'--.,....-..n.-....-e=....... -
DOE APPROVAL /DAT8:
REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS P a g e,4_5,o f_ _
5 SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
LMATRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF COMMENTS BY No.
NUMBER REV Calc.No.
Borrow Area - Site Drainage - Erosion Control 03-528-12 See comment on calculation 03-528-03, Sheet 2.
116 Sheet 5 Temporary diversion ditches should be designed f or the ten year 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> storm.
ENG.
ENG.
117 Sheet 7 Is placing liner really necessary for approximately 9650 feet?
ENG.
118 Sheet 8 The calculation for ten year 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> storm needs to be presented as well as how the 1.43 number was derived.
Calc.No.
Site Drainage - Processing Site 15" CMP 03-528-13 119 Sheet 1 This calculation set is title " Site Drainage - Processing Site 15" CMP."
ENG.
This is misleading because the actual calculations for determining the i
size of CMP required are under Calculation No. 03-530-10 titled " Retention Basins - Processing Site Runoff Volume, Overflow Structure and Design."
The calculation should be retitled " Supports for 15" CMP"-
120 Sheet 4 We agree with the checkers comment on the bottom of p.4 which states that ENG.
the design should be analyzed as an indeterminate structure since the cantilever assumption used is very conservative. This was not done but should be to see if a more economical design is possible. The design as presented has no lateral supports; calculations verifying that they are not necessary should be provided.
DOE AMOVAL/DATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS PageMof SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF A
D COMMENTS BY No.
NUMBER REV l
Calc. No.
Retention Basins - Processings Site Runoff Volume, 1
03-530-01 Overflow Structure and Deisgn -
Sheet 11 121 We agree with the checkup comment on the bottom of p.11 which states that ENG.
the pipe flow on the outflow hydrograph p.13 should be corrected. This correction was not done and the figure needs to be revised as recommended.
122 Sheet 14 See comment on calculation 03-528-03, Sheet 2.
ENG.
123 Sheet 16 See comment on calculation 03-528-03, Sheet 2.
ENG.
j i
124 Calc.
Retention Basins - Disposal Site - Sediment Volume 03-530-06 See comment on calculation 03-530-02.
Calc. No.
Retention Basins - Processing Site - Sediment Voluma
)
l 03-530-02 125 Soil Erodibility Factor (K) - Since site-specific soils data are available ENG.
for both sites, the nomographs on pg. 8 (Israelson et al.1980) nbould be l
used to determine these factors.
(See referenced document pg. 7, paragraph 2, underlined note.)
Reference:
Israelson et al., Erosion Control During Highway Construction, April,1980 4
DOE APPROVAL /DATE FIEVIEW/ RESOLUTIONS Page 4?of_
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED O MENTS No, NUMBER lREV By Calc.
03-539-01 Bodo Canyon Disposal Site Embankment-Embankment Volume j
126 Sheet 9 Based on an independent check utilizing the cross sections in the subcontract Eng.
drawings, the estimated volume of off pile fill (186,000 CY) is approximately three times higher than that estimated on sheet 9.
Calc.
03-539-02 Settlement Analysis 127 Sheet 3 In the " note to checker" entry, it was stated that the calculations will be Eng.
refined prior to the final design. This final design will include additional soils data and possibly a different pile configuration. Final comment by the TAC will be reserved until after review of this final calculation set.
This entire analysis was completed under the assumption there is no groundwater Eng.
128 present at the site. Borings have ccnfirmed the presence of water in at least three locations, and therefore may alter the calculated settlements in these areas. This is an important factor in the calculations, especially when " time to consolidation" is considered, and should be considered for final design.
It is not clear as to whether the " compacted fill" depths used to calculate Eng.
129 settlement at each element include the radon cover and rock armor. Each section (element) diagram should be labeled completely.
l
~
n DOE AMOVAL/DATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page 4_8eg_
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
I CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED 1
COMMENTS No.
NUMBER REV Calc.
The practice of choosing an arbitrary mean, c
.59, for all soils at all depths,.
Eng.
o 03-539-02 is going to induce an inordinate amount of error into differential and ' total c ntinued settlement calculations across the site. This is inappropriate for a ~ final 130 design. More confidence should be placed on settlement calculated from actual Sheet 4 test results at specific borings, where available.
(borings #601 and #604)
The " time to consolidate" calculations should be included for' final design. This Eng.
Sheet 5 calculation should become an. integral part of the settlement analysis. The 131 assumption that the time involved in the consolidation process is negligible does not consider the saturated conditions in the foundation soils. Also, these calculations must play an important role in the determination of the cover cracking potential.
Sheet 8 Although the data in Figure 3 does show a " general trend", the Su values chosen Eng.
from this curve may vary significantly due to the scatter in the data. For 132 example, an LL-30 may exhibit a range of Su values from approximately 600 psf to over 5500 psf. As a result of this, it will be necessary to' show additional calculations utilizing Su values close to the upper and lower limits, and discuss l
the ranges in settlement resulting from this.
133 Sheet 9 Figure 4 needs to be supplied with a legend to define the individual tests Eng.
performed to detennine eo and also what soil types were represented by each data point.
l The general trend represented here suggests that eo increases with depth (for CL) which may correspond with' the OCR decreasing with depth (eo2=eo, + Cc log f'/ p')
DOE APPROVAL /DATE 4
REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Page _9of_
EITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED "8
No.
NUMBER REV sy Calc.
The 1ine representing the coverage values from methods A and B in figure 5 is' Eng.
03-539-02 located too high. A more representative line would bisect the range of method A, 134 continued and intersect the " total overburden pressure" line below 40 feet.
Sheet 10 Sheet 10 The data presented in figures 5 and 6 are biased toward the empirical " checking -
Eng.
135 and 11 methods", rather than actual lab data, simply because of the increased number of data points resulting from the three methods. As a result, approximately 1/4 of the. data are from actual lab data and 3/4 are from empirical fannulas, which in most cases don't agree with the lab test data.
136 Sheet 12 The equation for the calculation of Cc in method A is incorrect. The correct Eng.
equation is C =.007 (LL-10%), not Cc=.007 (LL-10). This correction will increase c
the Cc values calculated in Table B.
137 Sheet 12 Table B-2 should not be entered into the calculation package without a) a sample -
Eng.
l calculation involving the carrier method, and b) definition of all variables
)
which have not been previously defined.
138 Sheet 16 The " sections", or elements, analyzed for settlement should include borings 601, Eng.
l 604, and B-2 so the lab data can be used directly, without altering it by av'eraging the surrounding estimates. As previously stated, the heavy dependence i
on averages for settlement across the site is inappropriate for final design j
calculations.
i
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Page jog _
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
l UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED No.
NUMBER 'REV gy Calc.
All settlement calculations made for foundation fill material, 'if foundation Eng.
03-539-02 fills are utilized, should be made with data from remolded test pit samples. This 139 continued will effect elements #4 and #11.
Sheets 16 and-39 140 Sheet 17 The assumption that the tailings (SM-ML) are free-draining and that 100% of.the Eng.
settlement would occur during construction is-not necessarily correct. A typical SM-ML permeability is 6x10-5 cm/sec (Grand Junction sample 18-m). Utilizing this typical permeability, or one from another source, the statement regarding immediate settlement of the tailings should be substantiated by calculations.
141 Sheet 19 The value of Cc should be 3.25, not 3.0 as stated, provided the curve in Figure 6 Eng.
is extrapolated to five feet. This will not effect the settlement calculation since Cr '(Pf 4 P this should be corrected for the final calculation set. p). was used; however, 142 Sheet 36 The total settlement value of 2.50' on the settlement profile diagram should Eng.
actually be 2.53', as indicated by the calculations in Table E.
143 Sheet 38 Additional total and-differential settlement calculations should be made through Eng.
cross-sections N and M.
The design loads, coupled with subsurface conditions involving clays, water, and abruptly sloping bedrock, suggest that these - two cross-sections may be the most critical.
~
l O
.I
._:_.a.___:-.'J.J_=.AJ5..-..
-Lm....
r DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page Slog _
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
1 CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED No.
NUMBER REV sy Calc.
The 'section (element) numtsers and cross-sections L, M, and N on this drawing are Eng.
03-539-02 illegible. Please provide a reviewable copy.
144 continued Sheet 39 145 The settlement calculations at each element should reflect the presence of a 24 Eng.
inch clayey layer under the tailings fill,. which will be compacted to 90%
standard Proctor density.
146 Sheet 36 The methodology used to construct the strain profile across the site is based on Eng.
averages of averages and is inappropriate for a final design. The calculations presented here provide no conclusive evidence of the suggested low strain potential, -and need more supporting calculations and discussion of why we should not be concerned with cover cracking. This method of analyzing strain tends to ignorethe peak strain conditions by averaging these strains across the site. For example, the strain-produced between sections 1 and 2 is in excess of the suggested.10% threshold, which should indicate the need'for a closer analysis of this section, as well as other potentially critical sections across' the. site.
147 Sheet 37 The conclusion that the strain threshold for cracking is 0.098% :s incomplete and Eng.
potentiMy invalid. Additional details of the relationship 'setween "an earlier i
UMTRA site" to Durango, and any additional documentation supporting the use of the " formula", must be provided.
I s
n r-
~
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page 51.of_
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED C
NTS BV No.
NUMBER REV Calc.
03-539-03 51 ope Stability 148 Sheet 1-Since the radon' cover and rock armor are part of the final embankment, they Eng.
should be put into the stability model for the final ' calculation. A stability analysis involving the final embankment, as will be constructed, is muc'. more presentable than a model that has been approximated.
149 Sheet 1 Since these calculations may be incorporated'into the fRAP, it will be necessary Eng.
to discuss how the individual soil parameters were determined for each soil and condition analyzed. Sufficient. detail should be provided to allow an evaluation of the selected parameters.
The dRAP concluded that the critical cross-section for the short-term conditions Eng..
150 Sheet 2 was not necessarily the critical cross-section for the long-term conditions.
Additional stability analysis needs to be undertaken to prove that the most critical section meets the minimum safety factor criteria.
151 Sheet 3 A stability analysis of the most critical excavated slope during construction Eng.
must be included in the calculations. Variable slopes in bedrock surfaces and soil conditions make this analysis imperative for both safety and construction planning.
I I
l
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page 53,g_
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
l PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents -- Subcentract Drawings UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED COMMENTS No.
NUMBER REV BY-
.j All the following comments refer to mark-ups indicated on the drawing set.
Drawing Rock Material Location Map Eng l
152 DUR-GE-10-0306 Number 3 is incorrect, the Department of Energy has not obtained the quarry at Lemon Dam.
Drawing Construction Facilities - Plan Eng DUR-PS-153 10-0313 The drawing specifies a 15 x 520 CSP to be laid on original ground and used as l
a drainage ditch. This appurtance is excessive and should be removed from the Sheet 1 final design.
If soils appear erosive along the slope, a minor amount of rock l
armor will be sufficient.
Drawing This area will require excavation to remove contamination and temporary diversion Eng 154 DUR-PS-and drainage ditches would normally be required. The justifie.ation for not con-10-0315 structing these temporary facilities in this area should be provided.
t 155 Sheet 3 There is no support calculation for the 54 inch diameter culvert.
Eng Drawings'need to include a cross section detail for. retention basin PS-3.
Eng 156 Drawing Construction Facilities - Sections and Details-Eng DUR-PS-157 10-0316 The use of CSPE and CPE as. liner' materials is questionable on a cost basis. Other i
types of liners including soil and soil-synthetic should be evaluated and compared i
Sheet I to the cost of the proposed liner material.
I l
4
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Page 51.,,,,,,,
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents -- Subcontract Drawings UMTRA ACCESS No.
PREPARED CMT DOCUMENT REF SV Noo NUMBER REV Drawing
~~ Construction Facilities - Sections and Details Eng DUR-PS-158 10-0317 Note I states "The supports shall be a maximum of 5 feet from center to center whereas the calculation for sizing this support shows that the supports are only Sheet 2 required every 15 feet.
159 Additional discussion and/or calculations are required to verify the stability Eng of the " typical elevated pipe support" detail. The calculations should check the need for additional lateral support and verify the support offered by the three feet of pile embedment as designed.
160 Section C, which is a cross-section of the emergency spillway retention basin, Eng shows the synthetic membrane liner stretched across the basin, up to the inlet, and down the spillway.
Further illustration, or discussion, is required to clarify how far down the spillway the liner is to be installed.
161 The design presented for a 15 inch CMP will require five foot cuts over a length Eng in excess of 1500 feet. This appears to be excessive, especially for a temporary facil i ty.
Suggest examining alternate designs which may be more econcifcal.
162 The use of CSPE and CPE as liner materials is questionable.on a cost basis. Other Eng types of liners including soil and soil-synthetic should be evaluated and compared to the cost of the proposed liner material.
Drawing The use of CSPE and CPE as liner materials is questionable on a cost basis. Other Eng 163 DUR-PS-types of liners including soil and soil-synthetic should be evaluated and compared 10-0318 to the cost of-the proposed liner material.
l l
i
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page51,g_
SITE NAME TITLE OF Document:
PRELIMINARY DESIGN - Subcontract Documents -- Subcontract Drawings UMTRA ACCESS No.
A D
CMT DOCUMENT REF COMMENTS BY No, NUMBER REV Drawing Well Abandonment, Structure Demolition and Existing Utilities Plan Eng l
j DUR-PS-164 10-0319 It has not yet been determined if the smelter stack is to be demolished.
j 165 This drawing should be revised to indicate that wells 602, 603, 607, 612, 619 and Hyd.
622 are to be left unsealed if the State of Colorado assumes responsibility for Site Mgt.
the maintenance, monitoring and eventual sealing of the six wells. See comment on Section 02090, Sealing Abandoned Wells.
166 Drawings See comments on calculations 03-526-01, 03-526-02 and 03-526-03.
Eng DUR-PS-10-0320 to DUR-PS-10-0323 Drawing Tailings Excavation Plan Eng DUR-PS-167 10-0320 It is suggested that the use of inclinometers, transducers, or other slope moni-
,l toring devices be reevaluated prior to excavating at the base of Smelter Mountain if it is determined that the depth of contamination is significant.
1 1
DOE APPROVAUDATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS PageSp,og_
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
I CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED C N NTS Noo NUMBER REV
,V DWG DUR-PS-10-032/
Final Grading Plan-Tailings Area 168 If restoration fill, as placed, is determined to be erosive under the forces of the Eng.
Animas River, a rock amor may have to be installed along the toe, adjacent to the river. This amoment should at least be consistent with the previously established river bank protection (if any).
Test Pit and Boring Location Map (Proposed)
DWG DUR-169 PS-10-032f The number of borings located on the big pile is excessive. Borings MK-PB20 and Eng.
MK-PB14 can be ommitted, and MK-PB13 and MK-PB22 can be moved to the south. In i'
addition, MK-PTP402 is not expected to benefit the program significantly. This test pit should be replaced with a boring, which may contribute significantly to the stability analysis Smelter Mountain during stages of excavation at the mountain's base.
Following the acquisition of data from the drilling and test pit program on Smelter Eng.
170 Mountain, a complete stability analysis should be performed under all static and dynamic conditions.
The locations of the proposed borings and test pits are given, however, the Eng.
f 171 specifications for the programs are not. These specifications should accompany this j
site plan.
172 The locations of three monitor wells to be constructed at the end of remedial Hyd.
Site Mgt.
l action should be shown on this drawing.
See comment on specification 02090 for well specifications.
m AmOVAUDATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page 1Z.of_
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF COMMENTS Noo NUMBER REV SY DWG DUR-05-10-0331 Site Plan 173 Property lines of the State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Eng.
State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife should be shown. Also show a - final site boundary established such that all areas utilized during construction are included and areas that are not included in the final embankment are eliminated.
174 The dashed lines shown on the drawings are not shown in the legend. It appears that Eng.
these dashed lines represent areas of cut on fill but it is not clear and appears to have no value as presented in this drawing.
DWG DUR-175 05-10-0332 Construction Facilities Plan-End of Year The use of a chain link fence surrounding the entire disposal site is excessive for Eng.
a construction fence. Suggest placement only in vicinity of site entrance if at all. The majority of the fence should be less elaborate, and less expensive since it is a temporary structure and would be located in a relatively remote area.
DWG DUR-176 DS-10-0334 Construction Facilities-Sections and Details The design calculation for this culvert requires only a 33" Diameter pipe.
Eng.
l
DOE APPROVAUDATE REVIEW / RESOLUTIONS Page1&of__
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED sy No.
NUMBER REV
)WG DUR-DS-10-0335 Constructicn Facilities-Sections and Details "9"
177 See comment on drawing DUR-PS-10-0316.
DWG DUR'-
DS-10-0336 Sections and Details 178 A typical cross section for the pennanent access road on riprapped areas should be Eng.
provided.
A detail of the Bodo Canyon cover system needs to be shown. This detail should Eng.
179 include the 2 feet of Raffinate pond, vicinity property and windblown material and the 3.0 feet layer of the mill yard and other mill area contaminated material in addition to the radon barrier thickness and erosion protection layer as presented in the DRAP p.54. If this design is-not to be followed, justification as well as revised calculations on radon barrier cover thicknesses needs to be provided.
The surface displacement nonument is not a necessary expense and should be taken Eng.
180 out of the final design. Tae displacement monument should likewise be removed from specification 02200, part 3.7.
The minimum thickness of the Type 1 bedding layer is 6 inches, after compacting, Eng.
181 not the 1 foot as shown in the drawing. This should be changed accordingly.
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Pese3.2.of_
tlTE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
g I
CfAT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED NE NUMBER REV sy DWG DUR-DS-10-033]
Sections and Details 182 The justification and support calculation should be provided for the type 1 ENG.
and 2 bedding placed on top of the type G riprap as shown on Section AT.
DWG DUR-DS-10-033L Excavation Plan 183 Because this design does not leave the excavation bottom flat across the site, ENG.
an inordinate amount of water within the embankment may collect in the NE corner.
I Discuss the implications of this as it relates to leakage and/or slope stability in the area of the NE toe.
DWG DUR-Final Grading Plan DS-10-003F The grading as shown for Ditch No. 3 will increase the potential for head cutting ENG.
184 toward the pile. Justification and details showing that this will not be a problem should be presented.
185 An excessive amount of off pile grading requiring large amounts of clean fill is ENG.
necessary for this design. Other pile designs that would reduce this problem and associated costs should be considered. A design closer to the TAC design pre-sented in the 30% design review meeting would reduce the potential for head cutting and reduce the rock size for erosion protection.
In comparison, the SCD design a D100 rock size of 36 inches while the preliminary design calls for a D100 rock size of 100 inches.
.,..,.4-
,..,....,.,,i
.i
.......,...r.i,-
.-....-....n
........cu
)
I REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS.
M MOVAL/DATE Pap Df_
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
l UMTRA ACCESS No.
5 CMT DOCUMENT REF COMMENTS No.
NUMBER REV
)WG DUR--
7 JS-10-0344 Test Pit and Boring Location Map 186 Property lines and ownership are shown incorrectly on this drawing. Tract 101 is Eng.
I owned by the State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of t
Wildlife and Tract 101 is owned by the State of Colorado Department of hatural l
Resources. See the attached map.
j 187 Boring No.11 is mistakenly marked "B-W".
This should be changed to "B-11".
Eng.
f i
DWG DUR-DS-10-0345 Geologic Sections 188 Boring No. "MK-DTP202" on Section M should be "Mrs-DTP204" according to your Eng.
location map. This should be changed.
l i
?
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVEW/RESOt.UTIONS Paes.flof SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
PRELIMINARY DESIGN - COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATIVE 1 UMTRA ACCESS No..
(Transporation by conveyor)
PREPARED CMT DOCUMENT REF CO M HTS BY No, NUMBER REV General Many aspects of the cost estimate are not addressed in sufficient detail for a Proj. Int.
189 thorough review to be made.
Assumptions that were used to estimate major com-Site Mgt.
ponents of the project cost are not presented.
Bid Code Van Pool 500001 The two hours of premium time paid by the subcontractor to his work force for Proj. Int.
travel time from the Durango parking area to the Bodo work site is unnecessary.
190 Bid Code Restrictiin Period 500001 The annual - one month shut-down periods for hunting season at Bodo Canyon cost Proj. Int.
thc project as much as $1.62 million over the four year project schedule.
Site Mgt.
Further negotiations with the Colorado Division of Wildlife may result in a reduction in the restriction periods, thus reducing project costs and shortening the overall schedule. Optimistically, as much as one construction season could be eliminated if hunting season restrictions were not needed and other time saving measures could be implemented.
e O
O
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Page 6 2,,_
SITE NAME TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED-T8
,y No.
NUMBER REV Bid Code Conveyor Install and Remove 500001 192 The detailed estimate backup sheets should be provided before this item, which Proj. Int.
i is 25 percent of the cost, can be reviewed.
l Bid Cost Demolition 500102 193 This item has escalated from $138,000 in the May 16, 1985 estimate to $855,000 Proj. Int.
in the preliminary design estimate. The basis for the increase should be provided.
l Bid Code Non Tailings Placed in SP0 500110 Proj. Int.
194
-What is Spo?
Bid Code Non Tailings in Fi 500112 195 What is Fi?
Proj. Int.
Bid Code 15" CSP 500117 196
& 500118 Why is the cost shown as $30.21 in one code and $34.71 in the other?
Prof. Int.
T l~
= _
l
. REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS DOE AMOVAUDATE PageSof GlTE NAME -
TITLE OF DOCUMENT:
UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED C M NTS No.
NUMBER REV
,y Bid Code Membrane Liner 500124 197 An explanation should be provided for the increase in the liner cost per square Proj. Int.
yard from $2.05 in the May 1985 estimate to $6.11 in the preliminary design estimate. A less expensive liner should be considered such as 20 mil PVC.
Bid Codes Tailings 500301 198 500302 Where are the costs for consolidation of the windblown contamination?
Proj. Int.
199 Why are two items listed for the tailings relocation cost?
Proj. Int.
200 Does the total quantity of non-tailings have to be stockpiled requiring double -
Proj. Int.
handling? More detail is needed.
Bid Codes Cover and Erosion Protection
- 500402, t
201 500501 to More detail must be provided before this item can be reviewed.
Proj. Int.
500508 500701 Site Restoration 202 What does the description "Exc NnTIngs Plce @ Dps" mean? An explanation of Proj. Int.
operations "bdb 3327a and bdb 3323a" should be provided. More overall detail is needed.
+
-[
12
- ^'
i
a DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS Paso jiiot_
SITE NAadE TITLE OF DOCundE98T-UMTRA ACCESS No.
CMT DOCUMENT REF PREPARED OMMENTS No.
NUMBERIREV
,y 203 Bid Code What is " temp seeding?" The seeding costs appear to be to high. More detail Proj. Int.
500703 is needed.
Bid Code Fencing 500802-204 A lighter duty fence should be considered because this is only a temporary Proj. Int.
installation.
205 Code The rental rate on loader (Cat 988)seems too high. Why is the ratio of mcchanic Proj. Int.
e4846 hours to equipment hours so high?
Other 206 Details on the following items should be provided:
Prof. Int.
Contractor overhead Cet tractor contingency and fee F Nld staff Schedule l
l e
DOE APPROVAL /DATE REVEW/ RESOLUTION $
P*o* 31of _
SITE NAME TITLE F DOCUMENT-Durang PRELIMINARY DESIGN - COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATIVE 2 UMTRA ACCESS No.
(Transportation by conveyor and truck)
CMT DOCUMENT REF 8
No.
NUMBER REV gy i
General 207 As with the estimate for Alternative 1, additional detail and documentation is Proj. Int.
needed before the TAC review can be completed.
Schedule 208 An explanation should be provided for the shorter schedule with Alternative 2 Proj. Int.
versus Alternative I although the mobilization costs are the same.
I i
1 m
i
~'
i REVEW/ RESOLUTIONS N NVMATE Page.figiet_
SITE 80AndE E
Durango PRELIMINARY DESIGN - COST ESTIMATE - ALTEPEATIVE 3 UMTRA ACCESS No.-
(Transportation by truck)
Ca4T DOCUMENT REF PREPA84ED 88 0.
NUMBER REV gy General 209 4
More documentation is needed before a complete review can be made.
Proj. Int.
Schedule 210 An explanation should be provided for the shorter schedule with Alternative 3 Proj. Int.
versus Alternative although the mobilizaticn costs are the same.
Bid Code Demolition 500102 211 Why is the demolition cost twice as much as Alternative 1?
Prof. Int.
Bid Code cover 500a01
12 Why are the cover costs the same for this alternative (truck transport) and Proj. Int.
alternative 1 (conveyor transport)?
Bid Code Erosion Protection 500500 213 The riprap quanitites are the same for alternatives 1 and 3, so why do the costs Proj. Int.
differ?
Code Equipment e1041 214 Why is more time estimated for pickup 'r.scks when the schedule is shorter than Proj. Int.
for alternatives 1 or 2?
4 e