ML20203C105
| ML20203C105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/04/1986 |
| From: | Johnson T NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Hawkins E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-48 NUDOCS 8604210006 | |
| Download: ML20203C105 (2) | |
Text
. _ -
WM Record file -
WM Project D0cket No.
MMfff*
/
WMGT r/f PDR LPDR NMSS r/f MAR 0 41986 Distribution.
RBrowning vrun maurim: m monoion I.
MBel1
_j, JBunting (Return _ to W@,623 SS) _
hK g pf MFliegel PDR MEMORANDUM FOR:
E. Hawkins, URF0 FROM:
T.L. Johnson, WMGT
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF DURANGO MEETING On February 12, 1986, a meeting was held in San Francisco, California to discuss various aspects of the revised remedial action design for the Bodo Canyon (Duranco) site. Attendees at the meeting were:
E. Tom Morrisca-Knudsen (M-K)
J. Williams Morrison-Knudsen (M-K)
G. Bellas Morrison-Knudsen (M-K)
T. Wathen Morrison-Knudsen(M-K)
F. Feliz Morrison-Knudsen (M-K)
J. Keithley Morrison-Knudsen (M-K)
J. D' Antonio Department of Energy (00E)
K. Agogino Jacobs-Weston B. Keshian Jacobs-Weston B. Peel Jacobs-Weston J. Luellen Colorado Department of Health T. Johnson Nuclear Regulatory Commission The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the final design status of the project and to review open issues and comments on the design.
During the meeting, the following subjects were discussed:
1.
Overview of Final Design Status.
Fred Feliz (M-K) presented a brief sununary of the status of the project.
2.
Open Issues. M-K indicated that the cost of providing erosion protection at the Bodo Canyon site was extremely high, due principally to the steep natural ground slopes in the area. They questioned whether it was acceptable to modify the design criteria somewhat so that erosion protection costs could be reduced. Since M-K indicated that it is unlikely that reducing the flood magnitude would have a significant effect on costs, I indicated that it may be possible to accept other designs.
Such designs could incorporate i
features which localize the damage that would occur during a PMF; the location of the damage should be far enough away from the tailings so that the tailings are not affected during the design lifetime of 200-1,000 years.
IFC
i IATE :86/02/
MEM0/HAWKINS/TJ/86/02/28
_2-DOE was strongly cautioned that the burden of proof rests with them and that, in keeping with the NRC Standard Review Plan, the following must be done before NRC could consider a reduced design.
1.
00E must document that several designs have been considered at the site and that each of the designs are clearly impractical or infeasible to implement.
2.
DOE must document that it is infeasible or impractical to move the tailinos to another alternate site.
3.
DOE must document that there are other considerations (such as geomorphic, long-term erosion rates, etc.) which indicate that EPA standards can be met by a reduced design.
3.
Review of NRC Comments.
Proposed responses to each of the NRC comments on surface water hydrology and erosion protection design were discussed.
I indicated that I had no problem with the responses, subject to a final review of the design changes, as indicated in the repsonses.
4 Review of TAC /D0E Comments. Coments submitted by the TAC and DOE regarding the design were discussed.
No issues relevant to NRC concerns were identified.
/5 T.L. Johnson, WMGT
)FC :WMGT
.____:-_7-}L.____:___________:____________:____________.____________.____________.___________
j IAME :fJohns,
IATE:86/0Nc3
-