ML20204A347

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Comments & Questions Resulting from Review of Remedial Action Plan & Site Design for Stabilization of Inactive U Mill Site at Lakeview,Or. Addl Rev Needed to Properly Address Design & Const Aspects
ML20204A347
Person / Time
Issue date: 04/22/1986
From: Hawkins E
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Themelis J
ENERGY, DEPT. OF
References
REF-WM-64, TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 8605120104
Download: ML20204A347 (2)


Text

_

DISTRIBUTION Docket: File WM-64 PDR/DCS-DBangart, RIV WM-64/TT0/86/04/18/0 Tolsen

_1-HRose RBrich MR 2 2 BB6 PGarcia EHawkins LLW Branch, WHLU URF0 r/f URF0:TTO Docket No. WM-64 040WM64802E John G. Themelis, Project Manager Uranium Mill Tailings Project Office U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115

Dear Mr. Themelis:

In accordance with your requests, we have completed the review of the document entitled, " Remedial Action Plan and Site Design for Stabilization of the Inactive Uranium Mill Site at Lakeview, Oregon,"

dated April,1986. Our coments and questions are enclosed.

Based on our review, we conclude that additional revision will be needed to properly address design and construction aspects of the project.

Major items of concern are surface water hydrology and tailings stabilization during off-season. These items need to be revised before NRC can provide concurrence on the FRAP and Final Design.

If you have any questions, please contact Tom Olsen at FTS 776-2813 or me.

Sincerely, critsr.m1 ste.n.? :n Tha d F. FW< it.s 8605120104 860422 Edward F. Hawkins, Chief PDR WASTE Licensing Branch 1 WM-64 PDR Uranium Recovery Field Office Region IV Enclosurcs: As stated cc:

J. G. Oldham, M-K F. R. Hiera, DOE, OR 0FC :URF0

  • URF0 NAME :T01sen/lv
EHawkins DATE :86/04/18

P h.

Lakeview - FRAP Comments 1.

Signature Page -

Under the NRC"s signature section, "4" should be changed to "IV."

2.

Appendix B -

Please estimate the date for NRC reception of Section 8.1.3, Radon Barrier.

3.

Appendix E, page 02200-8, 2.1.C.2.a -

x Why is the allowable upper limit for the projected Ra-226 concentration in the radon barrier material set at 5 pCi/g instead of background?

4 Appendix E, page 02200-11,kl.2.B.2-1 The use of vegetation for stabilizing tailings during off-season shutdown is not an acceptable method. An earthen cover is more realistic and can be maintained at a minimal depth (approximately 6-12 inches) over the tailings.

2 This was also a connent made by NRC on the Main Subcontract Document; however, there was no response.

5.

Appendix E, page 02200-19, 3.4.C.2 -

Y Last two sentences art contradicting with regard to moisture content of liner soils.

This connent **as made un the Main Subcontract Document, but there r

wasnorevisiyn/ update.

6.

All Hydrology and Erosion Protection comments and questions from NRC l

review of the Firzal Design, DRAP, and Main Subcontract Documents will have to be (ddressed. These items are of major concern in meeting the EPA Long-term Stabilization Criteria. All design items will need to be concluded before NRC can provide concurrence for the 5

Lakeview, Oregon, UMTRA Project.

5 J

J i

I