ML20205G286
| ML20205G286 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/30/1986 |
| From: | Hawkins E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Themelis J ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-54 NUDOCS 8608190455 | |
| Download: ML20205G286 (6) | |
Text
,
DISTRIBUTION Dock:t. File WM-054 PDR/DCS DBangart, RIV WM-054/R0G/86/07/29/0 RGonzales RBrich T01sen SGrace JUL 3 01986 HRose EHawkins DGillen,WMLU LLW Branch, WMLU URF0:ROG URF0 r/f Docket No. WM-054 040WM054301E Mr. John.G. Themelis U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115
Dear Mr. Themelis:
We have completed our review of the Grand Junction DEIS. Specific comments are enclosed.
To summarize our review, the stabilization in place alternative appears to be the least favorable because a severe flood would completely surround the tailings pile so that there would be a very high potential for erosion. Being located in the flood plain, the tailings are saturated and hydraulically connected with the river.
In addition, there is substantial evidence that channel shifts have occurred recently in the Colorado River.
The other alternatives, disposal at the Cheney Reservoir and disposal at the Two Road site, are about equal as far as NRC is concerned. The Cheney site is closer to Grand Junction, but the seismic ground acceleration (0.34 g) at the site is fairly high with respect to design of a disposal facility. At the Two Road site, the ground acceleration is only 0.18 g, but there is a greater potential for erosion due to formation of gullies. The area about 1 mile north of the Cheney Reservoir site is intensely farmed along Kannah Creek and privately owned lands lie to the north, west and south of the site. At the Two Road site, there is privately owned land only to the south of the site, about 8608190455 860730 PDR WASTE WM-54 PDR OFC :
NAME :
DATE :86/07/29
WM-054/ROG/86/07/29/0 JUL 3 01996 3 miles away.
Other than these differences, the Cheney Reservoir site and the Two Road site are about equal to each other in terms of the potential for meeting EPA standards.
Sincerely,
):5 Edward F. Hawkins, Chief Licensing Branch 1 Uranium Recovery Field Office Region IV
Enclosure:
As stated I
OFC : t RF0
'7bRF0
.....:. L......
.a:......
HAME,
nzales
......../.19 EHawkins BATE :86/07/29 393
6 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION URANIUM RECOVERY FIELD OFFICE Staff Comments on the Grand Junction DEIS I.
Comments on " Volume I-Text."
1.
Cover Sheet - Item e, Abstract, first paragraph:
It is NRC's current understanding that cleanup at some vicinity properties may occur after remediation and stabilization of the pile.
If this is the case, item "e" of the cover sheet incorrectly states that an estimated 3465 vicinity properties will be cleaned up during remedial action of the tailings pile.
2.
Section 3.1.1 The Grand Junction tailings and vicinity properties, page 20, last paragraph: Same comment as item 1 above regarding the vicinity properties.
3.
Section 4.5.3, Mineral Resources (Grand Junction site), page 77: A reference is made to a gas producing well approximately 4 miles east of the Cheney Reservoir site. This well is close enough that more information should be provided, such as depth of producing zone and production formation. Also,*on page 77, reference to a borehole just west of the Grand Junction site that had an oil-show at 96.5 feet should further describe this oil-show, i.e., what formatio-was the show? This gas producing well is also referred to in Volume II, Section E.2.2.2, Mineral Resources (Grand Junction site),
page E-18.
a 4.
Section 4.8, RADIATION, page 97, first paragraph: You state that "for purposes of this EIS, the terms roentgen and rem may be considered equivalent." To avoid confusion by the general reader, this statement may be clarified by stating that the rem and roentgen are equivalent for gamma rays only.
5.
Section 4.8, RADIATION, page 97, third and fourth paragraphs:
In these two paragraphs, you make some general statements regarding radiation sources which people are normally exposed to and the resultant dose equivalents. Although these general statements are well known, it may be appropriate to reference their source.
6.
Section 4.8.1, Grand Junction, page 97:
It may be instructive to compare the radioactive air particulate concentrations with unrestrictive area MPC standards.
For example, Th-230
2 concentration is greater than 100 times the unrestrictive area MPC.
7.
Abbreviations and Acronyms:
"NRC" stands for Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not Nuclear Regulatory Agency.
8.
List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to whom Copies of this statement are beint sent: Under Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the name Paul Fildenbrand should be changed to Raymond Gonzales.
II. Comments on "V'olume II-Appendices."
1.
Appendix B a.
Sections B.2.6 and B.3.7, LONG TERM STABILITY (GROUND EROSION), pages B-23 and B-53: You state that, " severe rainfall events have the potential to develop rills and gulliesonthesteeper(20 percent)sideslopesofthe stabilized tailings pile and erode some or all of the radon cover in small undefinable areas." The basis for this statement should be provided.
If physical model studies have shown that a 20 percent slope is critical, the model study report should be referenced.
- 2.
Appendices E and F a.
Section E.1.4.2.2, Flood potential, page El-18: You state that the Corps of Engineers (COE) has calculated flood flows for the Grand Junction area.
In Appendix F (page F-15), you provide the peak discharges calculated by the COE for the 100-year and the 500-year floods, but not the COE's PMF peak discharge.
You calculated a PMF discharge of 889,000 cfs for the Colorado River at the site.
Discuss how this compares with the COE's PMF.
b.
Section E.2.1.2, Stratigraphy, page E-13: Section F.3.1.5, Saturated Zone Hydraulics, page F-52; and Section F.3.1.3, Stratigraphy, page F-45: The description of the stratigraphy of the Mancos Shale is very limited considering that the Mancos is the strata underlying the alluvium at the Grand Junction, the Cheney Reservoir, and the Two Road sites. The Mancos is the hydrostratigranhic unit of most concern and should therefore be more fully characterized in the text.
It is necessary to characterize such strata in the vicinity of the sites to more fully understand such phenomena as the artesian zones i
-. ~.., _.. - -.
o-3 in the Mancos described on page F-52; as well as to characterize such zones of intertonguing of the Mancos as described on page F-49 and shown in Figure F.3.7 on page F-44.
c.
Section E.2.1.3, Structure, page E-15 and Section E.4.3.2.1, Uncompahgre Uplift, page E4-13: Some descriptions of geologic structure that are discussed in the test are not labeled in the figures.
Examples include the Redlands Fault, the Jacobs Ladder Fault complex, and the Book Cliffs monocline, which are discussed in the text but are not labeled in Figures E.2.3 or E.2.4 Also, the Ridgeway Fault and Fault No. 74 discussed on page E4-13 are not shown on Figure E.4.3.3.
d.
Section E.4.3.2, COLORADO PLATEAU PROVINCE, page E4-10:
Possible ground accelerations of 0.34 g were calculated as part of the seismotectonic study for the proposed Cheney Reservoir disposal site. These values are fairly high with respect to design of a disposal facility; consequently, more information is needed to properly relate geology to faulting (fracturing) in the local Cheney Reservoir site vicinity.
e.
Section E.4.3.2.1, Uncompahgre Uplift, page E4-12, Figure E4.3.3: The map on this figure shows potentially active faults associated with the Uncompahgre Uplift.
However, the map does not adequately convey local site conditions because the map covers too large an area. A more detailed, larger-scale map is necessary to properly characterize seismotectonic activity and/or prediction at the alternative sites.
f.
Section F.1.2.1, Grand Junction Tailings Site, (PMF hydrolocic analysis), page F-Zl: The modified Puls method was usec. to route flows through primary channel reaches.
This routing method which uses storage-outflow relationships is generally used for reservoir routings where it gives quite satisfactory results.
For open channel routing, however, it usually gives poor approximations. Additional information is needed to describe how the modified Puls method was used to route flood flows along the Colorado River and to show that the j
computed flood level elevations are conservative.
g.
Table F.3.4, page F-55: Several references to Table F.3.4 are made that are actually references to Table F.3.5.
4 h.
Section F.4, POTENTIALLY AFFECTED HYDROGE0 LOGIC ENVIRONMENT-CHENEY RESERVOIR SIIt: Presently, there is an active irrigation operation upgradient of the proposed Cheney Reservoir site.
Further information is needed to properly address th? impact of irrigation recharge upon the local ground-water regime at the proposed Cheney site, 3.
Appendix I a.
Section I.2.1, HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO RAD 0N DAUGHTERS, page I-7, last paragraph, first sentence: The units rem /hr (pCi/1) should be rem /hr/(pCi/1).
b.
Section I.3.1, EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS AT THE GRAND JUNCTION SITE (Physical characteristics), last paragraph:
A tailings emanation coefficient of 0.20 was used in Appendix I.
This value was obtained from a 1979 draft NRC publication. Chapter 3 of the NRC's, " Standard Review Plan for UMTRCA Title I Mill Tailings Remedial Action Plans, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Waste Management, October,1985," states that a reasonably conservative emanation coefficient of 0.35 is considered acceptable by the NRC staff. Therefore, until such time as measured values are available, a conservative value of 0.35 is recommended for use in the EIS.
c.
Section I.3.1, EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS AT THE GRAND JUNCTION SITE, (Radon in air), page I-ll:
Explain why a windspeed of 2 m/s was used as input to the Gaussian sector average dispersion model when the DEIS on page D-3 states the average wind speed to be 8.7 mph (3.9 m/s).
d.
Section I.5.4, HEALTH EFFECTS IN PERSPECTIVE, page I-62:
This section incorrectly states the estimates of the collective dose equivalents are presented in Table I.5.4.
The correct reference is Table 5.4 in Volume I.
4.
Appendix K a.
Section K.4, IMPACTS ON LAND USE: A new reservoir (Domingues) is being planned for an area near the proposed Cheney Reservoir site.
Further discussion is needed i
4 pertaining to the possible impact of this reservoir upon the proposed disposal site.
Possible impacts during construction of the reservoir should also be discussed.
l i
l
.