ML20205R688
| ML20205R688 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/19/1999 |
| From: | Stablein N NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Rael G ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-69 NUDOCS 9904230268 | |
| Download: ML20205R688 (7) | |
Text
.
pactav yo.
4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 l
April 19, 1999 Mr. George Rael, Director U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office ERD /UMTRA P.O. Box 5400.
Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF PROJECT INTERFACE DOCUMENT NOs.14-S-22,14-S-24, AND 14-S-25 FOR MAYBELL, COLORADO
Dear Mr. Rael:
By letter dated October 14,1998, the U.S. Departme.it of Energy (DOE) transmitted Class i Project interface Document (PlD) No.14-S-22 for the Maybell, Colorado, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action site to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for review and approval. Based on that review, the NRC staff concluded that additional information would be needed regarding the minor changes proposed for the four gullies downstream of the disposal cell. DOE provided the requested information by letter dated January 21,1999.
Iri addition, by letter dated November 24,1999, DOE transmitted PID No.14-S 24 to the NRC
)s for review and approval. This PID requested NRC staff approval of gradation changes to Type D and Type E riprap. DOE further indicated that PID No.14-S-24 superseded PID No.
14-S-23.
The NRC staff has reviewed PID Nos.14 S-22 and 14-S-24 and concludes that the proposals
/\\/
are acceptable. The staff's review is documented in the enclosed Technical Evaluation Reports.
gQ in addition, by letter dated December 2,1998, DOE submitted PID No.14-S-25. In that PID, DOE requested approval of minor changes to drawings and indicated that this PID should be considered * - Viass 11. One item that could possibly be considered a Class I activity is the change to tw riprap on the Rob Pit overburden pile. However, the staff previously reviewed a similar design change in its review of PID 14-S-21, and approved the reduction in size of the overburden pile and the, riprap changes proposed therein. Based on the previous review and the minor change to the riprap location, the staff agrees with the Class 11 designation and finds the proposal acceptable.
fcp7Y' E@fsfN6EsierY wan 9904230268 990419 PDR WASTE WM-69 PDR
i G. Rael 2
April 19, 1999 If you have any questions concerning staff review of these PIDs, please contact Mr. Robert Carlson of my staff at (301) 415-8165.
Sincerely,
[ Signed by]
l N. King Stablein, Acting Chief Uranium Recovery and Low-Level Waste Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated cc: W. Woodworth, DOE Alb.
F. Bosiljevac, DOE Alb.
E. Artiglia, TAC Alb.
l DISTRIBUTION (w/ enct): ' File Center PUBLIC NMSS r/f URB r/f CCain, RIV CNWRA ACNW TJohnson (w/o encl): JHolonich RWeller DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\RDC\\PID22-24
- See previous concurrence OFC URLL E
URLL URLL NAME RCarlson:ce CAbrams Nd eb DATE 4/12/99 H
4/16/99 4// 7 /99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
G. Rael 2
~
If you have any questions concerning staff review of these PIDs, please contact Mr. Robert Carlson of my staff at (301) 415-8165.
Sincerely, I
N. King Stablein, Chief Uranium Recovery a Low-Level Was Branch Division of Was Management Office of Nu ar Material Safety and Sa guards
Enclosures:
As stated cc: W. Woodworth, DOE Alb.
F. Bosiljevac, DOE Alb.
E. Artiglia, TAC Alb.
DISTRIBUTION (w/ encl):
File Center PUBLIC NMSS r/f URB r/f CCain, RIV CNWRA ACNW TJohnson
)
(w/o encl): JHolonich RWeller DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\RDC\\PID22-24
)
OFC URB E
URB URB
[hbc CAbrh NAME NKStablein DATE 4//l /99
//
4/ h99 4/
/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
G. Rael 2
April 19, 1999 If you have'any questions concerning staff review of these PIDs, please contact Mr. Robert Carlson of my staff at (301) 415-8165.
Sincerely, li N. King Stablein, Acting Chief Uranium Recovery and Low-Level Waste Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosures:
As stated cc: W. Woodworth, DOE Alb.
F. Bosiljevac, DOE Alb.
E. Artiglia, TAC Alb.
o i
i
7
}
l 1
TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF MAYBELL PID NO.14-S-22
\\
DATE:
March 3,1999 FACILITY:
Maybell, Colorado PROJECT MANAGER:
Robert Carlson TECHNICAL REVIEWER:
Ted Johnson
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS:
I By letter dated October 14,1998, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted Project Interface Document (PID) Number 14-S-22 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
indicating that minor changes would be made to the four gullies to be constructed downttream of the disposal cell. In a letter dated November 4,1998, the NRC staff indicated that additional information would be needed regarding the actual changes that were made. In a submittal dated January 21,1999, DOE provided detailed drawings and information to support this request. Based on review of the information provided, the NRC staff concludes that the i
proposed changes are acceptable.
l DESCRIPTION OF DOE'S REQUEST:
DOE requests approval of minor changes that were made to the configuration of the rock-protected gullies downstream of the disposal cell. DOE provided detailed as-built drawings to show tne actual constructed configuration of the four gullies and also provided information i
regarding any changes that were made to the gullies during construction.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION:
The staff reviewed the information provided by DOE in the January 21 submittal. Based on this review, it appears that the changes that were made to the configuration of the gullies were very minor Of particular importance, the staff verified that little or no changes were made to the size, volume, or extent of the rock protection. Based on verification of these important design configurations, the staff concludes that the changes are acceptable.
l
TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF MAYBELL PID NO.14-S-24 DATE:
March 3,1999 FACILITY:
Maybell, Colorado PROJECT MANAGER:
Robert Carlson TECHNICAL REVIEWER:
Ted Johnson
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS:
By letter dated November 24,1998, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted Project interface Document (PID) Number 14-S-24, indicating its intention to change riprap gradation requirements and also indicating that this PID superseded PID No.14-S-23. DOE provided detailed test results, calculations, and analyses to support this request. Based on review of the information provided, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed changes are acceptable.
DESCRIPTION OF DOE'S REQUEST:
DOE requests approval of revised specifications to allow the use of riprap that does not meet the original design specifications. Gradation tests for Type D and Type E riprap indicated that the gradation requirements of Section 02278 of the specifications were not satisfied. The tests showed that the rock sizes actually produced and placed were sometimes slightly smaller than the required Dw sizes. DOE requests approval of revised specifications to use the smaller rock sizes in less critical areas of channels and gullies and to use the larger rock in the most critical areas.
The gradation tests also showed that there were some oversized pieces of Tyoe D rock that slightly exceeded the maximum size limit of 18 inches. DOE requests a change to the specifications to allow the use of larger rock, by adding language to the specification that will assure proper placement of the larger pieces.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION:
DOE provided calculations and analyses to show that the Dw requirements for Type D and Type E riprap were conservative and that the sizes needed could actually be less than originally proposed, depending on the location to be protected. In those areas where the rock size requirements were less than originally proposed, DOE placed rock that met the revised specification. The staff reviewed the calculations provided by DOE to justify the size reduction.
Using design methods recommended by the NRC staff, DOE showed that the rock size actually placed met the rock size requirements associated with DOE's more refined (and less conservative) analyses of flow rates and gradation requirements. Based on this review, the staff concludes that the rock sizes are adequate and that the revised specifications are acceptable, j
2
)
.+
DOE revised the specifications for Type D riprap to allow the use of oversized individual rock i
pieces. The revision indicates that oversized rock may be used as long as the pieces do not exceed the layer thickness. The staff considers that use of oversized rock is acceptable as long as the rock is selectively placed. By revising the specification to require that no individual pieces exceed the layer thickness, DOE is assuring that a uniform, well-placed layer will be f
provided. Therefore, the staff finds the changes acceptable.
1 1
l 2
j
<