ML20214J865
| ML20214J865 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/16/1986 |
| From: | Gillen D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Martin D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-48 NUDOCS 8612020012 | |
| Download: ML20214J865 (18) | |
Text
.. .. . -
es TR/DG/86/09/08
-1 SEP 16 1g86 0 SMIBp WMLU rf RBrowning MBell JBunting MKnapp DGillen MEMORANDUM FOR: Dan E. Martin, WMLU FROM: Dan Gillen, WMLU
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT FOR DURANG0 DOE / STATES / TRIBES MEETING Attached for your information is a trip report sumarizing the UMTRA Program DOE / States / Tribes meeting which I attended in Durango, Colorado.
Dan Gillen, WMLU
Enclosure:
As Stated llM IMon.' F,:e <;; . p ,,,, j_
- Use w,. _,. _
l'c V....-
Dw' o ,. L -
Fca.m , , ,,: c,'- - -
-. .y) 0FC g g ..:.........
.....:..... ' ...:......... wn_4g MSTE PDR DATE:86/09/(S : : : ,
I Enclosure TRIP REPORT DATE: August 26-27, 1986 LOCATION: Durango, Colorado PURPOSE: Attend a meeting conducted by DOE to infonn VMTRA program participants of the program's status and new developments, and to discuss any generic problems associated with the program.
ATTENDEES: List to be Provided by DOE DISCUSSION:
Following the opening remarks and introductions made by John Themelis (00E/AL) and Paul Ferraro (Colorado), John Arthur (DOE /AL) discussed the technical measurements aspects of the program. In particular, cost reduction efforts were presented, including ORNL's development of the USRADS ultrasonic telemetry survey system.
Themelis discussed the status of all environmental and site activities (see attached master schedule). He indicated that approximately 50% of all vicinity property surveys have been completed, with the remainder to be accomplished by the end of FY 87. Themelis also stated that the revised PSCE would be distributed around the end of September.
Jack Caldwell (TAC) gave a. presentation of the development and contents of the DOE Technical Approach Document (TAD). His description of potential future technical modifications to the TAD led to a discussion of the status of ground-water reviews in light of EPA's re-development of final standards.
Arthur indicated that DOE would pursue arrangements for a meeting to specifically address the ground-water standard issue.
Theme 11s and Phil Stassi (TAC) presented information on the review process for site-characterization and design documents. Data on document review response times were presented, and 00E indicated a desire for improvement. After discussion of this problem, the following conclusions were reached:
- 1) In order for the reviewing agencies to plan resources for timely review, 00Ewillprovidemonthlyupdatesofshort-term (1-2 year) schedules.
L
- 2) Shortly after transmittal of documents for review, the DOE project manager will make contact with reviewing agencies to ensure that all necessary review information has been received.
Discussion of site-specific local task force activities, and demonstration of the USRADS system discussed in the morning session completed the day's activities.
The following day the participants visited the Durango processing site, the proposed Durango disposal site (Bodo Canyon), and the Shiprock site.
UMTWA SfMS MASTER SCHEDULE .
F Y 19 83 F Y 1984 F Y 1985 FY 1988 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 PROCESSING SITES ao ao io ao tosona ao so40 so to soeqwi to so40 to go so ao so toso40 totoso ao so ao su ao echoso io 20 sa 4o to io to CANONSBURG 'W'i
')- I SALT LAKE CITY 'MM/'7Mhh - I- -- I SHIP R O CK ' W h NX'h h 1 1
^
'?M/h 'MHI 'JM/- E*
OURANGO GUNNISON WHNL MHM'MHHMMM; ''-
A GR AND JUNCTION
- PS 'MHA VMh W N '1 - . -
GRAND JUNCTION
- VP 1 <
F/MMMM/MM, '''' ' ' ' ' ' - "'"
CEFLE - 2 YHMD RIVERTON wwn//wn/ussy/7wm ---_
TUBA CITY 'HH/Hs E O m,I i MEXICAN HAT WM// XWHH- ' ' ' ' ' -
LAKEVIEW E twwcymx* pr-r i r- _1 AMBROSIA LAKE E Ezroxzf - r l NATURITA E V/ jz/ / X-j wy, -; g .. 3 f FALLS CITY M VMHMs '/, y/,; ' '
3 eom; ' ' ' - ' g.
! GREEN RIVER M
- [0 m /4- .i j SLICK ROCK - 2 M /w/M M m //: - c BELFIELD E MNhi >X o'h x- '; r:: -1 l BOWMAN E 'X&M W/XOX . F -
i l M AY BELL E MNh; WMMW t LOW M A N E E /Hm, . -
[
l SPOOK E E "HM/-' ~ ~~~~~': C 3 E: 01 -
MONUMENT VALLEY 'Mhl WhX'A COST PROFILE:(THAU 85 - $158.9 M) 97.2 135.8 137.7 143.8 127.4 97.5 44.4 7. 0
['///////j PLANNING & DESIGN. NEPA PS - PROCESSING SITE DRAFT AS OF 08/88 (FY SS SUDGET) l- l REMEDIAL ACTION VP - VICINITY PROPERTIES r
I l l ENGINEERING l IVP WORK INCLUDED IN PROCESSING SITES
! EXCEPT FOR GR ANO JUNCTIONI f
e
3 UMTRA PROJECT PRESENTATION TO DOE / STATES / TRIBES MEETING THE TECHNICAL APPROACH DOCUMENT by JACK A. CALDWELL JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO DURANGO AUGUST 26, 1986
~
. l .
THE TECHNICAL APPROACH DOCUMENT e Compiled by DOE and its contractors:
e For use on the UMTRA Project in the design of Remedial Action Plans:
e As a record of mareement amonset UMTRA participants of:
e Technical methods, procedures, and approaches.
i i
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TAD e EPA sets UMTRA standards.
e NRC is the review and I concurring agency.
i e Numerous groups compile i research and technical overview documents.
i e Some divergence of opinion about appropriate technical approaches.
l e DOE establishes working groups to compile the TAD.
e Draft TAD reviewed by NRC, l
EPA, states, and tribes.
e TAD published in May, 1986.
t I
~ . _ , . _ . , _ _ ~ - - - _ , _ _ _ _ . . _ - - - . . - _ . . _ _ . , - - - ,
r CONTENTS OF THE TAD e Introduction e Design considerations e Surfac e water e Erosion protection e Geotechnical (and geology) e Radon attenuation e Ground-water protection i
(
l l
l l
l l
l l <
l l
_ ~ - . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ , . _ _ , _ . _ _ _ . _ _ - . . , . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ . - _ , - _ _ . _ _ _ , . _ _ _ . _
- s COLLATERAL DOCUMENTS f
e NRC Standard Review Plan l e DOE and contractor standard operating procedures e Referenced design guid e s ,
manuals, and teset boolce e DOE Surveillance and Maintenance Plan e DOE Design Criteria Document
i 1
~
A OVERVIEW OF TAD CONTENTS DESIGN CONSIDERATION AND PILE LAYOUT AND CONFIGURATION e Ground-water protection e Slope stability e Pile settlement i
e Radon barrier e Surfa c e water hydrology i
e Erosion protection l
l
~ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
. i 4
OVERVIEW OF TAD CONTENTS SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY AND EROSION PROTECTION e PMP and PMF e Lesser design evente:
- "Cle ar Impractic ality"
- Lemeer event: 10% chance of occurrence
- Uneconomic: 20% more costly e Runoff - HEC-1 e River flows - HEC-2 I
e Erosion Prote c tion
- Safety factor method (flat slope)
- Stephensen's method I
(steep slopes) e Material selection e Filter requirements l
, 3
. o 1
OVERVIEW OF TAD CONTENTS l GEOTECHNICAL o Geology .
o G eomorphology o Subsurface investigations o Seismic
- Design earthquake: The earthquake that produces the largest on site peak horizontal acceleration.
The earthquake could result from (a) floating earthquake (b) movement on capable f ault.
- Capable fault:
35,000/500.000
- Floating: Event is seismotectonic provinc e not closer than 15 km to site.
i l
o Slope stability o S ettlement i
l l
1 g O
OVERVIEW OF TAD CONTENTS RADON ATTENUATION e Site characterization e Radon barrier design:
RAECOM model e Radon barrier moisture content
- Capillary moisture relationships
- Correlation to -15 bar sSction
- Computer modelling
. i OVERVIEW OF TAD CONTENTS WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION .
e Site characterization e Concentration prediction
, Impact on ground water e Control alternatives e Risk assessment
~
t USE AND IMPACT OF TAD o Now in daily use on UMTRA Project o Most calculations simply reference TAD: don't repeat method descriptions o Virtually eliminated "d. is c u s sio n" between participating agencies on asreed and a p propriate technical approaches o Lead to a decision to streamline RAP by signific antly reducing
" Calculations Appendisc" o Savings of time and money because of reduced need for discussion and documentation i
i
o LOOKING TO THE FUTURE OF TAD o Enhanced familiarity with details and implications of the TAD o Increased efficiency in production and review of RAPS o Incorporate technical advances
- NRC criteria for non- PMP and PMF events
- CSU selection of durable rock
- Final EPA ground-water standards
- Radon barrier moisture content refinement
- Pile design layout optimization i
l
[
e SITE CHARACTERIZATION /
PLANNING / DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PRELIWPeARY SITE EVALU ATION
- Histoncan Site Data a Early Site Apprainal
- Alternate Sete Selection Process 8
DRAFT COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DISPOSAL SITES ALTERNATIVE REPORT (CADSARI I
VALUE ENGl4ERING NRCs ST ATE'T RISES INPUT APPROACH ISSUES & CONCERNS
<r D ATA COLLECTION & A%ALYSIS D ATA REOylREMENTS E
ISSUE FINAL CADSAR
<r IDENTIFY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITH NRCISTATEITRISE
- ; OSTAIN PU BLic (NPUT START SITE ACoutSifiON TO DESIGN PROCESS
s . .
F DESIGN PROCESS VE PRELIMINARY DESIGN 30% DESIGN DRAFT RAP
- AUTHORIZE (DOE with
- PRESENT (RAC)
- DESIGN CRITERIA (TAC) ATE CONCURREE) , INFORMAL REVIEW
(TAC) g'y
- INITI ATE (RAC) g
- DURATION: 4 MONTHS
- DURATION: 2 MONTHS
- SITE DESCRIPTlON (TAC)
- REVIEW (DOE / STATE / TRIBE M)
- DURATION 8 MONTHS O 60% DESIGN FINA,L DESIGN COMMENTS
- P RESENT (RAC)
- INPUT (REVIEWERS)
- REVIEW (00EITAC/ STATE 1
TRIBE 1 NP C) . RESOLUTION (D OE)
- APPROVAL (DOE) p . INCORPORATION (RAC) Nh
- DURATIOtt 2 MONTHS
- DURATION:1 kAONTH
' , r
,r PuMAL RAP
- FINAL DI)lGN (RAC)
- CONCURdENCE (STATE /
TRIBE /NRC)
- PU BLISH (DOE)
- DURATIOrt 5 MONTHS
.