ML20215D531
| ML20215D531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/29/1986 |
| From: | Nataraja M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Martin D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-69 NUDOCS 8610140188 | |
| Download: ML20215D531 (3) | |
Text
---_
h WM Record File WM Project N Dcchet flo.
PDR V
AUG 201986 L
" 0,/J1,47 A/
LPDR-0/00 Mi MARTIN Distribution:
1 (Return to WM,623 SS)
MEMORANDUM'FOR:
Daniel E. Martin, Section Leader Uranium Recovery Projects Section, WMLU FROM:
Mysore S. Nataraja, Section Leader Rock Mechanics Section, WMEG
SUBJECT:
WMEG REVIEW 0F THE DRAFT " COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DISPOSAL SITE ALTERNATIVE REPORT" (CADSAR) FOR THE MAYBELL, COLORADO UMTRA SITE-We have attached our review comments on the geotechnical engineering' aspects of the subject document in response to Technical Assistance Request No. WM-86716.
The Draft CADSAR (June 1986) for the Maybell site is very general and provides very little factual information or data on which the staff could base a conclusion with regards to site suitability.
In the Maybell Draft CADSAR submittal, it appears that' DOE had elected to not provide basic site information which in the past, DOE-has indicated would'be.
.provided in the CADSAR-(" Alternative Site Selection Process for UMTRA Project Site," UMTRA-DOE /AL 200129.0007 R-2, March 1986).
It istpossiblE that'this information will-be included in the anticipated Final CADSAR, however, it-becomes questionable what benefits are gained"by a staff review of a Draft CADSAR which has very limited information.
If relevant site specific information is not'to be provided until the Final 1CADSAR stage, it.would*
appear that a better utilization of staff resources would be to begin our review on the-Final CADSAR submittal and allow for a-two-step review process of' staff questioning and DOE response on the Final CADSAR. '
Theattached.reviewcommentshavebeenpreparedbyJosephKane(X74367)who may be directly contacted if you have questions on the contents of the attachment.
N
/s Mysore S. N taraja, Section Leader Rock Mechanics Section, WMEG
Enclosure:
r-As stated 861014o18e 860029 PDR WASTE WM-69 PDR,
0FC :WMEG
- WMEG g
.....:..___g____............._:______......:____________:......______:.___........:_______....
NAME :JKane/km ataraja DATEc:08/19/86
- 08/.y/86
'q',
s
-REVU COM ON: DRAFT COMPARATIVE f REVIEW COMENTS ON THE DRAFT COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DISPOSAL. SITE ALTERNATIVE REPORT (CADSAR) FOR THE MAYBELL, COLORADO UMTRA SITE' Prepared by: Engineering Branch, DWM.
1.
Section 3.0 Characterization of Sites. Page 5 Section 3.0 provides very little factual-information on actual site conditions. Basic information needs to be presented (site stratigraphy, exploration data, description of static and dynamic engineering properties of foundation, embankment and borrow materials, soil and rock characteristics that would prevent migration of contaminants) on the processing site, Johnson Pit and proposed borrow areas.
The two references cited in Tables 3.2 and 3.3.should'be provided to understand the basis'for DOE's conclusions on concerns'for site characteristics that are identified in these tables.
The areal extent and thickness of peckets of slimes at the south end of-the tailings pile and the condition of the partially backfilled' Johnson Pit (material types,' construction method for placement and any ~ compaction effort, etc.) need to be described and understood in order to make a
~
reasonable estimate of their impact and costs on remedial-action work.
l It would appear from Table 8.1 that the results of site irivestigations L
that uuld cover geotechnical drilling,' borrow ~ areas and groundwater-i would be available for incorporation into.the Final CADSAR. After 2
having established preliminary site conditions, an engineering assessment-l-
would need to be made on potential slope stability:and settlement or
~
subsidence problems, on stability under earthquake loading:and any specific' feature that might adversely impact safe construction and-o operation. The impact of these specific. site features on remedial j
action. costs would then need to be estimated.
l 2.
Section 4.0. Site Conceptual Design. Page 14 The staff agrees with DOE that the designs of possible alternative disposal options in this section are preconceptual only, and will change as site characterization is completed.. As an example, the proposed alternative for stabilization of Johnson Pit needs to establish the' engineering properties and condition of the existing) pit materials and slopes and backfilled portion (material types, densities in order to
l,.
REVU COM ON DRAFT COMPARATIVE identify required remedial action work (cutting back or sealing of pit walls and bottom, etc.). The staff would anticipate major revisions and updating of Section 4.0 in the Final CADSAR along with sectional views that illustrate the conceptual scope and extent of proposed remedial action work.
3.
Section 6.0, Cost Estimates, Page 17 Section 6.0 and the work items in the cost estimate summaries of Tables 6.1 and 6.2 are not sufficiently described which raises questions as to whether the cost estimates appropriately reflect the remedial work to be performed. As an example, it is unclear for the proposed stabilization in place alternative, what work effort and costs have been considered for either removing or stabilizing the soft slime materials at the south end of the existing tailings pile.
In the Final CADSAR, Sect 10n 6.0 should' be expanded to describe the major design features and construction operations with sufficient information on remedial action quantities and cost presented to demonstrate that the significant design and construction features have been adequately addressed.
.___