ML20217Q829
| ML20217Q829 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/04/1998 |
| From: | Joseph Holonich NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Rael G ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-66 NUDOCS 9805110134 | |
| Download: ML20217Q829 (3) | |
Text
T dSho ug
'k y
UNITED STATES y,
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565-0001
- /
May 4, 1998 Mr. George Rael, Director U
.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office ERD /UMTRA P.O. Box 5400 l
Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 l
SUBJECT:
NATURITA REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
Dear Mr. Rael:
I am writing in responso to the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) letter, dated April 10,1998, which transmitted the Naturita Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff for review. DOE states in Section 6.4.1 (page 6-4) of the Remadial Action Selection (RAS) Report for the processing site that "A copy of the application for supplemental standards to exclude the remediation of Area D and other areas adjacent to da processing site is in Appendix A." The RAS Table of Contents shows Appendix A is titled
" Supplemental Standards Areas for Naturita Processing Site and Surrounding Vicinity Properties." However, there appears to be no Appendix A in this version of the RAP. There is also no Appendix B, but the topics listed as being in Appendix B are found in Attachment 4.
- Attachment 1 to the RAS Report ( a separate volume) does contain Calculation 17-730-02-04,
" Proposed Supplemental Standards Areas," but this does not represent a supplemental standards application.
In the crosswalk attachment to its April 10th letter, DOE also references a brief discussion on supplemental standards areas, and a figure showing these areas, found in Attachment 4 of the RAS Report. However, DOE further states that "A complete discunsion and data compilation for supplemental standards for both the processing site and adjacent vicinity properties will appear in Appendix K of the Naturita Completion Report." Based on there discrepancies, there appears to be conflicting guidance between DOE's April 10th letter attachment and the RAS Report.
The NRC staff has determined that postponing the review and approval of the proposed supplemental standards applications is inappropriate considering that DOE recognized the need for supplemental standards prior to beginning remedial action work on the processing site (see Naturita RAP, dated 1994). Accordingly, the application proposing altemative clean-up standards should be included as part of DOE's RAP submission. Therefore, the NRC staff cannot complete its RAP review until DOE submits the supplemental standards applications for the processing site and adjacent vicinity properties.
i 6
9905110134 980504
_PDR WASTE g
FILF CEgygg$9g
" " ~ "
l Y l b l.*
, G. Rael 2
If you have any questions concerning this subject, please contact Mr. Robert Carlson of my staff at (301) 415-8165.
Sincerely,
[0riginal signed byj Joseph J. H,,iich Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards cc:
R. Cornish, DOE Alb W. Woodworth, DOE Alb F. Bosiljevac, DOE Alb E. Artiglia, TAC Alb R. Edge, DOE GRJ P. Oliver, CDPHE DISTRIBUTION: File Center PUBLIC NMSS r/f URB r/f CCain, RIV CNWRA ACNW AGarcia MFederline CAbrams l
MLayton EBrummett j
DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\RDC\\ DOE _NAT.LTR i
OFC URB UR, c
URO,,p
((
DGEe JHod b l
NAME l
j DATE 46d /98 f/ 4 /98 H
5/ 7 /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
I 7'
. G. v.
2
)
i If you have any questions concerning this subject, please contact Mr. Robert Carlson of my staff at (301) 415-8165.
Sincerely, t
a c
Joseph J. Holonich Uran:wn Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management i
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l
cc:
R. Comish, DOE Alb W. Woodworth, DOE Alb F. Bosiljevac, DOE Alb E. Artiglia, TAC Alb R. Edge, DOE GRJ P. Oliver, CDPHE i
l
g'*
D2partmtnt c' Enarg l l,'
ig.
Albuquerque Operations Office j,
P.O. be 5400 Albuquerque New MeAro 87185-5400 10 April,1998 Mr. Joseph J. Holonich Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Mail Stop T7J9 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC z0555-2738
Dear Mr. Holonich:
Enclosed for your review and comment are four (4) copies of the final Remedial Action Plan (fRAP) and Site Design for Stabilization of the Naturita Title i Residual Radioactive Materials at the Upper Burbank Repository at Uravan, Colorado.
Per agreement with members of your staff, two (2) copies of the fRAP are complete and contain the following documents:
Part A, Attachment A(Calculations)
Part B, (Remedial Action Selectic i Plan) (RAS]
Appendices to Part B e
"A" Geology Report (** Not included in this transmittal **)
"B" Ground Water Hydrology "C"
Water Resources Protection "D"
Geotechnical Stability "E"
Surface Water Hydrology and Erosion Protection "F"
Radon Attenuation and Infiltration Control i
"G" Construction Documents "H"
Modifications During Construction "I"
Post Construction Design Verification WWne' j
T" w
Jos:ph J. Holonich 2
10 April,1998 Information to Bidders -
Volume I Volume ll Volume ill 1
l The remaining two 2) copies are partial copies and do not contain the three (3)
Information to Bidders volumes in order to make the Naturita fRAP available for regulatory review at this time, Part B, Appendix A (Geology Report) is not included in this transmission but will be provided under separate cover within the next several weeks. This volume has been withheld in order to resolve a number of essentially editorial comments.
Also, please be aware there are a limited number of comments, requiring page-changes, which have not been made at the tirne of this mailing. It is our intent to l
make the necessary changes and provide them to you as soon as possible.
Attachment ll provides a listing of these changes and their resolution.
l Two cross walks have been included in this package to aid in your review.
4 l
Attachment I describes the progression of the RAP through the three stages of its l
development and contains a matrix pointing to the locations of the DOE responses to the comments contained in the preliminary (12/22/95) and draft (04/22/96) TER and the responses to the Colorado Department of Public Health l
and Environment comment letter (10/24/96). Appendix H (Modifications During Construction) contains a crosswalk showing the changes to the subcontract documents as a result of the Construction Resolution Revisions (CRRs) and Project Interface Documents (PIDs).
The documents and/orinformation transmitted herein have been determined by the Department of Energy to be exempt from disclosure under Exemption 5 of the Freedom ofInformation Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5), as amended). Therefore, we request that these documents not be released to the general public at this time.
i l
Upon approval, this fRAP will be incorporated as Appendix B of Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC04-81 AL16257 between the U.S. Department of Energy and the State of Colorado l
l l
Joseph J. Holonich 3
10 April,1998 Please feel free to contact me at (505) 845-5654 if you have any questions
. concerning this transmittal.
Sincerely,
\\
uhelQe Robert E. Cornish Naturita Site Manager Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Team Environmental Restoration Division Enclosures (Attachment I, Naturita RAP Crosswalk (4])
(Attachment il, Comments Requiring Page Changes (4])
(Naturita, Colorado, " FINAL" Remedial Action Plan (4])
cc w/o enclosure:
D. Gillen, NRC C. Abrams, NRC R. Carlson, NRC P. Oliver, CDPHE/GJ F. Bosiljevac, UMTRA/ ERD E. Artiglia, TAC R. Waddington, MK-F 6
4 be o
4 a
4 ATTACHMENTI
\\1f9'
l e
.[
NATURITA, COLORADO UMTRA PROJECT SITE FINAL REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (RAP)
FOR THE PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL SITES March 1998 Introduction l
The purpose of this crosswalk is to explain the changes made to the Naturita, Colorado UMTRA Project site Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The original proposal was to relocate the contaminated materials from the Naturita processing site to the Dry Flats disposal site, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the town of Naturita. This proposal was discussed in the RAP produced by the Remedial Action Contractor (RAC) and the Technical Assistance Contractor (TAC) and submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for review in March 1994 (DOE,1994). During the fall of 1994 the Department of Energy (DOE), in response to a request from the Naturita Citizen's Advisory Board, and with concurrence from the NRC and CDPHE, decided to relocate the contaminated materials to the Upper Burbank disposal site at the Umetco Minerals Corporation Title 11 facility at Uravan, Colorado, approximately 13 miles north-northwest of the processing site. This required a new RAP and site design, which was developed by Umetco under subcontract with the DOE's Remedial Action Contractor. This-RAP was submitted to the NRC and CDPHE for review in November 1995 (DOE, 1995).
The NRC provided the DOE with com... ants on the above documents in the preliminary Technical Evaluation Report (TER) (12/22/95) and the draft TER
_ (04/22/96). The comments in the preliminary TER were addressed by Umetco in April 1996 (DOE,1996a), and the comments in the draft TER were addressed by the TAC and RAC in May 1996 (DOE,1996b). These documents were submitted to the NRC and CDPHE for review ard approval. Additional comments wLre
)
received from the NRC on 10/24/97. Comments from the CDPHE were received I
in a letter dated 10/24/96. All comments received have been addressed in the comment and response documents mentioned above or in this revision of the RAP, and appropriate revisions and changes have been made in the final RAP.
For easy reference, all of the comments are summarized on the attached
" comment crosswalk" table, which shows where the responses and the applicable revisions occur in the RAP.
2 e RAP has been revised to accommodate the change in the disposal site l
location and to address the NRC and CDPHE comments. The final RAP consists l
of Part A --Naturita Processing Site, and Part B-- Upper Burbank Disposal Site.
l These two parts are a result of combining the Naturita RAP of March 1994 and the Umetco RAP of November 1995. Some information contained in the two RAPS has become obsolete, portions of each volume have been superseded with updated information, and new information has been provided to address some of the comments. Minor editing changes have also been made throughout the documents. A RAP crosswalk has been provided to clarify the changes made and to facilitate review of the final RAP by the regulators. A " Table of Contents" is attached as a reference to what material is contained in the final RAP and where it may be found. Specific changes in the two RAPS are discussed below for ease of review of the final RAP.
Naturita RAP - March 1994 The Naturita RAP of March 1994 has been revised to address only remedial activities at the Naturita processing site. All reference to the Dry Flats disposal site has been removed from the text and from the RAC calculations in Attachment
- 1. Revisions based on comments from the NRC and CDPHE have been incorporated into the RAP and Attachments. The comments are listed in the attached table, along with the resolution and location of the response in the appropriate document. A copy of the Naturita RAP of March 1994 with all the revisions marked is not available, as the RAP was revised in 1995, and the need for this level of documentation was not perceived at that time. It is recommended that the revised Remedial Action Selection Report (RAS) be read in its entirety, as it provides a summary and overview of the remedial action related to the Naturita processing site.
Changes in the RAS consist of the following:
All reference to the Dry Flats disposal site has been deleted.
MKES has made several changes throughout relevant portions of this part of the RAP relating to the Naturita processing site.
The " Geologic Stability" section (2.0) has been replace by " Geology at Naturita Site", which refers only to the processing site.
The "Geotechnical" and " Surface Water Hydrology' sections (3.0 and l
4.0) have likewise been changed to delete any reference to the Dry Flats disposal site.
e\\
.[
3 The ' Water Resource Protection" section (5.0) has been revised to discuss only the Naturita processing site, and to defer Subpart B ground water cleanup to the UMTRA Ground Water Project. The ground water compliance strategy for the Upper Burbank disposal site is in Appendix C of Part B of the final RAP.
The " Radon Attenuation and Site Cleanup" section (6.0) has been modified to discuss only the Naturita processing site.
Appendix A to the March 1994 RAS," Proposed Supplemental Standards Areas for Naturita Processing Site and Surrounding Vicinity Properties", is now obsolete. A brief discussion on supplemental standards areas and a figure showing these areas is provided in the new Attachment 4, " Supplemental Information." A complete discussion and data compilation for supplemental standards for both the processing site and adjacent vicinity properties will appear in Appendix K of the Naturita Completion Report. to the March 1994 RAS contained Subcontract Documents, Information for Reviewers, and Information for Bidders for both the Naturita processing site and the Dry Flats disposal site. New documents and information pertaining to the restoration of the processing site and construction of the disposal cell at the Upper Burbank pit is now provided in Appendix G (Construction Documents) of Part B of the final RAP. Four calculations pertaining to the restoration of the processing site are now contained in Attachment 1 (Calculations) to Part A of the RAP. (Geology Report) and Attachment 3 (Ground Water Hydrology j
Report) to the March 1994 RAS were modified to remove any reference tu the Dry Flats disposal site and focus on the Naturita processing site. No other changes of significance were made in these sections. (Water Resources Protection Strategy for the disposal site) to the March 1994 RAS has been deleted from the processing site RAP (Part A), and is now Appendix C of the Upper Burbank disposal site RAP (Part B). A water resources protection strategy for the processing site is deferred to the UMTRA Ground Water Project under Subpart B of the regulations (Section 5.0 of Part A). of Part A of the final RAP now contains supplementralinformation provided in response to comments from the NRC and CDPHE.
.y
4 Umetco RAP - November 1995 l
The Umetco RAP of November 1995 has been revised to address revisions based on comments from the NRC and CDPHE. These changes have been incorporated into the disposal site RAP and Appendices. The comments are 1isted in the attached table, along with the resolution and location of the response in the appropriate document. Many of the revisions to the Umetco RAP of November 1995 have been marked in the right border of the appropriate pages in i
the final RAP Part B for ease of review. Deletions of information in text has not been noted with a mark in the right border. During the final internal review of the Umetco RAP of March 1998, there were several technical changes noted. These corrections will be provided as page changes.
l It is recommended that the revised Remedial Action Selection Report be read in l
its entirety, as it provides a summary and overview of the remedial action related l-to the Upper Burbank disposal site.
l
)
Appendix A (Geology Report) changes agreed upon in the NRC/ DOE conference call of March 25,1996 have been incorporated. Internal review indicated that reworking of seismic and geomorphic stability sections is required to maintain l
consistency with DOE /NRC agreements made on the Slick Rock site. Page L
changes will be submitted at a later date.
Appendix B (Groundwater Hydrology Report) has not been technically changed from the Umetco RAP of November 1995, except on Figure 3.15 (Trilinear Plot) l.
and Figure 3.16 (Stiff Diagrams) where only monitor wells CM93-1 and CM93-2 L
are now referenced. Also, calculation NAT-GW-002 has been revised and contains additional data from recent sampling of monitor wells CM93-1 and CM93-2.
L l
l Appendix C (Water Resources Protection Strategy for the Upper Burbank N
disposal site) to the November 1995 RAP has been completely revised, with the new version appearing in the final RAP.
Appendix D (Geotechnical Stability) consists of five calculatiens. Only NAT-Calc 007-02 (Geotechnical Stability, Slope Stability, Liquefaction Potential) has been revised. The other four calculations have not changed and have been reviewed.
j (Note: NAT-Calc-006-02 (Embankment Design, Geotechnical Properties) was revised in March 1996 and sent to the NRC as part of a comment response dated
L 5
April 3,1996.) Appendix E (Surface Water Hydrology and Erosion Protection) contains two new calculations. NAT-Calc-000-02 (Confirmation of Calculations, 3.
Confirmation of Spreadsheet Calculations and Verification of Software) is new and should be reviewed. Calc-17-739-08-00 (Erosion Protection Design and Sediment inflow / Outflow Evaluation for Channels Nos.1,2, 3 and Interceptor Channel) is new and incorporates the information contained in and replaces NAT-Calc-005 (Erosion Protection; Gradation and Layer Thickness), NAT-Calc-004.1 (Erosion Protection; Diversion Channels), and Calc 17-739-06-00 (Evaluation of Erosion Protection and Diversion Channel Sediment Carrying Capacity), and Amendmerit Response to Revised NRC Comment No.10 and Response to MK-F CRR No. 2 Review Comment Regarding Burbank Disposal Site Sedimentation (February 1,1997). The other calculatio.1s in Appendices D have not been I
revised since the distribution of the Umetco RAP of November 1995.
Appendix F (Radon Aftenuation and Infiltration Control) contains three calculations. NAT-Calc-010-03 (Cover Design and infiltration Control) has been updated and is now revision 3. NAT-Calc-015-00 (Cover Design, infiltration) has only been renumbered from former calculation NAT-Calc-011A.
Appendix G (Construction Documents) contains information that was sent to bidders in December 1995.
Appendix H (Modifications During Construction)is a new volume and contains copies of the 26 Construction Phase Problem Resolution Forms -
Resolution / Revision (CRR) for the Upper Burbank disposal site and the Program Interface Documents (PID) for the Nateita processing site.
Appendix I (Post Construction Design Verification Calculations) contains two new calculations: Calc-17-741-04-01 (Radon Barrier Thickness Verification) and NAT-Calc 016-00 (West End Pit and Cheney Gravel Sources, Inventory and Scores of Gravel Sources Used for Construction).
j 1
REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN AND SITE DESIGN FOR STABILIZATION OF THE INACTIVE URANIUM PROCESSING SITE AT NATURITA, COLORADO March 1998 l
TABLE OF CONTENTS 4
PART A - Remedial Action Plan For The inactive Uranium Processing Site At Naturita, Colorado Remedial Action Selection Report j
1 l
1.0 Introduction 2.0 Geology at the Naturita site
)
l 3.0 Geotechnical and construction description j
i 4.0 Surface water hydrology 5.0 Water resources protection 6.0 Radon aftenuation and site cleanup 7.0 List of contributors 8.0 References Calculations Geology report Ground water hydrology report
! Supplementalinformation i
4 E
2 1
I PART B Remedial Action Plan And Site Design For Stabilization Of The Naturita Title i Residual Radioactive Materials At The Upper Burbank l
Repository, Uravan, Colorado
]
l Remedial Action Selection Report l
1.0 Introduction l
2.0 Geologic stability 3.0 Geotechnical stability 4.0 Surface water hydrology and erosion protection 5.0 Water resources protection 6.0 Radon attenuation l
7.0 References l
Appendix A Geology Report Appendix B Ground Water Hydrology Report l
Appendix C Water Resources Protection Strategy Appendix D Geotechnical Stability l
l Appendix E Surface Water Hy* ology and Erosion Protection Appendix F Radon Attenuation and Infiltration Control l
_ Appendix G Construction Document l
Appendix H Modifications During Construction Appendix I -
Post Construction Design Verification Calculations l
l l
l REFERENCES DOE (U.S. Department of Energy),1994. Remedial Action Plan and Site Design for Stabilization of the inactive Uranium Processing Site at Naturita, Colorado, DOE /AU62350-40F, March 1994 - final, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental P,estoration Division, UMTRA Project Team, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy),1995. Remedial Action Plan and Site Design for Stabilization of the Natun'ta Title I Residual Radioactive Materials at the Upper Burbank Repository, Uravan, Colorado, November 1995 - final draft, prepared by Umetco Minerals Corporation for the U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Division UMTRA Project Tes.m, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy),1996a. Response to Comments by Nuclear Regulatory Commission and State of Colorado, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project, Naturita, Colorado, volumes I and 11, April 1996, prepared by Umetco Minerals Corporation for the U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Division, UMTRA Project Team, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy),1996b. DOE Responses to NRC Comments on the Remedial Action Plan for the Naturita, Colorado, UMTRA Project Processing and Disposal Sites, May 1996, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Restoration Division, UMTRA Project Team, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
\\
e 6
71 6
f f
r f
6 C
o o
3f 1
a
- 2. d o
n
)
n o
X d
L 0
0 0
no d
4 a 6
(
e
)
d A
0 0
- o1 1
9 a h1 0
i C
C 8
S 8
is 6 n t
i ei c
g 0
e L
v t
t 0
D 0
c I.
/,
26 u4 S
o T-e3 oe C
A r
T-9 sS 1
9 N
/2 rl L
i T-p A
n C
a n
3 3
O 6
hb.
A 2
r aB N
7 A
7 dino e
( 4.
- 4. T C
t i
e 1
e f
7 N
I rhB t
7 d d c T
e gt A
w o
1 1
e e t
2 or T-4 g
ut A
pa a
s. N sS u r a
l P
5 t
n. C ci C
iwB L C
pmP 4 eP A
eB f
I 4
R a
A at A
inl d e. L sdf N
gt o
A gB O
eh f na o e n t
t f
a r r a L
i o
r r e
iomA pt C
Da C
o pa r
r a h 4.A P
ad A P
e.
e a
t E
w2 c n x 4 n
gB h
nP i.
oo v
aB f
n nf n
r nt.
S x
e ei o
o a
t o
pt f
e a r
N C4i S ed eB i
f r
d o dB dB sP d
sd b n g
a o
e e
i eA nP dD d r Ann cG e
i t
t l
O Toe in at t
o e t
t r
p pa d
d r s nf r x
o s
i u x ivP n
P P
i p ui f
i v x vP t i a d a oa e
d d o i a r s al p nP r
S mt p l
c e aA of c
e p
oi o
sd o
n i 3 E
oeA pe o n n cD o
rd rf n n r f a
f R
f S pv f e
i p ex C
pn po oe po
,mt o t
r e
n f
r e a s no a a o aD n
nE Cp nE p
ri n e eC t
t r
p o
o p
p o
a n m o
sh9 a i iA od D
t i x
C iaA i ix nA ix r
oh x d 1 ns2 n
c n t
t o
t t
t i t
ad n
ad i c i
md ioe ad af e E e e4 n
cd ge d n mo s p R mn mn ni mn
,d a n ep S
e s
r n
s e r7 u
ri r e w7 t
A O N et e mlul i a u iop f 2 a
Le r e d b
v l
p o
o6 op o9 op a aAp t
l oc a eh ig f
f p f p elef p
I 4 Vin Ch n0 h7 n
nA S1 nA L r oA t
I I
I N k Al La P w ic m
u t
s Ns s
o i
o e
b Or s
a y
C l
y t
I s
i T
d t
i t
n n
b c
Cn a
e a
n s
0 s
a e
ls Ae m
a t
Lm N
9 e
e p
r n
t e
e P
a Am O
d a
p s
n r
I I
n s
o.
e n
a t
I o a
s c
A o
h s
DC T
a l
1 r
e ly i
R r
c y
s s d
EE P
c a
p o
I 8
o iM n
n e
n a
MI R
t i
t t
t t
s c
a a
o h
o e
d I
b t
EP C
l d
s u y
i f
i h
n t
t t
s t
c t
l o
c a
RD S
u a
l i
a a
t t.
lp en oC i
p t
a r
A C E
F p
a e
d t
b c
n u r u
u l
f o
e e a
m e
m n
D t
t Td o
c s p s
s o
p o
o u
i t
n s
d pp c
c i
o i
t I n s
t e
a c
I Ra r
n n
c n
rU p
e UC i
a o
o ie l
r AN e e n
a o ls r
ic i
t o
o e
a t
f n r
r o
o i
c s
TR s
ta s
i s
N r r r
r a
n a
p u
t s
r t
b h
b n
o o
a e
o n
le e
d t
N c e is d s f
n n
i n
m t
c s s e
o a m r
r l
ly A o
o n
a s
r t
t a a imlu ion n
d o
d o
a i
z a
I d
h a
e a
r h
e a
a a
I Cp Of S a P
R G
R E
C S
l l
l s) at 7 nn 9 oe/m4 i
t 2
id m/0 d o1 AC(
Rs t
)
En6 Te9m2 2
3 4
6 5
7 8
9
/
0 I
t 1
2 f m/
ar o4 DC(
yr s) t 5
a n
nRe9 /
i C mE m2 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 0
2 1
iTm2
/
R e
o1 l
r C(
N P
n r
e e
2 m
o n
e r
b h
i ihl e
o i oC d
u f
t f
n t
n a
m l
e t
a w A
o l
t e
a
. iwtno s
x o
ih s a
t t
it c
di ei wt s m
A t
t r
in n a nt gnd h a u
df u
t ec o wr s
t a
h e p ai eN.
P l
) a c eo t
o s
e of e r l m.l e r u d r s r s n ei
. m 3. b r
s S e gsApoc t
e r
f n h a l
l l
f t
Ae o a nR oet pf P
e e ufdH r
e i
t l
cr a
i o3 o w
wl f f wlp w 4 ed o n rPf a o g q i
s n
goaAa c ou s t
f a
o o pt ot t
r ir r n s g
r P
t c ei i p od c k aiP eoa s a l
l n
2 r
n u a e t
n r s t
pi I
e e
u s c d
f ge 6 o isP s u eo1 ye ct h A
n m p s sf h m ou e lct 31 laU t
t l
f t
sTo ecl a
h t
i o
b e R
ir e
e n
l m
b i a ot s c e d
on3 u o r e l
S w i
m.C o
x h
e s f
ul i R ed 4 r
riS nr l
t r
o d p c
s t
e o
a r
n i(
ni t f f e nqs ei x iwih p.
c n t
tud n e s o y
s a
t uA e o u
e t i i it d mo a
s psi t
dT e
ta s Si ol el A a et r
L pl d ge wiA l
eh i ed ip d s r t b c mb t
s Cu a n t
t c
Me op in s cC i d P inc a i hl in a
c ct e s e
.P a a e
n a
o.
y l
n ci d
ut S wdl
( t s
u a e a s
s r
B S h pp o u d e s
- R lad o d ioia a d n gl qct u
t ct T ef eS t
s t
a v
e uni r sand c s niA aL r
is t
PN u u i o ni s
t ei iuAa ta oid df in n did f odP n
a s
t I
e r
e Ae ql 4 v
e a s ot ui
. aCk o ct oi md e
c r
s os2 msf h nr o gem wi 6. i n1 a ot h
r t
r 0 dOa n
Rt ei n r
s r i ai a l
f c e c
o f
na n ooR d )s 3 l Ge0 aPb3 cteCin n
e e
p r
A t
ino a e m n
i ima a
i t
t gi ci r r
nt a
r t
n eot o
s eu n ni a
npe u nns.i t
t wr o
e ooBlsW h
o a
ixd s
l e e es c iol i d it ah i
i dd a
t e
c ah o
t r ui p aG yt Bi mlad s t
a cd mty m ci f A t
t r
t s t r c r s ns dd cd s
f at e e p T-mt pS f ppr r
t or l r
e a e e ooe e i
ui a ot r
o t
i u o k s ed a c
m v
f iA r
e woa o
r c nS P
t t
l pd f i A ie p s
n r ue oe pt f f
ota0 r
c o r
r e
s r
a a o nh u
n ei d
r n
n I
p S pi CR S aiq PN5P Bcit odN P mUi PdAa n
I N
t k
e s s Al t
d o La is t
a m e
r Pw g
it i
d r e
s s
n s
n e Ns i
g i
t o
s a p g
e Or s
n p
C e
n s
h s
u t
I T
c i
s l
e n.
s t
o s
e a
Cn e
h i
t r
e c
nt t
p c
o e n s
Ci Ae m e
o p
mi Ol r
r h
p l
e s
leC P a IAm t
s a
o y
e h
pO eo i
IDC b
h r
t pP h p d
y te t
t t
u s
a E E e
b m
n y
gh i ge a
s e.
t i e
ad Ml l
d t
t t
t o
i n
s f
c a
nh s
it la EP a
ir te t
iyal p
u a
u i
t RD m
a r
e c
o i
l s
s ot ta a
d d
q pd a
A C i
m p
r e
r pr o i r t
r a
m e
a a p n e I n i
2 im z
Td e
s rdi of v
a e
ta
)
r o nd mi u
Ra R
l h
w f a q
s
(
e e a r
t UC P
c l
c e
d nsh c
e i
t TR l
I I
e w
i a
n ioyt nt f
u r t s
A u
c w
I o
aa a a o AN t
g f
g e
n n
g ic mr m m R
iM i
s d
r N
o n
p e
r r
f if o
i M
t u
k i
s i
f e r
n e
o c
pu r p t
C R
i t
r a
s a
s i
u r q e p Q
S R
S G
H J oa P u i
l 2
5 3
6 4
7 i
3 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
i g
1 1
1 1
1
/
I f
3 eg o
f n
h n t
o n
n o
nP r s u
t 4
i l
l l
t a
o 4
a a
o o
i oA os 3
n n
i i
t l
c F e n
u a
h t
t c
c e
i R c
e d
t t
t e
ue g
e e
iob
- m. m. A A
le le no m
ivb i o r
i db u
ne e
h Cl P h
v a r S
p o
a a
mt RP c
d o i
t l
l lea i
d eA t
o n
t a
n d
h t
l cel pr pr d
i o
om
. Nn c t
i s pt s
pt s
t e
t t
nt u a u a e
e i
c d
nr o
n oj A
i r S a o
o e
f o oio t
nl sP sP m
m c
yr i
n t t d p p
t ii sf sf e
e A
r t
s c r.
n e e e
c l
t i
i eA P6 e e s
9 yr.
e d w a o a o R R
l pa e
s i
r t
r t
et et o
o i
or u nl A9 d
a nP nnP r
a e s d4 d4 f
f d
r a q
oiR1 e
a c o a o o
si iA c
oiA sh d n d n A
A e
pp pd T y a
eR i
t f
e eR s
l t
u t
cT I
I m
ys i
s u e u e e
e c
yl r
mMaM t
t t
,l t
r t
.P c m lc m na n a e
e o
i t
s l
pm o
r l
l pm t
s t
s ind ReU i
r e
g a
i mo nmo dB S inh nh eP eP
. R r
c c mf mf i
i h o h o o. v i in ER b of r
r e of e
T e a ea f
t I
icd o "s a
is c mc dP s t P
i r Oe aL r
t r
t d e d e
e v
s nP a
t at ct ct A
nyt myt aA n
Dh ai l
s o
e A
A a r a r I
Al o e
t ot a t a t
r a
a a
o R t
a r o
sR n
n p
p nt u p c " n oS ic pr r or r t
if h t
t t
t t
s e a ce a t
ot ai ai Ae Ae n
e ad e r
r o nOloa g
epp pp e e c
l aCi d
d n
r i
v ixd ai a i i
inR mPivb p
r oe e oe ch n
n nR i
i s
o s C, o r s r s l
l e
o o
d l
r np nt hf i o C d t
p o
epd w
d af n
n e
en o
o s
c od e
nt nt d
d t
d. nye ye po r e a s t
i i d s ioa oa ei ei s
a n
A t
d ot d eB t
t s
t e
t r i t F emirD aAwi i d ini ct e e e t
m im d
i c n s t
t d
onr
/
w r
t r
u c u c r
mtu Rt Oi v v
n e d A pI o s
r pr i r i o e
d o d
ni o pd df df cl cl d
) e) p K
l l
d c o c o s r r
r noa CAa Ain Ai S
iS A ARB eM ACNa APBvi r ai r ia
) a) d n n e n e n
I r
p Lv p DP N
e k
Al g
la a
s ld La t
r a
e l
Pw n
o e
if ta e
e t
r s
r n
Ns o
m s
a n
e o
e e
s i
t Or m
s r
e d
y l
C p
o r
i l
I r
t e
T p
r a
l p
t o
u.
m n
G e
d 2
ib p
Cn t
s s
i u
e Ae a
h a
et r
x a
f e
e s
s Lm t
d f g l
r a
t t
h is o
s r
r t
l e
n o
o Am o
e a
a in f
r a
f DC m
ta 6
on h
n r
I o i
t t
l n
n o
s e
d 2
n s s
r e
w i
a e
a l
s r
8 2
o E E 8
e o
m lb d e
t e
i g
n o
a 1
i c f
a l
w i
3 a
t o
s p
d e
h o
i MH n
2 R
i r ro EP i
U d
t h
d p d
e p
i e
d n
e r
n m
d d
t RD e
c t
n e
a u
e mh d A C iwc d
u n
w s
r n
a d
n a
n o
et n
d e
n s
u l
n Td n
a r
r a
i h
i e
r a
o m
0 g
l ta m
a a
I n o
t 3
k a
s u
t 6
r a
o s
i s
g f
Ra r
c i a a
n 2
n f
i t
o 2
a r
e l
c t
o 2
UC af b
a e tn i
e a
w it s
a r
n o
s.
c r
o s
r h
pa e
TR e
n t
s e
T i
f l
t s
a a
R o
a r
v AN e
o od m
i u
d N
i p i
e p
r l
r r
b d
ma e
t s
e d
e e
c m d
t a lp m
u h
d e
e r
r r e v
r e n pa n
m md e
os o
o f
e e
u ig i
e oa i
e cd c
i n
s r
t t
y r
f a
u W
R Ct D
Cs P
M Et S a R F r
i s
s l
2 3
4 5
I 2
3 4
5 6
8 9
0 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 1
1 2 3 4
5 6
7 7
8 9
0 1
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2 1
1 1
~
n B
d 4
t Bd o
o.
t c
4 e
t ad n P
e e
i n
ef n
hd a
i r
rd dt a
t e
jo o 8
t r
c es e
m 22 P a e
e r t aS f
b mi t
v a
h P
r e
m c
h o
n o
+f oemn ef r p l
t a
6 ar t
i e
e ui C
v o c r
t e
N a
w.
Wn 2Cbi t
2 mx O
i h 0.i ne e
A aR t
x t
v t
- x e e
s n
e l
ai v ot d
s3i b
o n
u o o
I t
nh h e T
n n
Rd a r na c
h e
o t
s i
si di e
A p
i ios a d
et nt r
s opaCt.
C p
at eh r
r c
e e
e u e t
t t
s eu ol f
h. oA r ch n n
a v q r e p
pet O
A r
f nS o
i s
et L Al l
d t t
e c
GS r
o i n w
t C
ab e a L
e di a
g f
o cnn a o
o s
r s l
n t
v i Ao Mos adP s
d E
0 nia n n
r lp t
e ei Ri t
f o1,i p
s p Tc e1 oe a r v o
S 3
c Bm t
s N
3 a.
n m
ot MA n
D3 gon 3 n
d t
r et b e O
o ee r e wl i
a ce Uai l
s e a et l
at l
v e e e g
l
.b n
b n P
it s
t cd rbP e e in e
r c d a e
e S
ee sTfod Dh l
f r o dh e a d
t d eTnt em E
S s e
o ow u e v
t o
r o
i Mt b m c
ah R
i b
d s
n t
e na n omCu n v oh c i r s
f r o a e a
e m
o o
e y.
o R
mr x r Dv M
laA Dn n
r mt 1
n u
g o
t t
od u s t
f i s c ml iuA 3 e d
c eii n
E o e o.
t k
E or rh a o l
b imd n c Sd N
at t
e e
r S i mdA edf e
s r
e o e a e
x e pb Oc E
a a t
P Ol e et u
oh n6 b s al r r t
t t
p La P
a Lc ad r EcCto a a a r
e f
v3 Th MdAo Cp O
Do Ci S aP l
f t d a n
NAlk d
l n
f a
g La ul o
u n
Pw a
d i
g os i
i u
s s
e s
r o
n g
s s
t Ns i
k s r
ly e
is p
o t
r t
Or gci u
g r
e a
f o
o T
p in ad v
n o
h 2i C
I n
t e
d b o
a t
t d
d u
owi 1
s e
r t
rh a c
Cn r
s a
t e
t s
p d e s r Ae g
gi e e r e
n c rbi l
s e n a o Lm N
in el f s
t sl i
Ro d
a u e n e e it r
Am O
p ui u c I
r 7
q qw ql P
s t
I o I
a s
1 e c t
g d e a e
e a A n n s a DC T
e n
t r n r s i u r
t I
r a os o
o R Ff n
EE o
0 3
e t
d p
e I
4 5 d m 1
4 on m a Mf R
1 s
e 9
o w
i t
t e r t i t
t EP C
n n s e
n g nd 9
si s t
. md RD S
e e up e n e r 1
. lei ip Cu t
on A C E
m me p mh mf a
o t
h m b ra e
r u
D m
mu u mc m
c r b pt o
e r e Cr Td s
o od n oe og at o
s s e R g I n s
e Cs ei Cb Ca Mc C
Cc t
Ra i
s f
s n
a r
n o No r
P P on P
Pi n
om w on UC e
o n
a u
A
- a. Arpi Ao Ar o o s et t
TR a
t t
t
. R d o
AN w
Rt Rl a Ri t
s t
t n
n a m ei a
a r al t
t N
d od oct oc ir t ie mu s
t i a on e m el o ni a
n c e ci n cf c
mcf od u
r u
e t
r e
t t ict s
i pe a
eic e
e es mn ml a s
o mt a
mt n e me mn oa oct r
m a
r a oi a
r a
e t
Uspm Ut Cu Cerd R r G
Uin Ut r
e s c s 6
t
)
E n
6 e r9 H mt 4 e/
2 2
3 4
5 6
7 t
P me/
D oI 0 C
1 C
(
s
i ATTACHMENT ll l
l h
I l
l I
l I
i r
l I
i i
i l
I I
1 1
l
Comments Requiring Page Changes to the Final, March 1998 Remedial Action Plan and Site Design for Stabilization of the Naturita Title l Residual Radioactive Materials at the Upper Burbank Repository, Uravan, Colorado Remedial Action Selection Report
- 1. Page 1-4, table 1.1," Contaminated Material Volume at the Naturita Site, Colorado:",
should be updated from the initial bid quantities to the current volume estimates (793,193 cubic yards). (Information taken from MKES CAD drawings for proposed final grading plan for processing site, March 25,1998).
- 2. Page 2-7, section 2.4.2, first paragraph, fourth sentence, change to read,".....
calculated to be 0.283g using.....".
- 3. Page 2-7, section 2.4.2, sixth paragraph, Desian Criteria, changt to read as follows:
first bullet, "K =.19" e
second bullet, "K =.14" e
third bullet, "a max = 0.283g."
e 4.
Page 2-8, section 2.5, first paragraph, second bullet, change to read, ".... design criteria of 0.283g peak..."
- 5. Page 3-1, section 3.1, third paragraph, change 500,000 cubic yards to read 793,000 cubic yards.
- 6. Page 5-6, section 5.3, first paragraph, delete the second through fifth sentences -
(supplemental standards are no longer the compliance strategy). Insert the following after the first sentence:
"The disposal cell will meet the EPA maximum concer,tration limits (MCL) or backgrouad water quality, whichever is higher, in the Wingate Fcrmation (uppermost aquifer) at the point of compliance (POC). Seepage of tailings fluids into the Wingate Formation is precluded by the very low permeability of the Summerville Formation."
- 7. Page 5-7, section 5.3, third bullet f a:n top of page, delete second sentence. Also delete the word " hypothetical" from the next sentence.
- 8. Page 5-8, section 5.3.2, third sentence delete the word " hypothetical".
- 9. Page 6-1, section 6.2, first paragraph, first sentence, change 401,000 cubic yards to read 793,000 cubic yards.
Appendix A Geology Report This section being extensively revised. This section will be submitted later.
i 4
Appendix B Groundwater Hydrology Report 1.
Page i, Table of Contents, delete "2.1 Processing Site".
- 2. Page B1-1, section 1.0, change the reference at the end of the third paragraph from
"(40 CFR 192.20)" to "(60 FR 2854)".
- 3. Page B2-1, delete "2.1 Disposal Site".
- 4. Page B3-11, Figure 3.8, correct the " months" at the right end of the "X-axis" on both hydrographs.
Appendix C Water Resources Protection Strategy
- 1. Page i, Table of Contents, should be revised to show correct section subheading numbers in sections 3.1 and 3.2.
- 2. Page C1-1, section 1.0,last sentence under second bullet of second paragraph l
states that a well will be installed to " withdraw any construction liquids". This should l
be deleted, as this is not the purpose of the standpipe in the disposal cell.
l l
Appendix D Geotechnical Stability No cornments.
l Appendix E Surface Water Hydrology and Erosion Protection
- 1. Calc-17-739-08-00, sheet 4, section 2.1.2, first paragraph, second line from top of page, The three durability test results that are referenced in Appendix D of the calculation had scores of 50.1,40.8, and 24.3. These scores are less than the range of 51 to 67% as stated. Correct sentence to read," oversize sandstones are in the range of 24 to 50 %...".
I
- 2. Calc-17-739-08-00, sheet 6, sech 3.1, second paragraph, first sentence, change to read, ".... disposal cell configuration of 800,000 cubic yards....".
l Appendix F Radon Attenuation and Infiltration Control
- 1. The text and table in Calc-17-741-04-01 needs to be revised. The average long-term moisture content minus one standard deviation appears to be 19.7 rather than 19.3 Utilization of 19.7 in RAECOM results in a 20 pCi/m /s flux whereas utilization 2
of 19.3 resulted in a 21 pCi/m*/s flux.
Appendix G Construction Documeats No review required. Documents provided to bidders.
Q.
I o'
, Appendix H Modifications During Construction
(
- 1. CRR-02 (Interceptor Channel Location) should be revised to reflect that reference, "NAT-Calc-004.1 - Erosion Protection, Diversion Channels", March 12,1997,has been superseded with " Calc-17-738-08 Erosion Protection Design and i
Sediment Inflow / Outflow Evaluation for Channels Nos.1,2,3, and Interceptor Channel".
Appendix i Post Construction Design Verification Calculations l
No comments.
t i
l i
I 4
I I
l 1
l l
l u
,