ML20236X705
| ML20236X705 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/03/1987 |
| From: | Derek Widmayer NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Dunkelman M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-69 NUDOCS 8712100132 | |
| Download: ML20236X705 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _____
A L -
- ~'
nasco
/ o g UNITED STATES 8' g " ^ "
- g j WM DOCXb@^P RASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 -
DOChBl bO.
PDR #
(*****/ '87 Og _4 p DEC 0 91987 Estribution:
3 Ij LWhtnas2.n MEMORANDUM FOR: Maxine Dunkelman, Project Manager .
Operations Branch
. _ .SS)
-L 2,623 _. .Z b e_.
Division of Low-Level Waste Management ~
and Decommissioning, NMSS FROM: Derek A. Widmayer, Civil Engineer Technical Branch Divisicn of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMSS
SUBJECT:
FINAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DISPOSAL SITE ALTERNATIVES REPORT (fCADSAR) FOR THE MAYBELL, C0. SITE Joe Kane and I have reviewed the subject fCADSAR for the Maybell, 00 UMTRAP site and the responses to the NRC geotechnical engineering comments that were developed during NRC's review of the draft CADSAR (dCADSAR). The following list summarizes our previous comments on the dCADSAR:
dCADSAR Section Comments e Pg. 5, Sec. 3.0 Four comments on site characterization information.
e Pg. 14, Sec. 4.0 One comment on basic geotechnical information needed for the conceptual design.
e Pg. 17, Sec. 6.0 One comment on basic design and construction information used for making cost estimates.
Based on our review of DOE's responses, we conclude that NRC's geotechnical engineering comments on the dCADSAR have not been addressed in the fCADSAR.
All six comments on the dCADEAR were directed at obtaining preliminary site characterization information, basic design information, and basic construction planning information. Since the requested information was not provided in the fCADSAR, the NRC cannot perform an adequate review for fatal flaws nor make meaningful conclusions on the appropriateness of the selected remedial action plan.
A major geotechnical engineering concern identified in the six comments on the dCADSAR is that pockets of slimes at the south end of the tailings pile l require better understanding in order to develop plans for remedial action l (comment c in comments on Pg. 5, Sec. 3.0). This concern has apparently been i addressed through a geotechnical evaluation of the pockets (see fCADSAR, pg. 21, Sec. 5.1). However, basic information on the results of this evaluation are not presented in the fCADSAR. Therefore, the NRC has no bases on whether this concern has been~adequa'tely addressed for this stage of remedial action, and cannot determine the extent of needed detailed characterization that the NRC would recommend for future design documents.
8712100132 071203 PDR WASTE WM-69 PDR
4 4 -
j
. , i i
We understand that more detailed characterization of the Maybell site tailings j and foundation soils, as well as additional detail on design and construction j of the planned remedial action, will be provided in the draft Remedial Action Plan (dRAP). This was stated in some of the DOE responses to NRC's geotechnical engineering comments on the dCADSAR. Since the dRAP is scheduled to arrive in February 1988, it appears that additions to the fCADSAR would not be useful at )
this time. We will be reviewing the dRAP with particular attention to.the geotechnical engineering concerns that were raised at the dCADSAR stage. ,
l If you have any questions regarding our review or this memo, please contact me at X74263. fi O wk .
Derek A. Widmayer, Civil Engineer Technical Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decon,missioning, NMSS i
- - _ _ _ - - - . - _ . - _