ML20237K539
| ML20237K539 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/24/1987 |
| From: | Muller D, Peel R, Perssonreeves NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-WM-74, REF-WM-75 NUDOCS 8709040406 | |
| Download: ML20237K539 (5) | |
Text
_
q l
WM Record File M1 P:$ll El Dcck th.
I FDR__ v _"_
UMTRA DOCUMENT REVIEW FORM N
D;dnwn: _
9)
C r rN _ _ _ _ _.. _. _ _ _ _ _ _
SECTION 1 E W f d$ iS...._--- -
-C Site:
Belfield/ Bowman
, Date:
March 26,'198]7 Document:
Draft CADSAR - February, 1987 Commentor:
NRC Staff / General i
Comment:
NRC 1, Page 2, Purpose of CADSAR n
DOE states that the purpose of the NRC review of the final CADSAR is to
'()
reach agreement that the pn ferred alternative will meet the EPA stanaaras.
This is inconsistent with the DOE and NRC agreement regarding UMTRA activities.
The purpose of the final CADSAR is to provide information to support selection of a preferred alternative for further 9
The staff's review of the final CADSAR is i
to identify significant technical deficiencies and potential design issues that may affect a site's ability to meet the EPA standards.
Our determination as to whether the EPA standards will be net is reserved for NRC concurrence on the final RAP.
)
This statement needs to be corrected in the final CADSAR.
SECTION 2
Response
NRC 1, Page 2 By: R. Peel /C. Persson-Reeves (TAC)
Date:
April 24, 1987 l
This statement will be corrected in the final CADSAR.
I i
[.M
\\
ca Plans for Implementation:
See response.
C C
SECTION 3 y
g r-Confirmation of Implementation:
Checked by:
, Date:
Approved by:
, Date:
8709040406 070424 PDR WASlE WM-74 pop
i
?,,
UMTRA i)0CUMENT REVIEW FORM SECTION 1 Site: -
Belfield/ Bowman
, Date:
March 26, 1987 Document:
Draft CADSAR - F'e'bruary,1987 Commentor:
NRC Staff / Surface Water Hydrology
(
3 Comment:
NRC 2, Page 13, Erosion Protection Materials The draf t CADSAR states that alluvial deposits in the area "... yield a f-rock generally less than one inch in size, which is inadequate, because UMTRA Project standards require a mean rock diameter of 1 1/2 inches for I
the top of a stabilized tailings pile."
It should be pointed out that this 1 1/2-inch minimum rock size is specific in the DOE Technical Approach Document (TAD) and is not necessarily an NRC requirement.
The NRC staff could accept the use of smaller rocks if other design changes (such as flattening the top slope) were proposed, if differential l
settlement was shown to be essentially zero, and especially if this rock constitutes the best quality rock that is reasonably available.
This information should be considered in development of the final CADSAR.
SECTION 2
Response
NRC 2, Page 13 By:
D. Muller (TAC) j Date:
April 24, 1987 This comment is acknowledged and the suggestion is appreciated.
Further analyses will be conducted to develop the most technically correct and economically feasible design,for the final RAP and will be proposed to the l
NRC for their approval.
l Plans for Implementation:
See response.
SECTION 3 Confirmation of Implementation:
Checked by:
, Date:
Approved by:
, Date:
y c" '
3rt c _
}
3:4;1f a
QF I
h UMTRA DOCUMENT REVIEW FORM l'
e..
SECTION l'
/
Site:
Belfield/Bownan -
, Date:
March 26,'1987, Document:
Draft CADSAR, February, 1987 Commentor:
NRC Staff /Geotechnical Engineering Comment:
NRC 3. Page 39, Characterization of Contaminated Material NRC staff suggests that DOE include characterization of the cectaminated O
material as part of their field characterization program.
Particularly l
since the contaminated material is lignite ash and may have different characteristics than materials encountered at other UMTRA Project sites'.
t n
s x
l l
SECTION 2 e
Response
NRC 3, Page 39 By:
R. Peel Date:
April 24, 1987 s
\\
\\1 i
The contaminated material at the Belfield and Bowman processing sites was characterized during a comprehensive field study by Bendix Field Engineering '
Corporation in 1986.
l
\\
Plans for Implementation:
A copy of the Bendix report will be sent to NRC.
SECTION 3 r.
Confirmation of Implementation:
Checked by:
. Date:
Approved by:
, Date:
j
~-
c
.._.4
-l m.,.
9 l
(
+
l'
+,
UMTRA DOCUMENT REVIEW FORM s
SECTION 1
[,
Site:
Belfield/ Bowman
, Date:
March 26, 1987 Document:
Draft CAOSAR - February, 1987 r
i, Commentor:
NRC Str.ff/ Ground-Water Hydrology Comment:
NRC 4, Field Characterization Activities
!,q a) One monitoring well has been constructed at the Bull Creek alternate i
A disposal site (Page 26).
If this site is seriously considered as an V
alternative, more than one monitoring well will be needed to adequately characterize ground-water quality or the flow regime at i
that site with only one monitor well.
l
\\
SECTION 2
Response
NRC 4 By:
C.Persson-Reeves /J.Hilton (TAC)
Dat e:
(
April 24, 1987 O
l a)
If the Bull o Creek site is selected as the preferred alternate and other issues concerning the site are resolved (i.e. availability of l
i l
State Lands), additional monitoring wells will be installed. However, l
the data presently available are adequate to compare the site with other alternatives.
Plans for Implementation:
See response.
SECTION 3 Confirmation of Implementation:
Checked by:
, Date:
Approved by:
, Date:
,3
=#
_________m_
I' ^
w UMTRA DOCUMENT REVIEW FORM i
SECTION 1 Site:
Belfield/8owman
, Date:
March 26, 1987 Document:
Draft CADSAR - February, 1987 Commentor:
NRC Staff / Ground-Water Hydrology Comment:
NRC 4, Field Characterization Activities b) DOE plans to characterize the site hydrogeologic conditions and water quality based on laboratory results from two rounds of ground-water i
\\
sampling (Page 39).
According to the schedule (Page 40), DOE will sample and analyze ground water during the period of 05/01/87 to 06/19/87.
It may not be possible to adequately characterize the processing or alternate disposal sites based on sample rounds of such short duration, especially if the near-surf ace ground water exhibits seasonality.
SECTION 2
Response
NRC 4 By:
C.Persson-Reeves /J.Hilton (TAC) k Date:
April 24, 1987 b)
One round of water samples will be collected in May and June 1987, and another round will be collected in the fall of 1987. This data, along with the data collected in August through December, 1986, should be adequate to define any seasonal fluctuations in water quality.
Plans for Implementation:
See response.
SECTION 3 Confirmation of Implementation.
Checked by:
, Date:
Approved by:
n+
e t
--