ML20247A965
| ML20247A965 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/05/1989 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Matthews M ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-62 NUDOCS 8909120275 | |
| Download: ML20247A965 (6) | |
Text
_
l..
e no 5 Em Mr.' Mark Matthews, Acting Project Manager Uranium Mill Tailings Project Office
-U. S. Department of Energy o
Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87115
Dear Mr. Matthews:
Under cover letter dated July 18,1989, DOE transmitted the Rifle preliminary final Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for NRC review and concurrence. The letter indicated that DOE's responses to the NRC comments on the draft RAP and preliminary design were not included but would be transmitted within 10 days.
During the NRC/D0E weekly telephone conference, we discussed with your staff the fact that the NRC's acceptance review would not begin until the responses to comments were received. On August 18, 1989 DOE telefaxed their responses to NRC's geology comments and on August 23, 1989 the NRC received the responses to the surface water and hydrology comments by Federal Express.
The NRC staff has completed its acceptance review of the preliminary final RAP and its supportir; documents and found that continued NRC review at this time is not warrantec. Multiple significant geotechnical inconsistencies and misreferences between the RAP and the Design documents exist and responses to the NRC craft RAP comments are incomplete.
Examples of'the inconsistencies identified in the initial geotechnical engineering review are providd in Attachment 1.
Dan Gillen, NRC, d' wussed these discrepancies in separate telephole conversations with F. Bosiljevac and W. Taber on August 18, 1989. Note tha'. Attachment 1 contains examples of the inconsistencies but may not repre;ent a complete list of all discrepancies.
The RAP is a public document that provides the overall direction for performing the remedial action in compliance witn EPA standards, and thereby providing reasonable assurance of protecting the public health and safety and the environment.
In our view, the RAP's consister.cy with design documents is necessary to assure this.
Concerning DOE's responses to NRC draft RAP comments, our review indicated the ommission of responses to all geotechnical comments and to comment nos.
GW-22, GW-23, GW-24, GW-25, and GW-27 in the groundwater technical area.
Although not an issue with respect to the acceptability of the documents for continued NRC review, our geology reviewer indicated that some additional information would be valuable. Attachment 2 lists this information which would be helpful if included in your future resubmittal of the preliminary final RAP.
I would also like to make a ganeral co.ument on the receipt of documents for this review. One concept underlying streamlining was to facilitate the 1
review process to allow NRC and DOE to improve efficiency. We should l
l 890912O275 890905 PDR WASTE
/h I
(!
,,J b"'
SEP 5 1989-L continue to work toward the goal of having one complete ~ document-submitted for,
review in order that the overall review process efficiency gain may. be achieved.
If.you have any questions regarding the above information please contact me or M. Fliegel,_of.my staff, on FTS 492-0555.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL. SIGNED BY Paul H. Lohaus, Branch Chief Operations. Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning-
Enclosures:
As s'tated i.
cc: - S. Mann,~ DOE /HQ C. Watson, DOE /AL i
H. Roitman, C0 l
I
' Distribution:
Gentra LF11e:f E 62 RBangart, LLWM JGreeves, LLWM MBell, LLRB JSurmeier, LLTB
- PLohaus, LLOB' MFliegel,LLOB JJones, LLOB rf NMSS rf
'JStarmer, LLTB MTokar; LLTB MDunkelman, LLOB SWastler, LLOB TJohnson,ILTB DGillen, LLTB JGrimm, LLTB PDR YES /x /
PDR NO
/_/ Category: Proprietary [~_7 or CF Only / /
i
~
- ACNW YES /x /
NO/_/
SUBJECT ABSTRACT:
RIFLE. ACCEPTANCE REVIEW ON pf RAP-
-* See Preyious Concurrence 4
M //
OFC :LLOB'
- LLOB
- LLO
- LLWM
- LLWM
- NM55
- NM55 i
NAME:SWastler :MFliegel :PLohaus
'DkTE hfh0fhh Ef f5h h /hh ffkh
) /59
)fhh
) fb9 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
---____- a
N.:
-:3 -
U
'>}.-
g ATTACHMENT 1 Examples of RAP / Design Inconsistencies 1.
RAP, Vol. 11, D.4, Pages D-161 - D-164 indicates that there is no
' data on subpile and offpile contaminated materials..The design, on the other hand.. contains borings test pits, and test data that characterize the subpile and'offpile materials.
2.
RAP, Vol. I, Figures 3.7, 3.0, and 3.21 shows borin
' Pile, New Pile and Estes Gulch sites respectively. g locations at the Old Yet, the Design-drawings in the design subcontract documents and calculations and even in the RAP, Vol. III show many more borings and test pits made by the TAC and RAC..
3.
RAP,.Vol. II, D.4, Table D.4.1 and D.5, Tables D.5.1 and D.5.2 provide a summary of geotechnical design parameters.- The Design, Vol. II -
Calculations Calc 06-525-05-02 Geotechnical Characteristics' Sheet 4A is a summary of material properties for design.- These two parameter summaries are inconsistent.
4.
RAP, Vol. I, Page 7; The section on Borrow sites references a Section 3.5.3 which does not exist.
. 5.
. RAP, Vol. I, Page 7; Section 3.2 references Appendix B.
There is no Appendix B with this information.
__.__.__.-._________.____.-._._______.__.__._.__,______________._J
ATTACHMENT 2 Additional Geology Information The RAP did not provide a topographic map of the Estes Gulch disposal site. The map prepared as a base for design drawings (see drawing RFL-DS-10-0716, for example) would be appropriate. A full-size direct print of the map would allow staff to more quickly complete an independent review of the site characteristics.
In addition, the RAP did not provide the MET and MlB series borehole and test pit logs and should be provided.
rs
_--____--_.m_
l
- .v
~
SEP 5 1989
-2..
continue to work toward the goal of having one complete document submitted for review in order that the overall review process ef,7::1ency gain may be
' achieved..
lIf you 'have any questions regarding the above informatio please contact me or.
.M. Fliegel, of my staff, on FTS 492-0555.
ORIGINALSGIED BY
/
Paul H. Lohaus, Branch Chief Operations Branch Divisio 'of Low-Level Waste Management and commissioning
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
S. Mann, DOE /HQ C. Watson,. DOE /AL H. Roitman, C0 Distribution:
Central File #WM-62 RBangart, LLWM JJ2 reeves, LLWM MBell, LLRB JSurmeier, LLTB PLohaus, LLOB MFliegel,LLOB JJones, LLOB rf NMSS rf JStarmer, LLTB MTokar, LLTB MDunkelman, LLOB SWastler, LLOB TJohnson, LLTB DGillen, LLTB JGrim, LLTB PDR YES /x_,/
PDr. NO
/ / Category: Proprietary { ~7 or CF Only / /
.j.
ACNW YES: /X /
NO / /
SUBJECT A STRACT:
RIFLE ACCEPTANCE REVIEW ON pf RAP
- See Rrg ious Concurrence nC -
nk/
.I.1..I.....[bbSIb...IbbT.b[bb"".....[bb".".....I""!$..........["."!!.....
NAME ler :MFliegel :PLohaus :
)[hb9
)[)h9
)hb9
)hb9
)
b9 b9 bkTE 89
~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
g~
Q:
s,
.x l
.x.=.
..g.
~
..s.
l[
lpart ofsthat process;LDOE was? o provide one complete document for. review.
t ultiple or piece mealLsubmittal of the documents, as'.in the case of Rifle, p
feats the intent of streamlining and: delays the overall review process..
L If ou' have'any questions regarding the above information'please contact
-M.-
iegel, of my. staff, on fTS 492-0555.
y Paul H.:Lohaus, Branch Chief l
Operations Branch
'l:
Division of Low-Level Wasi.e Management and Decommissioning
- cc:
S. Mann, D0 HQ C. Watson, C /AL J
r H.'Roitman, C j
1
'i H
\\
.i i
1 c,u
. Distribution:
Central File #WM-62:
.RBangart, LLWM-JGreeves, LLW MBell,'LLRB JSurmeier, LLTB PLohaus, LLOB.
'MFliegel,LLOB-JJones,;LLOB r#
NMSS rf JStarmer; LLTB MTokar, LLTB '
MDunkelman, LLOB
. SWastler, LLOB 1
TJohnson, LLTB DGillen, LLTB JGrimm, LLTB i
PDR YES: /x /
PDR NO
/ / Category: Proprietary L or CF Only / /
ACNW YES LT_7, NO O SUBJECT ABSTRACT:
RIFLE ACCEPTANCE REVIEW pf RAP OFC :LLOB
- LLOB
- LLOB
- LLWM WM
.:NM55
- NM55 NAME..
er :MFliegel :PLohaus :
DATE: 8/30/89': 8/ /89 : 8/ /89 : / /89 : /
89 : / /89 : / /89
\\
\\
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 1