ML20196F337
| ML20196F337 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/01/1998 |
| From: | Stablein N NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Rael G ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-66 NUDOCS 9812070013 | |
| Download: ML20196F337 (5) | |
Text
.- - _ - . ._ .
l Mr. G[orgo Ra::1, Dirketor December 1, 1998
..
- U.S. D partm:nt of En rgy a
Albuquarqua Op rations Office ERD /UMTRA P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 l SUBJdCT: REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROBLEM RESOLUTION l REVISIONS NO. 25,28, AND 29 FOR NATURITA, COLORADO i
Dear Mr. Rael:
By letters dated March 3, July 21, August 5, and October 30,1998, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) transmitted Construction Phase Problem Resolution Revisions (CRRs) No. 25,28, and 29 for the Naturita, Colorado Uranium Mill Tailings Project Site to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for review and approval.
Based on its review of the information submitted by DOE, the NRC staff has concluded that the subject CRRs are acceptable as proposed.
The NRC staff's review is documented in the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report. If you have any questions conceming this subject, please contact Mr. Robert Carlson of my staff at (301) 415-8165.
Sincerely,
! [ Signed by]
N. King Stablein, Acting Chief l Uranium Recovery Branch l Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated '
! 1 l cc: B. Comish, DOE Alb.
F. Bosiljevac, DOE Alb.
E. Artiglia, TAC Alb.
DISTRIBUTION (w/ encl): File Center PUBLIC NMSS r/f URB r/f CNWRA ACNW AGarcia BSpitzburg, RIV (w/o encl): JHolonich MLayton ////y DOCUMENT NAME: S:\DWM\ URB \RDC\CRR25_29.WPD *See previous concurrence OFC URB,_ /f URB
- URB, ,
NAME h CAbrams NbtdeY DATE 12// /98 8 12// /98 12/o//98 0?FICIAL RECORD COPY 0/,0071 y '.
dl-,
u 9812070013 981201 1 PDR- WASTE WM-66 PDR ;
l Mr. G:orgo Rasl, Director
't -
U.S. D partm:nt of Energy
.' Albuquerqua Oparations Office ERD /UMTRA !
P.O. Box 5400 l Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROBLEM RESOLUTION REVISIONS NO. 25,28, AND 29 FOR NATURITA, COLORADO
Dear Mr. Rael:
i
( By letters dated March 3, July 21, August 5, and October 30,1998, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) transmitted Construction Phase Problem Resolution Revisions (CRRs) No. 25,28, and 29 for the Naturita, Colorado Uranium Mill Tailings l Project Site to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for review and approval.
l Based on its review of the inform 9 tion submitted by DOE, the NRC staff has concluded l that the subject CRRs are acceptable as proposed.
The NRC staff's review is documented in the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report. If l you have any questions conceming this subject, please contact Mr. Robert Carlson of i my staff at (301) 415-8165.
t l Sincerely, 1
l King N. Stablein, Acting Chief i Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management
- Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l
Enclosure:
As stated l
cc: B. Comish, DOE Alb.
F. Bosiljevac, DOE Alb.
E. Artiglia, TAC Alb.
l DISTRIBUTION (w/ enci): File Center PUBLIC NMSS r/f URB r/f CNWRA ACNW AGarcia BSpitzburg, RIV i (w/o enci): JHolonich MLayton DOCUMENT NAME: S:\DWM\ URB \RDC\CRR25_29.WPD OFC URB _ _ // URB , URB f NAME h CAbhabs KStablein DATE 12// /98 [ 12/of /98 12/ /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
l p a neauq ge t UNITED STATES s
g
's j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ;
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2055!H)001 t 4
9 . . . + ,o '
December 1, 1998 '
Mr. George Rael, Director U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office :
ERD /UMTRA P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROBLEM RESOLUTION REVISIONS NO. 25,28, AND 29 FOR NATURITA, COLORADO
Dear Mr. Rael:
(
By letters dated March 3, July 21, August 5, and October 30,1998, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) transmitted Construction Phase Problem Resolution Revisions (CRRs) No. 25,28, and 29 for the Naturita, Colorado Uranium Mill Tailings ,
Project Site to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for review and approval.
Based on its review of the information submitted by DOE, the NRC staff has concluded that the subject CRRs are acceptable as proposed.
The NRC staff's review is documented in the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report. If you have any questions conceming this subject, please contact Mr. Robert Carlson of my staff at (301) 415-8165.
Sincerely, M '
N. King tablein, Acting Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Enclosure. As stated
! cc: B. Comish, DOE Alb.
F. Bosiljevac, DOE Alb.
E. Artiglia, TAC Alb.
t 1
N o
.a TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF CRRs No. 25,28, AND 29 FOR NATURITA, CO DATE: October 28,1998 LOCATION: Naturita, Colorado Uranium Mill Tailings Project Site PROJECT MANAGER: Robert Carlson TECHNICAL REVIEWER: Ted Johnson DESCRIPTION OF DOE'S REQUEST:
By letter dated March 3,1998, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted Construction Phase Problem Resolution Revision (CRR) No. 25, indicating its intention to change the design of the interceptor channel at the Naturita site. In this CRR, DOE also requested that a change be made to the specifications to allow the use of sandstone in various areas of the design. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviewed this CRR and concluded that additional information would be needed to complete the review.
By letter dated July 21,1998, the NRC staff requested additional information related to i delineation of upstream drainage areas and the design of the sandstone benches used te dissipate velocities upstream of the channel. DOE responded to this request by submitting CRR No. 28, dated August 5,1998. This CRR provided additional l
information related to the interceptor channel, including specific information regarding the ditch cross-sections and final grading plans.
By letter dated October 30,1998, DOE submitted CRR No. 29, requesting that changes be made to the design of the downstream aprons of the diversion channels, allowing the use of oversize sandstone in areas that had been overexcavated. The NRC staff had provided verbal feedback to DOE prior to the formal submittal of the information.
! TECHNICAL EVALUATION:
! CRR No. 25
- DOE provided information and analyses for a proposed change to the upland slope of the interceptor ditch from 1 Vertical (V) on 5 Horizontal (H) to 1V on 3H. DOE also
- provided analyses to support a change in rock size from Type B1 to Type B rock in the interceptor ditch.
To document the acceptability of the revised rock size in the reduced channel section, DOE used the Safety Factors Method. The NRC staff reviewed the computations of 4
Enciosufe
t '
2-rock siie and concluded that the rock size is adequate, even though the channel cross-sectional area is reduced. i i
The proposed change in specifications is generally administrative, to indicate that sandstone will be used in several different areas. The NRC staff review indicates that l this change is acceptable.
CRR No. 28 DOE provided detailed maps and drawings of several features of the disposal cell, including the interceptor ditch and details of the final grading plan on the upstream side of the disposal cell. In particular, the drawings provided details of the sandstone bench !
that will be used to dissipate flow velocities before the flows enter the interceptor ditch.
The NRC staff review of these drawings indicates that adequate details have been ,
provided to confirm that the sandstone benches are acceptably designed and that the l grading r an conforms to assumptions made in the design.
i CRR No. 29 i DOE provided calculations and drawings to support the addition of oversized sandstone to the downstream aprons of Diversion Channels 1 and 2. DOE indicated these areas had been overexcavated and use of rock that had already been produced would be J desirable. Using the Safety Factors Method, DOE calculated the required Dw of the sandstone rock to be 24 inches. At the suggestion of the NRC staff, DOE also designed these outlet areas to drain freely by excavating an additional amount of soil so that the rock areas would not impound water. In this CRR, DOE provided drawings indicating that the areas would drain easily. The NRC staff reviewed the calculations and the drawings provided by DOE. Based on this review, the NRC staff concludes that the designs are acceptable.
l
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS:
l l Based on its review of information, drawings, and analyses provided by DOE, the NRC L staff concludes that changes proposed in CRRs No. 25,28, and 29 are acceptable, i
l l
7 i I i
-