My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09073
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09073
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:51:01 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:26:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8276.500
Description
Glenwood-Dotsero Springs Unit - Salinity Control Projects
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1982
Title
Preliminary Report on Potential Sites Suitable for Relocation and/or Reprocessing of the Grand Junction and Rifle Uranium Mill Tailings Pile
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />(Y') <br />0) <br />CD <br />c: <br />,~ 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br />C <br /> <br />This report describes the procedure and results of a regional search <br />for sites that appear to be suitable for the relocation and/or <br />reprocessing of the Grand Junction and Rifle uranium mill tail ings piles. <br />This search identified nine potential sites within the study area that are <br />herein offered to the Candidate Site Review Committee for further <br />consideration. All nine sites can be used for joint disposal of the <br />uranium tail ings in both Grand Junction and Rifle. Oisposal of any <br />individual pile at any of the nine sites may also be considered by the <br />Committee. It is the responsibil ity of the Candidate Site Review <br />Committee to determine which of these sites should be recommended to the <br />U.S. Department of Energy for detailed evaluation of their suitability for <br />uranium tail ings disposal. This should incl ude consideration of sites for <br />joint disposal as well as disposal in separate sites. <br /> <br />General locations of the nine potential sites are shown on Plate 2 <br />along with regional land ownership. All sites are entirely on Federal <br />lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The sites fall <br />within five general geographic locations. Two Road, McDonald Creek, and 6 <br />& 50 Reservoir sites lie west of Mack near the Utah-Colorado border. East <br />Salt Creek and Camp Gulch sites are north of Mack near the Mesa-Garfield <br />County Line. Halls Basin and Cheney Reservoir sites are found southeast <br />of Grand Junction west of and below Grand Mesa. Lucas Mesa site 1 ies east <br />of DeBeque across the Colorado River. Flatiron Mesa site is south of <br />Rifle on the northeast flank of Battlement Mesa. <br /> <br />Detailed site maps are included with the individual site descriptions <br />in Section 4. Site boundaries as designated herein are not permanently <br />fixed. Some sites are very large, and only part of the outl ined area may <br />be needed for the actual repository. Other factors, such as land use, <br />economic aspects, geotechnical problems, and environmental considerations, <br />may make it necessary to sl ightly revise site boundaries during the later <br />detailed investigations. <br /> <br />A comprehensi ve site sel ection process was used to identify the <br />recommended potential sites. Geotechnical characteristics were a primary <br />element of this analysis. All potential sites appear,to be geotechnically <br />acceptable for tailings disposal, based on information available for the <br />preparation of this report. Additional geotechnical data will need to be <br />collected and evaluated during later phases to assure long-term <br />containment of the tailings. A number of other factors, such as <br />transportation and land use, were al so considered in the analysis. Sites <br />with obvious severe transportation hazards were automatically el iminated. <br />Likewise, sites judged to be in prime growth areas, near heavily populated <br />areas, or in prime irri9ated agricultural areas were al so dropped. Sites <br />in National Parks, National Monuments, Wildlife Refuges, wilderness areas, <br />and wild and scenic river areas were al so el iminated. <br />, <br /> <br />The geotechnical suitabil ity of each potential site was comparatively <br />eval uated using a rating matrix. Individual site scores and rel ative <br />geotechnical rankings are as foll ows: <br /> <br />- 1 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.