DRC-2021-005512 - 0901a06880e6d33f

April 9, 2021 CD-2021-052

Mr. Ty Howard, Director
Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880

Subject: Federal Cell Facility Radioactive Material License Application
Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit UGW450005 Modification Request

Mr. Howard:
In response to pre-file comments received from the LLRW Section Manager of the Division of
Waste Management and Radiation Control,1 EnergySolutions herein formally submits for official
consideration a Radioactive Material License Application for a proposed Federal Cell Facility
(Application) to authorize EnergySolutions to construct a federal cell for the permanent disposal
of concentrated depleted uranium from the U.S. Department of Energy. Application revisions in
response to comments from the Section Manager Director are herein summarized. Additional
interrogatories were also received from the LLRW Section Manager regarding the performance of
the cover system design for the proposed Federal Cell,2 the Basal-Depth Aquifer Study of
October 20203 and long-term the stability4 of the proposed Federal Cell (also summarized here
and addressed in
1) Div General Facility Description (Section 1.2):
a. Comment 1: Following the guidance in the SRP 1.2, NUREG-1200, the general
descriptions of the facility should be cross-referenced to the more detailed
descriptions elsewhere in the application.
Energy Response: Cross references to more detailed facility
descriptions are presented in Tables 1-1 and 1-2.
b. Comment 2: -4,
including the location of the Federal Cell Facility in relation to other site

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers of EnergySolutions.
February 11, 2021.
2
Cell License application agement and Radiation Control to Vern
Rogers of EnergySolutions. December 3, 2020.
3
Letter from the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control to Vern Rogers of
EnergySolutions. January 15, 2021.
4
Control to Vern Rogers of EnergySolutions. January 28, 2021.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 2 of 41

ility is not specifically identified on the site
layout, as is the CAW Facility. Although the application states that the Federal
Cell Facility is conceptually the same as the previously approved CAW
embankment except for a smaller footprint and height, the site layout should
identify the Federal Cell Facility per Section 1.2 of Areas of Review in the SRP.
location of the Federal Cell Facility, conceptually shown as the Class A West
Embankment, in relation t
Energy Response: Figure 1-4 and the Applicable references in
Section 1.2 have been updated, as requested.
2) Schedules (Section 1.3):
a. Comment 1: of the Federal Cell Facility will take
place during normal operations. As fill and waste are placed in the Federal Cell
Facility Director-approved design height, these areas will be covered to meet
final design specifications before being closed. Prior to final cover construction,
closure activities will include settlement monitoring, as required by the CQA/QC
since EnergySolutions would only be allowed to dispose of DU waste in the
Federal Cell. That is, under this Application, non-DU Class A waste could not be
used to fill the space between the top of the DU and the bottom of the ET cover.
EnergySolu Response: The narrative in Application Section 1.3 has been
limited to placement of concentrated depleted uranium, below grade backfilling
with controlled low-strength material and placement of approved fill to the
licensed design height of the Federal Cell Facility.
b. Comment 2: General personnel requirements and/or resource commitments as
they relate to major work steps (e.g., construction, operation, closure activities)
are not mentioned or referenced per SRP Section 2, Areas of Review.
EnergySolut Response: A description of the personnel and resource

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

narrative in Application Section 1.3.
3) ents on Institutional Information (Section 1.4):
a. Comment 1: This section ergySolutions and DOE entered into an
Agreement that establishes covenants and restrictions related to DOE long-term
stewardship of the Federal Cell Facility. EnergySolutions and the State of Utah
are negotiating a similar agreement (see Appendix C). This Agreement
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 3 of 41

contemplates transfer of ownership of the closed Federal Cell Facility (including
land and disposed waste) from EnergySolutions to DOE for long-term
maintenance a te
Transfer Agreement (Agreement or Transfer Agreement) for the Federal Cell
(FC) between EnergySolutions, LLC (EnergySolutions) and the U.S. Department
EnergySolutions will transfer real property to the DOE at no cost, estimated to
It appears that stating a similar agreement with the State of Utah is being
negotiated contradicts Appendix C, which states the State of Utah is not a party
to this Agreement (i.e., transfer of real property to DOE).
Energy Response: The narrative in Section 1.4 of the Application has
been revised to reflect the agreement executed between DOE and
EnergySolutions.
4) mments on Conformance to Regulatory Guides (Section 1.6):
a. Comment 1: Consider adding NUREG-
Low- t of regulatory guides

EnergySolu Response: The requested reference has been added to Section
1.6 of the Application.
5) Conformance to Summary of Principle Review Matters
(Section 1.7):
a. Comment 1: This e a
new Radioactive Material License to authorize management and disposal of
with the Appendix A Proposed Radioactive Material License for the Federal Cell
Facility, Section 9.A that requests authorizat
material as naturally occurring, and accelerator produced material (NARM) and

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Energy Response: See the responses to th s
related to revision of Appendix A.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 4 of 41

6) Site Location and Description (Section 2.1.1):
provided in Section 11, Refere
Note: this comment applies to the entire Application, which contains a total of 52

Energy Response: The reference in Section 12 (prior renumbered as
Section 11) of the Application has been corrected.
7) the Basal-Depth Groundwater (Section 2.4.2):
a. Comment 1: Regarding the quoted paragraph, please indicate which of the
specifically requested by the Director and referenced in the study Plan, have
already been met, and which requirements still need to be met, and explain why.

Application.
b. Comment 2: Please (i) provide an update on plans to obtain this missing
information and subsequently report it to the Division, or (ii) justify the absence
of the missing information despite having indicated previously in the Plan that
EnergySolutions would obtain and report this information.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
c. Comment 3.1: For depths down to 275 ft bgs, which conceptual model, if either,
appears to be correct? Please provide justification for your answer.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Application.
d. Comment 3.2: e, 2015b) describes a single
deep aquifer at depths beyond 275 ft bgs. Stantec (2020b) describes two
aquitards, as well as a leaky aquifer, in this depth range. Which description is
correct?
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 5 of 41

Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
e. Comment 3.3: Please represent the correct types and locations of all aquifers
and aquitards in a revised Figure 3 for the Report.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
f. Comment 4.1: The calculations for hydraulic gradient in Table 3-4 appear to
have been done differently, using instead the freshwater mid-screen interval,
corrected for buoyancy. Please clarify what was done for what purpose, and
justify why.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
g. Comment 4.2: The text refers to mid-points of the saturated zone elevations,
whereas Table 3-3 gives the mid-points of the filter pack elevations as well as the
mid d zone elevations, and the calculations in Table 3-4 are
based on the mid-screen elevations. Why?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
h. Comment 4.3: It appears that some part of each range of what are called the
buoyancy-corrected vertical gradients associated with the shallow aquifer well
(I-1-30) indicate downward flow to any of the wells in what Neptune (2015) has
called the deep aquifer (i.e., I-1-50, I-1-100, and I-1-700). This is because some
part of each range has negative values, which, according to the Stantec (2020b)
sign convention, represents downward flow. Is this also how EnergySolutions
interprets this?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

i. Comment 4.4: Looking at Table 3-4, for the well pair I-1-30 and I-1-700, how
does the sum of 0.041, the freshwater mid-screen gradient, and 0.040, the
buoyancy correction, supposedly equal 0.002?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 6 of 41

j. Comment 4.5: What is the overall range of vertical gradients calculated for the
well pair I-1-30 and I-1-700, when accounting for well geometry and water level
elevations, as indicated in the last column of Table 3-4? Do the negative values
given for some of these data combinations indicate (according to the Stantec
convention) the possibility of downward flow?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
k. Comment 4.6: What is the overall calculated range of corrected vertical
gradients for the well pair consisting of I-1-50 and I-1-100? Do the negative
values given for each of these data combinations indicate (according to the
Stantec convention) downward flow?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
l. Comment 4.7: Please look at density and specific gravity values found in
Neptune (2015) and indicate based on this much-larger sample what fraction of
the calculated flow-direction values would indicate upward flow, and what
range for each aquifer.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
m. Comment 4.8: Please justify, if possible, why it would be valid to do what
Stantec (2020b) has done, i.e., apply an analytical model designed for
homogeneous conditions to the heterogeneous site at Clive, where aquitards are
known to exist between aquifers.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

buoyancy corrected vertical gradient range varies from -0.002 to 0.005. The
lower part of this range, i.e., from -0.002 to slightly below zero, represents
downward flow, based on the Stantec (2020b) sign convention. Why is Stantec
not using the values in the negative range?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 7 of 41

o. Comment 5: Does a lack of discernible drawdown response in Well I-1-30
throughout the pumping test show limited hydraulic connection between Well I-1-
700 and Well I-1-30 over the duration of the pumping test or for all time?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
p. Comment 6: Is there a reason why EnergySolutions would continue to choose to
conduct the analysis using a value of 325 feet?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
q. Comment 7: Please justify use of the Hantush (1960) method in the Report
without utilizing data from an observation well or a piezometer.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the

r. Comment 8: Please justify implementation of the Hantush (1960) method of
analysis for analyzing drawdown test data in Well I-1-700.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
s. Comment 9: Please justify the lack of use of drawdown data from the aquitard
when implementing the Neuman and Witherspoon (1969b) method..
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

should be considered accurate, or even approximate.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 8 of 41

u. Comment 11: Please justify presenting a low storativity value.
Application.
v. Comment 12: The assumptions required by the analysis for the confined aquifer
(e.g., Cooper-Jacob method assumptions) were not met during testing. Is this not
the case?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
w. Comment 13: Please provide jus
chemistry of I-1-
What set of data is identified in the Report that indicates that the groundwater in
the aquifer screened by I-1-700 is isolated from, or is typical of groundwater
isolated from, recharge?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
x. Comment 14: ved most permeable
-5
indicating that the most permeable zone is the one covering a depth range of 90-
100 ft bgs. Please provide justification for this statement.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
y. Comment 15: Please provide justification for the assessment given that results
of lab tests indicate hydraulic conductivities for samples being two to three
-test calculated values.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 9 of 41

z. Comment 16: The Section 4, Summary and Conclusions, states, The vertical
hydraulic gradient, calculated using fresh water equivalent heads for I-1-700
and three nested wells, indicates an upward direction of vertical groundwater

Please provide justification for this conclusion.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
aa. Comment 17:
position that this groundwater still needs to be protected.
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
bb. Comment 18: What is the evidence or justification for assuming that there is
ted connectivity between the shallow zones and the deeper basal aquifer at
statement quoted above? What is the significance of the hydraulic connection
that is shown to exist in the upper aquifer, owing to the measured drawdown in
the groundwater observed in it during the aquifer test?
Energy Response: Response provided in Appendix D to the
Application.
8) Comments on Construction Considerations (Section 3.3):
a. Comment 1:
more detailed schedule for cover construction over the proposed Federal Cell
Facility; nor is there a regulatory basis to require on
is true so long as EnergySolutions does not desire to dispose of non-DU Class A
waste within the Federal Cell. However, if EnergySolutions desires to dispose of

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

the Director would need to approve a PA that accounted for both DU and non-
DU waste.
Energy Response: EnergySolutions is applying for a license to
dispose of depleted uranium in a Federal Cell Facility. Anything beyond that is
outside of the scope of this Application. Having been licensed for various
operations over more than 30 years, EnergySolutions is well aware and has
demonstrated its abilities to revise the necessary performance assessments and
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 10 of 41

amend the licenses necessary to expand disposal capacity and waste stream
authorizations. Any decision by EnergySolutions to request amendment to any
Federal Cell License will be subject to business opportunities and industry
factors. This comment requires no revision of the Application.

a. Comment 1: Suggest characterizing the flood potential at the site in the
introduction of the section per NUREG-1200, standard review plan (SRP) 3.4.4.
Energy Response: The discussion of flood potential in Section 3.4.4
has been expanded, as requested.
b. Comment 2: In the introduction, differentiate the use of run-on and run-off
berms at the Federal Cell Facility. The Construction Quality Assurance and
Quality Control (CQA/QC) Manual provides run-on and run-off control
requirements during the project for both in Specifications 6 and 7, however only
run-on construction requirements are referred to in the CQA/QC Manual.
The discussion of run-on and run-off controls
berms has been expanded, as requested.
c. Comment 3: The CQA/QC Manual requires monthly berm inspections in
accordance with Specification 8 to verify compliance with height requirements.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 discuss annual inspection requirements. Suggest adding this
requirement to the discussion for completeness.
Energy Response: The discussion of berm inspections has been added
to Section 3, as requested.
d. Comment 4: The analysis needs to conclusively document how surface features
have been designed to direct surface drainage away from disposal units at
velocities and gradients that will not result in flooding or erosion per NUREG-
1199, 3.4.4 and NUREG-1200, 4.1. The analysis refers to general engineering

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

requirements in NUREG-1199 and NUREG-1200 are being met. Provide a
reference to the specific drawing(s) that provide the design details discussed in
this section.
Energy Response: References to specific drawings that illustrate the
surface features that serve to direct surface drainage away from the disposal
embankments have been added to the Section, as requested.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 11 of 41

e. Comment 5: Table 3-
application.
Energy Response: The reference has been corrected, as requested.
10) omments on Waste Disposal Operations (Section 4.3):
a. Comment 1: In the Federal Cell, there would need to be two distinct types of
waste disposal operations: 1) during the DU disposal period, when no other
LLW could be disposed of and 2) after DU disposal has been completed, when
the remaining volume of the embankment is filled with non-DU Class A waste. In
LLRW will be placed above the DU. It will not be placed below or between the
co Solutions stated:
Federal Cell until a Performance Assessment can be compiled that includes both
DU and other Class A wastes. Until that time, EnergySolutions will only dispose
of d

Energy Response: See response to comment 1 of Section 3.3.
b. Comment 2
contain concentrated depleted uranium will be controlled according to the type
of
placement of radi

Energy Response: See response to comment 1 of Section 3.3.
c. Comment 3: The Application state
distributed throug
in the DU layer, then to comply with the DU PA, the debris/soil must be

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

radiologically clean.
EnergySolutio Response: See response to comment 1 of Section 3.3.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 12 of 41

11) Surface Drainage and Erosion Protection (Section 5.1.1):
Code (UAC) R313-25-7(7). UAC R313-25-7, General Information, does not have
a subsection (7). The subsections end at (4). Revise reference accordingly.
Energy Response: The regulatory reference quoted in Section 5.1.1
has been corrected to UAC R313-25-8(7).
b. Comment 2: Characterize the flood potential at the site in the introduction of the
section per SRP 5.1.1 and SRP 6.3.1, Section 2.1 or refer to characterization if
performed in Sections 2.4.1 and/or 3.4.4. The characterization includes
determination of precipitation potential, precipitation losses, runoff response
characteristics of the watershed, the accumulation of flood runoff through river
channels and reservoirs, the magnitude of the probable maximum flood (PMF) or
project design flood (if a flood less than the PMF was used) at the site, and the
critical water levels and velocity conditions at the site. Provide the probable
drainage areas adjacent to the site.
Energy Response: The description and impact of flooding and the
PMF has been expanded in Section 5.1.1, as requested.
c. Comment 3: Provide an evaluation of possible geomorphic changes that could
affect the potential for flooding and erosion at the site per SRP 6.3.1, Section 2.2.
This includes: (1) types of geomorphic instability, (2) changes to, and effects
associated with, flooding and flood velocities resulting from geomorphic
changes, and (3) mitigative procedures to reduce or control geomorphic
instability.
Energy Response: The description and impact of geomorphic changes
that could affect flooding and erosion has been expanded in Section 5.1.1, as

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

d. Comment 4: Provide a discussion on dam failure considerations, such as a
conclusion from an existing analysis that states seismic or hydrologic events will
not cause failures of upstream dams that could produce the governing flood at
the site per SRP 6.3.1, Sections 2.3 and 3.2.3.
Energy Response: There are no dams, streams or other surface water
features located upgradient of the Federal Cell Facility.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 13 of 41

e. Comment 5: Provide information on what methods and data were used for
estimating flood peaks, such as the peak discharge rates, water levels, and flood
velocities, that formed the design basis for the erosion protection measures in
accordance with SRP 5.1.1 and SRP 6.3.1, Section 2.4.

narrative in Section 5.1.1.
f. Comment 6: Per SRP 6.3.1, Sections 2.4 and 3.2.4, provide a discussion on
erosion protection against the effects of flooding from nearby large streams (or
indicate there are none if that is the case) and durability of the erosion protection
features.
Energy Response: The description and impact of flooding and the
protections inher have
been expanded in Section 5.1.1, as requested.
g. Comment 7: Provide information on the monitoring and observation period of
the engineered features to ensure proper functioning and no degradation per
SRP 5.1.1.
Energy Response: The information presented in Section 5.1.1 has
been expanded regarding the monitoring and observation period of the Federal
engineered features.
h. Comment 8: Provide information to ensure significant windblown or
waterborne sedimentation will not occur based on engineering features per SRP
5.1.1.
Energy Response: The Clive basin is a cumulative depositional
environment. The analysis in Appendix H addresses the deposition and its
beneficial impact on the performance of the engineering features of the Federal
Cell Facility.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 14 of 41

i. Comment 9: Provide a discussion on the ability of the site design to meet
applicable long-term stability requirements. Include the sensitivity of the site
design to small increases in the peak flood magnitude (as the magnitude of the
uncertainties associated with the magnitude and occurrence of rare floods, meets
stability requirement per SRP 6.3.1, Section 4.3.2.
Energy Response: The discussion of the Federal Cell Facility
-term stability requirements has been
expanded in Section 5.1.1
j. January 2021 Letter - Comment 1: Models of erosion of rock-armored side
slopes on a similar analog embankment show erosion as deep as 23 feet in 1,000
years. This apparent outcome needs to be addressed to show stability of erosion
protection for the appropriate period of time.
Energy Response: The discussion of the Federal Cell Facility
expanded in Appendices K, M and N.
k. January 2021 Letter - Comment 1.1: The DU PA needs to account for
degradation resulting from erosion and discontinued functioning of the
engineered barriers after they have been in service for 500 years or more.
Energy Response: The discussion of the Federal Cell Facility
-term stability requirements has been
expanded in Appendices P and Q.
l. January 2021 Letter - Comment 1.2: The EnergySolutions/Neptune note that
rip-rap is now proposed for the side slopes of the Federal Cell. EnergySolutions /
long-term response
to erosional forces and explain the analysis mechanistically.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Energy Response: The discussion of the Federal Cell Facility
-term stability requirements has been
expanded in Appendices P and Q.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 15 of 41

m. January 2021 Letter - Comment 1.3: Erosion modeling for the new hybrid
cover must be performed.
Energy Response: The discussion of the Federal Cell Facility
-term stability requirements has been
expanded in Appendices P and Q.
n. January 2021 Letter - Comment 1.4: The following discrepancy needs to be
clarified. Section 2.0 states the ditch length along each side of the Federal Cell
Facility is 30.6 feet farther than what is described in Figure D-1. The Section
3.0, Storm Events, references are not provided. The Drainage Areas drawings
were not available. In Section 4.1, Table 7, there is no reference for the Cover
Test Cell (CTC) Run-Off Coefficient Data. In Section 5.1.1, there is not enough
information to determine how the rainfall intensity was determined and
extrapolated for 105.8 minutes. The calculated peak flow rates for the 25-year
and 100-year storm event could not be replicated since the rainfall intensities
calculated during the review are different than what were determined in this
section. The iterative process for the maximum height of water in the CAW ditch
how the rainfall intensity was determined and extrapolated for 154.4 minute..
Energy Response: The discussion of the Federal Cell Facility
-term stability requirements has been
expanded in Appendices P and Q.
12) January 2012 Comments on Geotechnical Stability (Section 5.1.2):
a. Comment 1.4: A more complete description of structural design and
performance is requested.
Energy Response: See Appendix M.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

the long-term geotechnical stability of the disposal site along with explaining the
analysis mechanistically.
Energy Response: See Appendix M.

Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 16 of 41

c. Comment 2.1: More discussion is needed about calculating and/or estimating
the long-term deep-seated slope stability of the proposed Federal Cell
embankment considering the uncertainty of design assumptions.
Energy Response: See Appendix M.
d. Comment 2.2: More discussion and information is needed that explains how the
disposal site responds in the long-term to the results from the settlement analyses
of the proposed Federal Cell embankment and how the DU PA modeling has
considered the uncertainties associated with geotechnical mechanisms out
beyond 500 years.
Energy Response: See Appendix M.
e. Comment 2.3: More discussion and information are needed that explain how the
disposal site might respond if ground water rises below the proposed Federal
Cell embankment and how the DU PA modeling has considered the uncertainties
associated with geotechnical mechanisms out beyond 500 years.
x M.
f. Comment 3: EnergySolutions/Neptune need to explain quantitatively and
mechanistically how the DU PA has accounted for the potential for enhanced
infiltration due to the potential erosion of the cover.
Energy Response: See Appendix M.
13) D Decontamination and Decommissioning (Section 5.2):
a. Comment 1 e second paragraph references the CQA/QC
Manual for approved disposal methods for soil contaminated with depleted
uranium (DU). Under Construction Activities, Item 35A, the CQA/QC Manual
states, -25-8, the Licensee shall not dispose of
significant quantities of concentrated depleted uranium prior to the approval by

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

CQA/QC Manual does not discuss disposal methods for soil contaminated with
DU during decommissioning.
Energy Response: A Construction Quality Assurance / Quality
Control manual specific to the Federal Cell Facility (FCF CQA/QC Manual) has
been added to Appendix B.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 17 of 41

b. Comment 2:
any on-site support structures and contents dedicated to supporting Federal Cell
reference to the survey methods proposed for characterizing and identifying
equipment and structures requiring decontamination to meet applicable
dismantlement, transfer, release for unrestricted use, or disposal on-site take
place per SRP 5.2, Section 3.2. In accordance with SRP 4.3.2,
be placed on the sensitivity and accuracy of the survey instruments, the
competency of the personnel conducting the survey, and the reasonableness of
the proposed technique to accurately survey a structure or a specific piece of
equipment
Energy Response: Section 5.2 has been expanded to address the
survey methods proposed for characterizing and identifying equipment and
structures requiring decontamination to meet applicable regulatory limits and
guidelines before the activities associated with dismantlement, transfer, and
release for unrestricted use or disposal on-site.
c. Comment 3: Provide a discussion or reference to information on the procedures
and the details of the final means of disposal per SRP 5.2, Section 3.2. In
applican cost-
benefit considerations for the various methods of decontamination and
decommissioning are similar to the alternative approaches recommended in
NUREG/CR-
EnergySolutions Response: Section 5.2 has been expanded to include the
procedures applicable to dismantlement of equipment of aboveground structures.
d. Comment 4: Provide an estimate of the volume activities (waste class for
significant radionuclides) and a description of the anticipated waste that will be
generated during decontamination and decommissioning per SRP 5.2, Section
3.2.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

EnergySolut Response: The volumes of waste expected to be generated
during closure of the Federal Cell Facility are included in the surety estimates for
premature closure of the Cell (see Appendix R).
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 18 of 41

e. Comment 5: Provide a discussion on the procedures for processing waste
generated during decontamination and decommissioning operations to provide
reasonable assurance that they meet waste form, packaging, and acceptance
CFR 61 and per SRP 5.2, Section 3.2. Approved disposal methods are referenced
to the CQA/QC Manual; however, processing and packaging procedures are not
discussed.
Energy Response: In addition to the specifications included in the
QC Manual, Section 5.2 has been expanded to
discuss the procedures for processing waste generated during decontamination
and decommissioning operations that provide reasonable assurance that they
meet waste form, packaging, and acceptance criteria, and that the final waste
disposal operations are in accordance with 10 CFR 61.
f. Comment 6: Provide a discussion on the assessment of occupational exposure
anticipated during decommissioning operations to determine that these levels are
in accordance with applicable regulations and are as low as is reasonably

Energy Response: The anticipated occupational exposures from
closure of the Federal Cell Facility have been included in Section 5.
g. Comment 7: Provide a discussion on procedures for site surveys to ensure that
fixed and removable contamination of buildings and grounds are at acceptable
levels. The contamination could potentially result from: (1) surface
contamination on waste packages, (2) routine release of gases and particulates
from partially breached waste packages, and (3) accidental spills not completely
removed per SRP 5.2, Section 3.2. In accordance with SRP 4.3.6, information
should include: (1) The background characteristics of radioactivity in the soil for
the significant radionuclides determined in item (3), below, should be evaluated.
(2) A site map indicating soil sampling and gamma survey points on square grid
locations should be provided. Each grid location should contain at least five

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

spacing should be based on considerations of site radiological conditions,
necessary adequacy of survey meter measurements, and the level of confidence
necessary for required measurements. (3) Direct radiation dose rates and
radionuclide concentrations should be reported for each of the locations
indicated in item (2) above. Direct radiation measurements should be taken 1
meter above the ground surface. Soil samples taken for determining radionuclide
concentrations should characterize the soil concentrations down to 15
centimeters.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 19 of 41

Energy Response: The narrative in Section 5.2 has been amended to
discuss Energy procedures for site surveys of buildings and grounds
supporting the Federal Cell Facility.
h. Comment 8: Provide a discussion on proposed limits on residual contamination
restrictions on land use and the estimated dose to the maximally exposed
individual following decommissioning per SRP 5.2, Section 3.2.
Energy Response: Section 5.2 has been expanded to discuss residual
contamination and external gamma radiation levels and their influence on
eventual land use.
i. Comment 10 (comment 9 was not included in the LLRW Section Manager
February 2021): Provide a discussion on the commitment and procedures to
maintain records for transfer to the custodial agency per Section 5.2 of NUREG-
1199 and SRP 5.2, Sections 3.2 and 4.4.9.
Energy Response: The process of transferring the Federal Cell
Facility is presented in Section 10.4.
j. Comment 11: Per SRP 5.2, Section 3.2, provide a discussion or reference for the
estimate of required funding for the decontamination and decommissioning
activities to ensure that sufficient funds are available for closure as required by
10 CFR 61.62.
Energy Response: Justification for the fund amounts to support
closure and post-closure of the Federal Cell Facility are included in the surety
estimates for premature closure of the Cell (see Appendix R). The Director and
DOE will review the sureties annually to assess their sufficiency.
14) Post-Operational Environmental Monitoring and
Surveillance (Section 5.3):

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

compliance with concentration limits. There is no subsection 420 in Utah
Administrative Code, Rule R313-15, Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
Revise accordingly.
Energy Response: Section 5.3 has been revised, as requested.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 20 of 41

b. Comment 2: SRP 5.3, Section 2, Areas of Review, includes quality assurance
and quality control as an evaluation aspect of the environmental monitoring
program. Provide a discussion or reference on the quality assurance and quality
con
surveillance.
Energy Response: Section 5.3 has been revised, as requested.
c. Comment 3: There is no discussion or reference to plans for EnergySolutions to
remain at the site for the 5-year post-closure and observation period (SRP 5.3,
Section 3.2.1). Suggest providing a brief discussion on the 5-year post-closure
and observation period plan or reference the discussion provided in Appendix C,
Long-Term Stewardship Agreement for the Federal Cell Facility.
Energy Response: See Appendix T and Application Section 10.
15) Performance of the Cover (Section 6):
a. Comment 1: A new hybrid-cover design is proposed and included in the
Federal-Cell license application. EnergySolutions and its contractor, Neptune
and Company, Inc., need to submit a supplemental document that describes and
justifies with supportive analysis and calculations how results from the modeling
of an evapotranspiration (ET) cover as presented in Clive DU PA Model v1.4 are
applicable to this new hybrid-cover design.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
b. Comment 2: A validation of the snowmelt algorithm utilized by HYDRUS is
required and has not been presented.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

c. Comment 3: Provide a comparison of the engineering properties determined for
the individual components of the rock-armored Cover Test Cell as studied in
connection with its deconstruction to the properties used in the current model of
an evapotranspiration (ET) cover system in the Clive DU PA Model v1.4.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 21 of 41

d. Comment 4: Explain why the regression model used for abstraction of HYDRUS
results into the GoldSim model is insensitive to Ksat of the cover soils.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
e.
large scale to generate appropriate saturated hydraulic conductivities and
SWCC data and submit these results. If this is not possible at this stage of the
project, EnergySolutions needs to incorporate the new snapshot-in-time SWCC
data obtained from the recent Cover Test Cell deconstruction, at least for the
radon barrier.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
f. Comment 6. Show that the hydraulic properties assigned to the Frost Protection
Layer of the evapotranspiration cover, which were obtained from the Rosetta
database, are representative of long-term conditions naturally developing at the
Clive site. Compare the hydraulic properties assigned to the Frost Protection
Layer with the measured and/or described properties of the Sacrificial Soil Layer
from the Cover Test Cell deconstruction.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
g. Comment 7: Document and explain mechanistically why the water content
below the Evaporative Zone appears insensitive to meteorological conditions,
based on the HYDRUS simulation outputs. Document and explain what is / are
the controlling mechanism(s) responsible for the apparent lack of flow across
these interfaces, and how will these mechanisms be maintained or remain
operative throughout the required service life and the compliance period
associated with the cover.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
h. Comment 8. Provide annual water balance graphs over a 10-year period for

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 22 of 41

i. Comment 9. Demonstrate the efficacy of the abstraction model used to
determine percolation rates used in GoldSim by conducting an independent set of
blind-forward simulations with HYDRUS over a broader range of conditions to

Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
j. Comment 10. Provide the rational basis for the appropriateness of this
approach to characterize uncertainty, including appropriate documentation of
supporting information from the hydrologic literature specific to unsaturated
flow and vadose-zone processes.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
k. Comment 11. Explain mechanistically why tails of the distribution for water
content predicted in GoldSim differ from those predicted by HYDRUS.

l. Comment 12. Explain mechanistically why the percolation rates predicted with
the original DU PA, Model v1.4, and those utilizing the 1000-year precipitation
record differ.
Energy Response: See Appendices P and Q.
16) Divi mments on Stability of Slopes (Section 6.3.2):
a. Comment 1: NUREG/CR-4620, also known as ORNL/TM-10067 and OSTI
5348444, is not readily available as a reference for the D15/D85 criteria
discussed in this section. It is not listed or provided in the U.S. Nuclear
-Series publications and was

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Ridge National Lab online library. Suggest providing this reference as an
appendix and more detail regarding the D15/D85 criteria.
Energy Response: As suggested, NUREG/CR-4620 has been
included as an appendix to the Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 23 of 41

b. Comment 2: It is not clear what calculations are used to demonstrate that the
filter layer underlying the side-slope riprap meets the D15/D85 criteria as
concluded. Provide a title and full reference for the calculation, design, and
Section 2.
Energy Response: Gradation and rock quality are amongst several
specifications dictating the process for mining, staging, sorting/processing and
validation of riprap material prior to its use in construction of filter layers in
embankment cover. In addition to required validation that materials gathered
meet the contractually-designated specifications, the Federal Cell Facility
Construction Quality Assurance / Quality Control Manual (FCF CQA/QC
Manual) further requires application of ASTM D 5519, ASTM D 422, ASTM D
75, ASTM C 702, ASTM C 535, ASTM C 136 and ASTM C 131 to confirm
filter materials are mined and processed to meet the necessary specifications.
c. Comment 3: Provide a discussion or reference on the provisions for quality
control during construction of the Federal Cell side-slope cover to provide long-
SRP 6.3.2, Section 2. Discuss or reference any geotechnical and geophysical
investigations conducted in the vicinity of the slopes that are designated for
stability analyses per SRP 6.3.2, Section 3.2.1.2.
Energy Response: As is demonstrated with the stable rock armored
side slopes of the closed LARW embankment, final cover portions of the Class A
West embankment, covered regions of the 11e.(2) cell, EnergySolutions has
extensive experience in constructing stable rock armored side slope covers on
embankments. Quality control that specifications created for material mining,
processing, staging and placement are included in the FCF CQA/QC Manual.
d. Comment 4: Provide a reference and the values determined for the comparison
of calculated interstitial velocities to permissible velocities from NUREG/CR-
4620, worst case scenario.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Energy Response: The context surrounding the interstitial velocity
analysis summarized in Appendix K has been expanded. Additionally,
NUREG/CR-4620 has been included as an appendix to the Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 24 of 41

e. Comment 5: Reference the calculation and/or analysis used for demonstrating
the selected characteristics of the proposed riprap materials that would be
placed in and used to line the Federal Cell perimeter ditches would be adequate.
Energy Response: The context surrounding the specification selection
for clay and rock materials used in ditch construction presented in Appendix K
has been expanded. Additionally, NUREG/CR-4620 has been included as an
appendix to the Application.
f. Comment 6: Provide a reference for the precipitation values used in the
performance assessment (PA) for the 100-year, 24-hour storm event for the
normal condition and the 1-hour abnormal storm event.
Energy Response: References have been added, as requested
g. Comment 7
stability of the Federal Cell and other disposal embankments at the Clive Facility
on short-term stability and more detail or reference regarding the testing and
soil parameters used in the stability analysis per SRP 6.3.2, Section 3.2.1.3, as
well as slope characteristics, method of analysis, and liquefaction potential per
SRP 6.3.2, Section 3.2.2 to support this conclusion.
Energy Response: Analysis of slope stability, impact of seismic
events and liquefaction potential have been expanded, as requested.
h. Comment 8: Provide a discussion or reference to groundwater conditions at the
site including: (1) the location of the groundwater table and the elevation range
of its seasonal fluctuation in the vicinity of the slope area, (2) the presence of
perched, artesian, and aquifer conditions, groundwater movement, etc. at the site
location of the slopes being analyzed, (3) design water level in the vicinity of the
slope area as determined by design-basis events, such as the probable maximum

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

EnergySolut Response: The discussions of the groundwater beneath the
Federal Cell Facility have been expanded. Recent annual groundwater reports
have also been added as appendices to the Application.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 25 of 41

i. Comment 10 (comment 9 was not included in the LLRW Section Manager
February 2021): Provide a discussion or reference to the fill borrow material
exploration program and testing per SRP 6.3.2, Section 3.2.1.5.
Energy Response: Validation that mined borrow materials meet their
applicable specifications is addressed in the FCF CQA/QC Manual.
j. Comment 11: Provide a discussion or reference to compaction and quality
control that ensures it is feasible to compact the materials to the compaction
specifications per SRP 6.3.2, Section 3.2.1.6.
Energy Response: Validation that compaction of materials meet their
applicable specifications is addressed in the FCF CQA/QC Manual. As is
required with performance-critical components of the Federal Cell Facility
design, EnergySolutions will demonstrate that equipment, materials and
construction processes are appropriate to meet the necessary specifications
through construction of test pads.
k. Comment 12: Provide a reference for the normal (static) and abnormal
(seismic) condition analysis and values presented in the conclusion. The
of drained shear strength values for the embankments and foundation materials,
was previously determined to
sta -term and long-term static
stability analyses under the worst combination of water levels and pore pressures
should be 1.30 and 1.50, respective s how or if the calculated static
safety factor (greater than 1.5) meets the static stability criteria in SRP 6.3.2,
4.3.2.2 and clarify whether these safety factors are for short-term or long-term
stability.
Energy Response: The analysis of static and seismic stability of the
Federal Cell Facility has been expanded, as requested.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

17) Settlement and Subsidence (Section 6.3.3):
a. Comment 1: The CQA/QC Manual specifications are referenced for settlement
prior to the final cover placement. SRP 6.3.2, Section 2, Areas of Review,
indicat -term settlement are
identified and are modeled (representative sections and design parameters)
reasonably and conservatively; the uncertainties are considered and addressed
appropriately in the settlement analyses; the applicant has committed to monitor
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 26 of 41

settlement and/or subsidence and to perform remedial actions if long-term
settlement should be a potential problem that would adversely affect
specifications to monitor and measure prior to cover placement; however, there
is no discussion or information presented prior to the conclusion stating that the
settlement
review above have been evaluated.
Energy Response: Discussion of the application of data collected
from settlement monitoring analysis has been expanded, as requested.
b. Comment 2: AMEC study is referenced for demonstrating that most
embankment settlement occurs during operations in the waste-placement phase.
Is this the same reference provided in References, Section 12: AMEC, Report:
date Report, Energy Solutions Clive Facility, Class A West
nt & Infrastructure, Inc., February 15,
2011. (AMEC, 2011)? Provide the complete title of the reference and how it
supports this section.
Energy Response: The reference and discussion of its application has

c. Comment 3: Section 6.3.3 references the conclusion of the settlement analysis
for the neighboring Class A West (CAW) embankment and concludes that since
the Federal Cell has identical 5H:1V side-slope inclinations yet a smaller design
height, settlement would be expected to be less in the Federal Cell relative to the
CAW embankment. As referenced, the CQA/QC Manual provides specifications
to monitor and measure settlement prior to cover placement, however this
reference does not provide the details of the method of analysis used or
settlement evaluation to reach this conclusion. Information on the site
characteristics, construction and operations phase data should be discussed or
referenced to an analysis performed per SRP 6.3.3, Section 3.2.1 for the
settlement evalu
discussion should be included on how the magnitudes of settlements calculated at
various locations have been used to estimate the magnitudes of differential
settlement (on both a short- and long-term basis) and the potential for cracking

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Energy Response: The discussion of the site characteristics,
construction and operations phase data has been expanded to include the impact
of settlements calculated at various locations are used to estimate the magnitudes
of differential settlement (on both a short- and long-term basis) and the potential
for cracking of the disposal unit excavation cover.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 27 of 41

d. Comment 4: Provide a reference for the results of differential settlement
discussed in the second paragraph of this section. What methodology and data
were used to determine the maximum distortion amounts in the liner of the
Federal Cell provided?

related to differential settlement has been expanded, as requested.
e. Comment 5: Discuss modeling of the site characteristics that was conducted for
the settlement analysis per SRP 6.3.2, Section 3.2.2 and NUREG-1199, 6.3.3.
Energy Response: The discussion of settlement analysis has been
expanded, as requested.
f. Comment 6: There is no discussion on subsidence in this section in accordance
with NUREG-1199, 6.3.3. Per SRP 6.3.3, Section 3.2. re any areas of
subsidence caused by total settlement instead of areas of cracking caused by
differential settlement? Is there a potential for cracking of the disposal unit
excavation cover in the long term? If so, is there an estimate of the probable
openings or pathways in the cover that would inhibit flow and/or infiltration of

Energy Response: The discussion of subsidence has been expanded,
as requested.
g. Comment 7: Discuss any commitment to monitor settlement and/or subsidence
and to perform remedial actions, if necessary, per SRP 6.3.3, Section 3.2.4.
Energy Response: Mitigating actions that EnergySolutions will take if
excessive settlement is detected are included in the FCF CQA/QC Manual.
Examples of application of these steps with other embankments located at the
Clive site have been added to the Application.
18) Premature Closure (Section 10.1):

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

a. Comment 1: In both NUREG-1199 and NUREG-1200, Section 10.1 is entitled
-1200 requires the regulator to
qualifications of the applicant: (1) a legal description of the applicant
(individual, corporation, or public entity) (2) a description of the applicant
operations from all of its business activities, including those proposed to be
conducted under the license. (3) a detailed financing plan. (4) information, if
applicable, with regard to parent or holding company activities, U.S. Securities
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 28 of 41

and Exchange Commission (SEC) forms submitted, bond ratings, or involvement
the application.
Energy Response: Section 10.1 has been retitled and expanded to
.
b. Comment 2: Table 10-
RSMeans (no
and demobilization costs are not included in equipment rental costs and must be
73 specify the percentage of direct labor to be assigned to Mobilization /
Demobilization. Please clarify.
Energy Response: Table 10-1 has been revised and expanded for
clarity.
c. Comment 3: The Federal Cell column of Table 10-1 includes phases such as
used for fe
please explicitly state. If not, please explain.
Energy Response: Utah Code §19-3-104(12)(f)(ii) allows a Licensee
to determine closure and post closure costs: (A) for an initial financial
assurance determination and for each financial assurance determination every
five years thereafter, a competitive site-specific bid for closure and post-closure
care of the facility at least once every five years; and (B) for each year between a
financial assurance determination described in Subsection (12)(f)(ii)(A), a
proposed financial assurance estimate that accounts for current site conditions
and that includes an annual inflation adjustment to the financial assurance
determination using the Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator of the
Bureau of Economic Analysis, United States Department of Commerce,
calculated by dividing the latest annual deflator by the deflator for the previous
year. As has been the Director-approved practice since 2015, EnergySolutions

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

associated with all premature closure and post-closure activities for the Clive
Disposal Facility (including the proposed Federal Cell Facility). This process
included third-party calculation of direct and indirect costs and was completed in
March 2021 and is currently under evaluation by the Director. The information
in Section 10 has been revised to reflect the 2021 third-party comprehensive cost
estimates.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 29 of 41

d. Comment 4: On page 10-
-party surety estimate, a contractor charge of 10%
of the sum of direct costs will be required as contingency for unanticipated
2300249, Table 73 both specify the
contingency to be 15%. Please clarify.
Energy Response: Section 10 has been retitled and expanded to
address the information requested.
e. Comment 5: On page 10-
acco -party surety estimate, a contractor
charge of 15% of the sum of direct costs will be required for contractor profit
Table 35 and UT 2300249, Table 73 both
specify the profit and overhead to be 19%. Please clarify.
Energy Response: Section 10 has been retitled and expanded to
address the information requested.
f. Comment 6: Page 10- eer and one CAD designer
(utilizing AutoCAD Land Desktop or similar software) will redesign, including
twelve (10- Appendix G, item 303, Engineering and
Redesign shows that a flat rate of 2.25% of the Sub-Total cost was used. Please
clarify.
Energy Response: Section 10 has been retitled and expanded to
address the information requested.
g. Comment 7: NUREG-119 shing to
us so establish a standby
ll. No response required.
Energy Response: Section 10 has been expanded to address the
Standby Trust Agreements, as requested.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 30 of 41

19) Site Transition (Section 10.2):
transition. Rather, EnergySolutions obtained the format and content for this
section from the U.S. Dep
Framework for Long-
required.
Energy Response: Energy agrees that no further response is
required to address this comment.
b. Comment 2: As written, the fourth bullet in Section 10.2.1 is incomplete.
relating to Institutional Controls are further discussed in Section 10.2.4.
Energy Response: The section (now labeled as 10.2.2) has been
.
c. Comment 3: The fourth bullet in Section 10.2.3 indicates that there will be a
time when engineering controls are no longer necessary. Since this license is for
DU, what is the basis for making this determination? Also, what engineering
controls are envisioned?
Energy Response: Section 10.2.3 has been clarified.
d. Comment 4: The fifth bullet in Section 10.2.5 needs to refer to the UDEQ license
that is the subject of t
application, EnergySolutions will be the license holder and does not need to be
identified.
Energy Response: Section 10.2.5 has been clarified.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

e. Comment 5: Section 10.2.6, first bullet, development of this Technical Basis
does not appear to be included in the Appendix G cost estimate.
Energy Response: Section 10.2.5 has been revised.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 31 of 41

f. Comment 6: Section 10.2.7, fifth bullet, costs associated with the development
and approval of a Facility Information and Records Transition Plan do not
appear to be included in the Appendix G cost estimate.
Energy Response: Section 10.2.7 has been revised.
g. Comment 7: Section 10.2.8, last bullet, costs associated with public involvement
do not appear to be included in the Appendix G cost estimate.
Energy Response: Section 10.2.8 has been revised.
h. Comment 8: In genera ite
Transition Framework for Long-Term Surveillance and Maintena
2019) have been inserted into Section 10.2, with only a limited attempt to make
them Federal Cell specific. Section 10.2 needs to be revised to ensure that all of
its bullets are specific to the Federal Cell, and that the information it presents is
consistent with other parts of the application, e.g., the Appendix G cost estimate.
Energy Response: Section 10.2.2 has been revised, as suggested.
i. Comment 9: In addition to DOE 2019, EnergySolutions needs to incorporate the
ideas and informa
Tailings Radiation Control Act Title Il Disposal Sites to the U.S. Department of
Energy Office of Legacy Management for Long-Term Surveillance and
ifies a four-tack
transition process: 1) Project management, 2) Regulatory closure, 3) Real
property, and 4) Information management, including records and environmental
and geospatial data. The individual step in each track are displayed in a
flowchart, reproduced here as Figure 1. (Note: The numbers that appear in the
activity boxes in Figure 1 refer to sections in DOE 2016.)
Energy Response: EnergySolutions appreciates the reviewers

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

requested that EnergySolutions address the guidelines and requirements in their
Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance in
Application Section 10.2.2 and not the references suggested in DOE, 2019.
j. Comment 10: Conduct a NEPA evaluation is one transition action identified in
Figure 1, but not in Section 10.2 or elsewhere in the license application. Please
explain why a NEPA evaluation would not be required as part of license transfer.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 32 of 41

Energy Response: Section 10.2 has been expanded.
k. Comment 11: The calculated cost of routine perpetual care activities (i.e.,
$770,290.82) does not include any of the Appendix A, Table 35 multipliers (see
also Appendix G comments). When the Table 35 multipliers have been included,

Energy Response: The premature closure and post-closure costs
included in Section 10 have been revised to reflect the third-party estimates
conducted March 2021, as authorized in Utah Code §19-3-104(12)(f)(ii).
20) Divis Perpetual Care (Section 10.3):
a. Comment 1: The first three bullets of Section 10.3.1 simply repeat information
from R313-25-20, the fourth and fifth bullets simply repeat information from
R313-25-22, the sixth bullet repeats information from R313-25-21, and the last
bullet repeats information from R313-25-23. Instead of simply repeating the
regulations, this section needs to describe how EnergySolutions intends to meet
these regulations at the Federal Cell.
Energy Response EnergySolutions has determined that perpetual care
funding are not required by Utah Code §19-3-104(12)(f)(ii) and UAC R313-25-
33. This section and discussion have been removed from the Application.
b. Comment 2: The reference to UAC R313-15-1008(2)(a) in the Section 10.3.2
heading is incorrect. The correct reference is UAC R313-15-1009(2)(a).
Energy Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.
c. Comment 3: UAC R313-15-1009(2)(a) contains nine bullets that define waste
characteristics that are acceptable for disposal. Section 10.3.2 repeats four of the
nine 1009(2)(a) bullets (i.e., (i), (ii), (iv), and (ix)). What was the rationale for
not including the remaining five 1009(2)(a) bullets in the Federal Cell waste

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

this section needs to describe how EnergySolutions intends to meet these
regulations at the Federal Cell. The Section 10.3.2 fourth bullet indicates that
EnergySolutions may need to treat the DU prior to its disposal. What capabilities
are available to EnergySolutions to treat DU?
Energy Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 33 of 41

d. Comment 4: Section 10.3.3, the evaluation of the DU PA to meet the
requirements of UAC R313-25-9 is being performed under a separate effort and
will not be repeated here.
Energy Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for

e. Comment 5: Section 10.3.4 repeats the 11 site suitability requirements
contained within R313-25-24. Section 10.3.4 differs from Sections 10.3.1 and
10.3.2 in that each of the 11 Section 10.3.3 bullets contain a reference to a
section elsewhere in the application where compliance with the R313-25-24
criteria is addressed. However, it is observed that in some of its criteria, R313-
25-24 -
-25-20 and R313-25-
for the General Population and for Individuals from Inadvertent Intrusion,
respectively. Please explain why EnergySolutions has excluded the inadvertent
intruder performance objectives from Section 10.3.4.
Energy Response: See EnergySoluti response to comment 1 for
this section.
f. Comment 6: Section 10.3.5 repeats the six design requirements contained within
R313-25-25. Section 10.3.5 differs from Sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2 in that the
title of Section 10.3.3 contains a reference to Section 3 of the application where
compliance with the six requirements are addressed. As in Section 10.3.4, when
referring to the R313-25 performance objectives EnergySolutions has chosen not
to include the inadvertent intruder performance objectives from R313-25-21.
Energy Response: See EnergySoluti response to comment 1 for
this section.
g. Comment 7: The nine bullets of Section 10.3.6 contain criteria (4) through (10)
of R313-25-26. Instead of simply repeating the regulations, this section needs to
describe how EnergySolutions intends to comply with the R313-25-26
regulations at the Federal Cell.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

EnergyS Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 34 of 41

h. Comment 8: Please explain why EnergySolutions chose not to include R313-25-
g or contaminated with radioactive
material shall be dispos
Energy Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.
i. Comment 9: The three bullets of Section 10.3.7 contain the four criteria of
R313-25-27. Instead of simply repeating the regulations, this section needs to
describe how EnergySolutions intends to comply with the R313-25-27
regulations at the Federal Cell.
EnergySolutions Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.
j. Comment 10: Sections 10.3.1 to 10.3.7 repeat essentially verbatim selected
portions of UAC R313-25, and in some cases refers the reader to elsewhere in
information to present, SC&A does not understand the rationale for including it
in Section 10.3, which is entitled Perpetual Care. It is recommended that the
information contained within Sections 10.3.1 to 10.3.7 be moved to a more
appropriate location(s) within the application. For example, 1) a new section on
regulatory compliance could be added, or 2) each subsection could be placed in
the main section that is most applicable (e.g., Section 10.3.5 could be moved to
Section 3, Section 10.3.4 could be moved to Section 2, etc.), or 3) these section
could be re-located to Section 1.1 were Table 1-
included under the appropriate UAC rule in Table 1-1 (e.g., in Table 1-1 R313-
25-26 does not include Section 10.3.6).
Energy Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 35 of 41

k. Comment 11: The fourth sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10.3.8
state ticulate and
groundwater leachate monitoring are provided for the entire Clive Disposal
-2 shows that
Funds for Routine Monitoring is zero. Please explain this apparent discrepancy.
Energy Response: See Energy response to comment 1 for
this section.
l. Comment 12: The last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 10.3.8
ted annually to reflect additional depleted
uranium disposa
Table 10-2 that states that the Perpetual Care Funds for Routine Monitoring will
djustment for the amount of
DU or for inflation or both?

this section.
m. Comment 13: The calculated cost of highly unlikely catastrophic events (i.e.,
$2,383,386) does not include any of the Appendix A, Table 35 multipliers (see
also Appendix G comments). When the Table 35 multipliers have been included,
the cost increases to $3,664,456.
Energy Response: See EnergySolutio response to comment 1 for
this section.
21) Division Annual Adjustments (Section 10.4):
a. Comment 1: NUREG-1200, SRP 10.2, Section 4.2(1) requires the regulator to
unt for

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

This section meets that requirement.
Energy Response: Energy agrees that no further response is
required to address this comment.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 36 of 41

b. Comment 2: Elsewhere in Chapter 10, reference is made to Utah Code §19-3-
104(12)(f)(ii) for the method to be used to perform the annual cost adjustments. It
is recommended that Section 10.4 also include this information.
Energy Response: Reference to Utah Code 19-3-104(!2) has been
added to the narrative in Section 10.4.
c. Comment 3: NUREG- -step adjustment
procedure because of an inherent time delay (of 9 to 18 months) that exists in the
publication of a historical annual Implicit Price Deflator for Gross National
Product (AIPD-GNP) by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The procedure will
use both the latest published historical figure for AIPD-GNP as well as the latest
forecast of AIPD- -1199 suggested two-step procedure be
used for the Federal Cell adjustments? If not, why not.
Energy Response: EnergySolutions has proposed the same method of
annual inflationary adjustments for the Federal Cell Facility as the Director has
annual sure
22) Proposed Radioactive Material License for the Federal Cell
Facility (Appendix A):
a. Comment 1

Energy Response: Section 6 of the suggested Radioactive Material
License in Appendix A has been revised, as requested.
b. Comment 2
by land burial, radioactive material as naturally occurring, and accelerator
produced material (NARM) and concentrated depleted uranium radioactive
e all non-DU waste was excluded from the DU PA (i.e., Section 6

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

removed from the Proposed Radioactive Material License.
Energy Response: Section 9.A and the remainder of the suggested
Radioactive Material License in Appendix A have been revised, as requested.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 37 of 41

23) Engineering and Construction Drawings (Appendix B):
however they are not provided as part of Appendix B.
Energy Response: Appendix B has been revised, as requested.
24) Cover / Liner Construction Estimates (Appendix E):
a. Comment 1: The ET Cover, Surface Zone (gravel) entry needs to indicate that
gravel only composes 15% of the surface zone layer.
Energy Response: The volume and cost estimated have been revised
to reflect the p rint and amended cover
design.
b. Comment 2:
that clay/loam only composes 85% of the surface zone layer.
Energy Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix E.
c. Comment 3: The Side Slope (apply slope factor=1.0198) indicates that a slope
factor of 1.0198 was applied to the side slope area. It was not.
Energy Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix E.
d. Comment 4: For the Federal Embankment Liner - Phase 1, Total Construction
Cost, 20% inflation was added instead of 2%.
Energy Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix E.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

e. Comment 5: Various Top Slope Surface Layer thicknesses are reported and
used at various locations in the Application, i.e., Appendix E: 1 ft; Drawing
10014, C05: 12 inches; Table 2-4: 2 ft; Appendix F, NAC-0018_R4 (p 34): 6
inches; and Appendix F, NAC-0015_R4 (p 13): 6 inches. Also, Table 2-4 shows a
Top Slope Erosion Barrier (0.5 ft) that is not shown or discussed elsewhere.
Please clarify this confusion regarding the Top Slope.
Energy Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix E.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 38 of 41

f. Comment 6: The Cover System Cost Estimates sheet states:
(40 m Appendix G, it is clear that the 40.75% does not include any
allowance for Mobilization/Demobilization. Please explain how the
Mobilization/Demobilization costs have been included.
Energy Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix E.
g. Comment 7: Some of the data provided in Appendix E is identified as being the
same as data presented in Appendix G. However, the numerical values are not
always the same between the two appendices for the same data. Table 2 presents
a comparison of the Appendix G data used to calculate the installation of the
Premature Closure (Phase 1) cover to similar data provided in Appendix E. The
cells in Table 2 that show differences between the Appendix E and G data are
highlighted in red.
EnergySolutions Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix E.
25) Financial Surety Calculations (Appendix G):
a. Comment 1: Some of the data provided in Appendix G is identified as being the
same as data presented in Appendix E. However, the numerical values are not
always the same between the two appendices for the same data. Table 2 presents
a comparison of the Appendix G data used to calculate the installation of the
Premature Closure (Phase 1) cover to similar data provided in Appendix E. The
cells in Table 2 that show differences between the Appendix G and E data are
highlighted in red.
Energy Response: Utah Code §19-3-104(12)(f)(ii) allows a Licensee
to determine closure and post closure costs: (A) for an initial financial
assurance determination and for each financial assurance determination every
five years thereafter, a competitive site-specific bid for closure and post-closure
care of the facility at least once every five years; In March 2021,
EnergySolutions submitted to the Director results of an analysis that was
commissioned for a third-party to estimate the process and activities associated

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

Facility (including the proposed Federal Cell Facility). The information in
Appendices A and G have been revised to reflect the 2021 third-party
comprehensive cost estimates.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 39 of 41

b. Comment 2: Table 3 shows that the Contingency and Overhead and Profit direct
labor multipliers used in Appendix G differ from those specified in both Appendix
A, Table 35 and UT 2300249, Table 73. Also, Appendix G included no allowance

Energy Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix G.
c. Comment 3: The assumptions used to estimate item 320, Facility Stewardship
Transfer, appear to be optimistic. For example, it only assumes that 2 inspectors
will be involved, that implies only a single individual each from UDEQ and
EnergySolutions. It seems unlikely that transfer would involve only a single
individual from each organization. Also, the assumed transfer duration of 90
will begin the structured process to complete the real property, records, and
administrative transition functions, which generally require about 2 years to
Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), a number of sites have been tra
of Legacy Management (DOE-LM) for long-term management, maintenance, and
necessary to transfer a closed and decommissioned site to DOE-LM?
Energy Response: To secure an April 2020 execution of the Real
Estate Transfer Agreement for the Federal Cell by and between EnergySolutions,
LLC and the U. S. Department of Energy (Appendix C), DOE mandated that
Clause 6.1.7 reflect an appropriate transition time period by requiring that
lutions shall observe, monitor, and carry out necessary maintenance
and repairs at the [Federal Cell] disposal site for at least five years, prior to
transfer of ownership to DOE and termination of the License by UDWMRC.
d. Comment 4: The calculated cost of item 400, Routine Perpetual Care Activities,
(i.e., $770,290.82) does not include any of the Appendix A, Table 35 direct labor
multipliers, shown in Table 3. When the Table 35 multipliers have been included,
the cost increases to $1,184,322.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

EnergySolution Response: See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix G.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 40 of 41

e. Comment 5: The calculated cost of item 450, Highly Unlikely Catastrophic
Events, (i.e., $2,383,386) does not include any of the Appendix A, Table 35 direct
labor multipliers, shown in Table 3. When the Table 35 multipliers have been

Energy Response: Following a legal review of the statutory
requirements in Utah Code 19-3-104 regarding closure and post-closure sureties
and the perpetual care requirements of Utah Code 19-3-106.2, EnergySolutions
has determined that perpetual care funds is not required from licensees of federal
depleted uranium disposal facilities. See the response to Comment 1 of Appendix
G.
EnergySolutions Radioactive Material License UT2300478 authorizes management and disposal
of 11e.(2) byproduct on the same footprint herein being considered for the Federal Cell Facility.
In preparation for this Federal Cell Facility Radioactive Material License Application,
EnergySolutions previously requested Radioactive Material License UT2300478 be amended
license a smaller footprint.5

To support this Federal Cell Facility Radioactive Material License Application, EnergySolutions
requests Table 3 of the Discharge Permit be amended to reflect the corner coordinates for the
proposed Federal Cell Facility (as found in Condition 10.B of the suggested License language in
Appendix A). Similarly, EnergySolutions requests a 10,000-year performance period for the
Federal Cell Facility be included in the Table in Discharge Permit I.D.1. EnergySolutions also
requests Table 2D be added to the Discharge Permit with references to the Engineering Drawings
included in Appendix H of this Application. Finally, several groundwater wells were constructed
along the original byproduct license footprint (several of which are no longer located at the small
footprint of the byproduct perimeter). Therefore, EnergySolutions requests that Discharge Permit
Part I.F.1.2 by modified and Part I.F.1.4 be added, as herein illustrated.

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

5 Rogers, V.C. Radioactive Material License UT 2300478 - Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit
UGW450005; Revised Amendment and Modification Request to Reduce Capacity and Disposal
Footprint. (CD-2021-030) Letter from EnergySolutions to Ty Howard of the Utah Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control. February 26, 2021.
Mr. Ty Howard
CD-2020-052
April 9, 2021
Page 41 of 41

2) 11e.(2) Cell existing wells GW-19A, GW-20, GW-24, GW-25, GW-26, GW-27, GW-
28, GW-29, GW-36, GW-37*, GW-38R*, GW-57, GW-58, GW-60, GW-63, GW-126,
monitored only for ground water elevations.

4) Federal Cell Facility existing wells GW-19A, GW-25, GW-26, GW-27, GW-28, GW-
29, GW-57, GW-58, GW-63.

EnergySolutions also requests authority to abandon groundwater wells GW-36, GW-37 and GW-
38R. As groundwater beneath the proposed Federal Cell Facility generally flows toward the
north-north east, existing groundwater wells surrounding the combined future Federal
stewardship footprint (11e.(2) and Federal Cell Facility) will be adequate for early detection of
any unlikely leakage beneath the two adjacent cells (11e.(2) and Federal Cell Facility).
Supporting this claim is the recognition that regulatory oversight for both the 11e.(2) byproduct
cell and the proposed Federal Cell Facility will be transferred to a single regulatory agency (the
U.S. Department of Energy-Legacy Management) following their closure.

Please contact me at [phone] if you have further questions regarding this License
Application.
Sincerely,

Vern C. Rogers
Director of Regulatory Affairs

Digital exhibits by SERVU ftp

299 South Main Street, Suite 1700 1
[phone] www.energysolutions.com

I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance
with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.