ML19340B489
| ML19340B489 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 02700039 |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1980 |
| From: | Siefken D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Eason C U.S. ECOLOGY, INC. (FORMERLY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011110115 | |
| Download: ML19340B489 (5) | |
Text
.__
~
DOCKET N0.27 39 o,,
g
~
UNITED STATES 8Y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,.* fYl3.j o
WASHINGT ON, D. C. 20S55 ty e
%,m/
OCT 2 31980 Docket flo. 27-39 lir. Charles Eason i
Director of Governmental Affairs fluclear Engineering Company, Inc.
11017th Street,11.. W.
4 10th Floor, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20034 j
Dear Mr. Eason:
i As discussed with you on Wednesday, October 22, 1980, this letter is to inform the fluclear Engineering Company (liECO) of a pending visit to the Sheffield Low-Level Waste Disposal Site by Messrs. James Rowlands and Michael Schoulton of
)
Ralph Stone & Company, Inc. 'RSC) of Los Angeles, California.
RSC has been awarded a contract with the HRC entitled " Evaluation of Trench Subsidence and Stabilization at the Sheffield Low-Leve) Waste Disposal Facility." A copy of the statement of work for that contract has been attached.
The Sheffield visit is scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, October 28 and 29, 1980. That visit will be followed with a visit-to NECO's offices in Louisville, Kentucky on either Thursday or Friday, October 30 or 31,1980.
}
A finalized date for the visit to Louisville will depend on the duration of j
the Sheffield site visit, and, you will be informed of tnat date on Wednesday, i
October 29, 1980.
i i
It.is intended that this visit will serve to familiarize RSC with the site (Task 1) and also provide RSC the opportunity to review maintenance records i
I and discuss operating experience with NEC0 staff at Sheffield and Louisville (Task 2).
Obviously, NEC0's continued cooperation is essential to the l
performance of the work under this contract.
It should be pointed out that predictions of trench subsidence and evaluations of stabilization techniques resulting from the study are separate from the closure conditions previously discussed with MEC0.
Finalization of the issues 0, closure conditions may proceed independent of this contract.
Please contact me if you have any questions concerning the site visit or contract.
~ Sincerely yours, (3)W Y !
f David L. Siefken <
Low-LevelWasteLiceagng Branch Division.of Waste Management 1
q
Enclosure:
j As stated e011120 M
.w
,,r
+ + -,
-_,e y,,,
, - +-
4 -
~
STATEMENT OF UORK EVALUATIO!! 0F TRE!!CH SUBSIDENCE Af!D STABILIZATION AT THE SHEFFIELD LOW-LEVEL UASTE; DISPOSAL FAC.ILITY
}
l.0 Background The Sheffield low-level radioactive waste disposal site is located on 20 acres of rolling terrain about three miles southwest of Sheffield, Illinois. Burial of the radioactive waste was first authorized August 1,1967.
Since that time approximately three million cubic feet of waste containing about 60,000 curies of byproduct material, 55 kilograms of special nuclear material, and 600,000 pounds cf source material have been buried in 21 trenches.
Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. (f!ECO),- the operator of the Sheffield Nuclear Waste Disposal Site made application to the Nuclear Regulatory Conmission.(NRC) and State of Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) to continue to operate the site and expand it.
The renewal and site expansion application from 20 acres to 188 acres was filed with the NRC in 1976.
Hearings on the !!RC application were requested.
An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) was established and intervenors and hearings were approved in early 1978.
However, before all the issues in the case were sufficiently resolved so that NRC could prepare its environmental impact statement on the application and hearings could be scheduled, NEC0 requested suspension of the licensing proceeding in December 1978.
In March 1979, NECO attempted to unilaterally terminate both the State (IDPH).
license and lease and the NRC license and abandon the site.
The ASLB allowed NECO to withdraw the application for expansion but not the application for renewal.
Both the NRC and IDPH issued orders requiring NECO to return to the site.
Following NEC0's refusal to honor the orders, the IDPH filed suit in circuit court seeking judicial reliefc. The IDPH won a preliminary injunction ordering NECO back to the site while a final settlement was developed.
This case is still pending.
NEC0' signed an agreement with f;RC to provide site security and monitor and maintain the site until the legal issues are resolved.
NECO has requested a hearing on the NRC order and the matter has been referred to the same ASLB.
In order to regulate the closure of the disposal site and prepare testimony for the hearing, the NRC requires detailed information en trench subsidence and stabilization at the site. - This information will enable NRC to evaluate the long-term performance of the-Sheffield facility.
Note:
The contractor may be required to provide expert testimony at the hearings on the work performed under this contract.
If this becomes necessary, any reimbursement i
by NRC for allowable costs will be covered under a separate contract at that time.
2.0 Statement of Work A significant problem at the Sheffield ' site is the issue of subsidence in the completed trenches. Material _in the trenches was only loorely packed'at burial, which resulted in.cubsidence af ter burial as the materials. compacted and decomposed. Asitrench material subsides the trench cap integrity is lost a,nd the' potential.for surface water infiltration and subsequent-
'leachate generation is significantly inc,reased.
~
Task 1 The contractor shall visit the site to become familiar with site layout and surroundings.
Task 2 The contractor shall review, analyze and sun:narize flECO's surface main-tenance records for the Sheffield site.
This may be accomplished by viewing maintenance records during the Sheffield site visit or it may require also vi. siting the corporetr hacqueters in Louisville, Kentucky to view maintenance records and to discuss operating experience with f!EC0 staff.
It may also require traveling to Champaign, Illinois to view records of the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
The contractor shall also summarize information on trench cap construction.
Based on the analyses of the maintenance records, the contractor's observations at the site, information provided by NRC, !!EC0, and USGS staff, the contractor shall estimate the locations, magnitudes and rates of past subsidence in the trenches.
The contractor shall present the information on s0bdidence on a topographic map
. provided by fiRC in isopleths of subsidence for specific time frames; e.g.,
within 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, etc., of completion of the trench.
The contractor shall use the results to predict future subsidence.
Subsidence should include consideration of " sudden" slumping and creation of pot holes in the backfill soil.
The contractor shall estimate the time required for subsidence to reduce so that it would be feasible to construct final trench caps for lona-term site stabilization, assuming the final trench caps are constructed of soil.
Task 3 The contractor shall list and describe all reasonable (as defined by
.the contractor in terms of engineering feasibility and costs) techniques that could be used to stabilize trenches to minimize subsidence.
The contractor shall provide a detailed evaluation of the feasibility of the techniques for stabilizing the trenches now instead of waiting for natural compaction.
The contractor shall provide cost estimates on the trench stabilization techniques.
Task 4 The contractor shall assess the value of future moni' ing of subsidence (e.g. by estimating the increase in accuracy of subsidence predictions made in Task 2, assumming a longer period of monitoring data is available.)
3.0 Reporting Requirements 3.1 l'onthly Progress Report Each month, the contractor shall submit 3 copies of a brief report in letter format which summarizes:
(1) the work performed during the previous month; e
3 (2)personneltimeexpendituresduringtheprevious~ month;and(3) costs:
(i) current period, (ii) cumulative to date, and (iii) cost projection by month to completion of the work effort.
(The first monthly report shall provide the initial cost projection and subsequent reports shall either provide revised projections or indicate "no change in the cost projection.")
The reports shall be due by the 15th of each month with distribution as follows:
Project Officer (lcy)
Office of. Director, llMSS (ATTil:
Program Support) (Icy)
Contracting Officer (1 cy) 3.2 Final Report Within three months of the effective date of this contract, the contractor shall deliver 7 copies of a draft report with the follow'ng distribution:
Gale P. Turi, Project Officer, 4 copies Office of the Director,f! MSS (ATTri:
Program Support),1 copy Contracting Officer, 1 copy Director, Division of Waste Management, liMSS,1 copy This draft report shall su=1arize all of the work performed on Tasks 1, 2, 3 and 4 including technical insights, conclusions and recommendations.
The Project Officer will furnish ce m ents on the draft report within 30 days of receipt.
Based upon those co=lents, the contractor shall revise the draft report and submit seven copies of the ' al report (one camera-ready) with distribution as specified above withi
'J days of receipt of the Projcct Officer's comments.
3.9 Format For Report The format for the final report shall be in accordance with flRC Manual Appendix 3202 for " Formal Contractor Documents."
4.0 Meetings and Travel Two weeks after the Project Officer receives the draft report from the contractor, the contractor shall verbally present the conclusions in a presentation to f!RC technical staff in Silver Spring, Maryland.
The visit to Silver Spring, liaryland shall not excecd one day in duration.
The contractor shall make approximately 4 trips to the Sheffield site,1 tri and one trip to Chanpaign, Illinois, as necessary.p to Louisville, Kentucky, As an aid to offerors in preparing cost proposals, the 11RC estimates two persons per trip, The duration of the trips will be:
Sheffield - 2 days per trip; Louisville 5 days, and Champaign - 1 day.
The MRC Project Of ficer shall aid the contractor in the coordination of each trip as necessary.
5.0 I;RC Furnished _ Materia),
Uithin five days of the effective date of this contract, the !!RC Project Of ficer Qill provide the contractor with the following material:
4
l 4
1.
Plot plans showing the site topography and approximate location of the disposal trenches (for use under Task 2).
6.01.evel of Ef fort
..s It is anticipated that the work required under the provisions of this contract can be accomplished with five staff months of effort by technically qualified personnel.
7.0 Period of Performance The period of performance for this contract shall be 5 months from date of award tt which time all work shall have been performed and all reports delivered.
l l
1 I
i d
e