ML20043B743
| ML20043B743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/14/1990 |
| From: | Jacoby D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043B741 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-73 NUDOCS 9005310226 | |
| Download: ML20043B743 (5) | |
Text
M+1 s
nh.
--w s
4
- i
-Y 4 C x
e 3, f s.m[
g{-;p --v
+
[,:4 }
'n, 4
UNITED STATES '
8%g.
v Y
..u.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; x
< i n'
~ - -
REGION IV URANIUM RECOVERY FIELD UF*lCE -
P
., m,.
sox 5335 DENVER. COLORADO 80325 '
1 o
- s gg; I 41990 m
U i URFO': DLJ.
F
' Docket No.- WM-73.
n
(
- MEMORAN'DUM FOR:
Docket' File No..WM-73~~
s w#
FROM::
D. J.-lJacoby J ;",
. Project' Manager M
SUBJECT:
TUBA CITY UMTRA' PROJECT INSPECTION'
.n r
Kf,
p
- L
{3
. Date: ' April 23,:1990 y,
' Location:
Tub'a City, Arizona -
Participants:
NRC DOE-u[
E. ~ Hawkins, Deputy Director M.LAbrams,; Site Engineer R.-Gonzales,LProject Manager
'M. Scoutaris; QA Manager:
r g
D. Jacoby, Project Manager and Team Leader L{
7:
. 'TACL fK. Agogino,' Site Manager
- N. Larsen, Site Engineer 4
0.; Van Bibber, QALEnginee'r M. Alewine, QA Specialist g
h,
~E. Storms,' Site Hydrologist-1 C.-Persson-Reeves,' Site.NEPA Coordinator gg
==E b
Purpose:
DOE' requested.that NRC be present.during their Final! Inspection
'~
(walk-over) so that concurrent' but separate evaluations could be E
obtained.s 'NRC conducted'a review of construction activities to ascess'.the effectiveness of the construction.and' quality control
,_[
. program to' assure. compliance with.the RAP and EPA standards.
n 1:L h a
u, iji Following an^ introduction.of-participants and a safety orientation by the RAC, the,NRC staff toured the site and reviewed the quality control records.
DOE m 'r '
,C personnel conducted-separate site tours and perforred a record evaluation of l
the type A. riprap placement.
E E
r (N lfi "f
z
( 93, 9005310226 900514 N
- h?
PDR WASTE 3
= y;:p:n.,;
WM-73 ELR kn
=
w y$h, t.
s
'y
- - ' ' " ' ' ' - ~ " '
n4
.\\ t f,, '
+
S s
MAY I4 !930 m
Site Tour J
LA'RAC representative, Bob.Hindman, accompanied the NRC staff.on the site tour.
' Observed aspectsfof the project were:
- : Locations of monitoring ' wells.
Reclaimed embankment structure.
- 1 Diversion systems (Interceptor Ditches No. 1 and 2).
)
- Toe ditches'(Nos' 1 and.2).
- -Site monuments.
, Construction activities observed included completion.of placement of the
' erosion protection on the southeast outslope'and final handgrading~of the rock in several locations.
The riprap erosion protection'is dense,:well graded basai 2 that should resist-long' exposure to weathering..The individual stone fragments are reasonably well contained within the layer thickness <of each rock size. The surface of the'riprep'on'the embankment and in the diversions'and-Editches~.is'well-keyed with a minimum number'of voids.
During theisite tour,-the.NRC staff observed two thickness verification tests being conducted' by DOE on theltype A riprap.- Both tests indicated that
~
6einches of' type A riprap'was present. ~Small. pockets appearing to'contain
< excessive amounts-of' fine material were~ observed on the embankment top..These
~ areas were small and contained a significant amount of rock, so the overall.-
. design willinot be affected.
The slope of. Interceptor Ditch No. 2 appears to have a negative gradient at the-outlet.:. This negative gradient may result in some-ponding in this. area, but should not affect performance during the design flood event.
It.was also noted t
that'a.significant amount of " sanding in" had already occurred'in several
' riprapped areas.: The most noticeable of these areas being along the north
- section'of Interceptor Ditch No. 1.
'This was expected, due to the desert
.. envi ronment.
Record Review
.The. staff selectively reviewed testing and daily inspection records to determine if~the specifications had been met.
Reviews were conducted on the
-following records:
3 1.=
. Radon barrier placement-density and moisture.
/
2.'
Radon barrier classification.
v 3.L Radon _ barrier gradation.
,y l
h, I
,m,
-p
-t
- x L
c t
g 3
3 MAY l 41990
%uWs 4.
Radon barrier 1 point compaction tests.
- 5..
Testing sand calibration.
6.
' Correlation between oven and microwave moisture contents.
7; Erosion' protection gradations, i
t
- 8.;
Erosion protection durability tests.
Radon Barrier. Records Radon barrur material;was.placed from November 1988 to August of 1989., Spot checks of placement density'and moisture records up to April 1,1989, were
~
-found acceptable to support:the RAP.. However,- beginning, April 1; 1989,-the recording system was changed, and the l'AC no longer maintained a record of-
- [
volume of material-placed. "Therefore, it was not possible'during the-i A mection' to verify-all specifications;and testing frequencies tied to ;
pjacement volume. :The RAC representative indicated that the required records.
- can be developed from other sources.. Another deviation from the RAP and RAIP.
a cided the number of.placament tests between:1 point compaction tests. : Spot
'i 1.N 31ngJrecords indicateu...dt more'than 10 placement' tests were-performed' uutween 1 point: compaction tests during two time' periods in July 1989.. -:These
, incidents areLisolated and do not appear to have negatively affected the QC.
program.. The compaction-test results and' frequencies,were not checked due~to:
0
. time' restraints.1
(
Rock Testing'
' Review of-testing records indicated gradation and durability-tests were f
- conducted by.00E in~accordance with specified test procedures and frequencies.
L
' Records indicate that erosion protection materials mettor exceed the
-specificationsk Issues
.At'the request of DOE, representatives of the.RAC were not included in the exit i
L iconference.
Items discussed included:
k
?l
- 1...
'The slope at the' outlet of Interceptor Drain No. 1.
No action was i
h.
requested.
i 2.-
.The pockets of fines in the type A riprap.
No action-was requested.
m 7
3.
The lack of placement volume records for the radon barrier materials.
DOE will be requested to obtain the required records and then summarize the testing program results, p
4.
'The deviation from the RAIP in regard to the 1 point compaction tests.
No
. action was requested.
1 b
5.
I p
.N
- v. w-n.
n'
.9 n
l*
'{
j;;
,s e
i 4
g ; g ggg t
- 5.. ' PID, Nos.: 18-S-21,- 18-S-14, and 18-S-15.
DOE will'be requesta: a provide sections 01055 and-01056, and orawing TUB-PS-10-0835, of the specifications.
- referenced by PID Nos. 18-S-11 and-18-S-14.. Also,-tha revisions for PID No.:-l18-5-15 will be requested.-
g D. L Jacob Pro ct Man er i
Approved by:-
M Rdon E. Hall
/
l Director x,
- t 3
l.';.-
3 g
i
..h' 1:
a
_p
~
' n-mm :.-
l$
- j l1 5
t4i r
'.{
J i
s L'
1'-
.i l
I,:
p;..
I
.')
/.-
i rff
- 1'.
r
, ;y 7't
,,,a A
f
'N
--.--.+-
, 1-9, 1
s 3y::h' !>:
W:.;
i 4._ t:i::'L 7
,, ; ;,;b,
~
z t
. iy 141',,
e s
ti r
n
.,.i. :
taw:
r I
.a J
5
'WM-73/DLJ/90/04/26/M.
A-
"s
- DISTRIBUTION.
.c -
i *..,
Docket File WM '
c im
- FPDR/DCS9/-
W'
-URF0 r/fi
!ABBeach, RIV'.
s s LLO Branch,: LLWM.
1 H
o-
[S", ;2 DJacoby-ij 4
RGonzales t^
sEHawkins l
'RCPD,'AZz s
m
? --
1 3,c 1, l
, c-8 E
-: 4 -
n I
'4
.; j,
.[_ l,.. y
,.--].
T 3
.F
..i, :
- 1E J[-i s
'f
- a..
M
)CONCURRENCEi>
-DATE:
- n..
DJacoby/URF0/lv--
M S/J/90 k
/ RGonzales/URFO.
8f8 s
m.
'/EHawkins/dRF0
[/o.hD S
,3
+M./F r
oj
, d /#
,I
- REHall/URF0' e
g
(
L
?
'4
- 2. #,.
1 f,,
a
~
1 3
-5 NI,
)
+.
') f 3>
t.}lfcl,
1 ':
.'f
!yy,...
a
. ; U.
ch/
k b.
i jj i :# 3;7..., 1 hf;f l:l0lE: '; l!A--
,j c
--1 i