ML20133N175
| ML20133N175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/06/1985 |
| From: | Blackford M, Jagannath B, Valdes J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Greeves J, Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8510280430 | |
| Download: ML20133N175 (7) | |
Text
7 g
l DISTRIBUTION:
HN rif N*b SEP 6 1985 r
h b
ADMIN FILE 3001.4 ud/6/14/85 -
REB' owning 1_
r MEMORANDUM FOR:
John T. Greeves, Chief MJ8 ell i
Engineering Branch, WM JTGreeves BJagannath Malcolm R. Knapp, Chief JValdes MBlackford Geotechnical Branch, WM SNeuder SWastler MKnapp FROM:
Banad N. Jagannath, WMEG LHigginbotham Michael Blackford, WMGT DGillen Jose Valdes, WMGT PJustus
SUBJECT:
REPORT ON MEETING TO DISCUSS DOE'S UMTRAP DESIGN PROCEDURES MANUAL AND NRC'S STANDARD REVIEW PLAN ON GE0 TECHNICAL STABILITY The DOE and its contractors, TAC (Technical Assistance Contractor, Jacobs Engineering) and RAC (Remedial Action Contractor, Morrison-Knudsen Engineers),
are developing UMTRAP Design Procedures Manual. Although the design manual is a DOE product, the NRC is participating (40 CFR Part 192) and review procedures in the group so that the NRC's interpretation of the UMTRA Regulation are considered in developing the design manual. The DOE / TAC /RAC team is divided into four groups; Group II is addressing the geotechnical stability aspects of the design manual. A preliminary meeting was held at the offices of NRC, Willste Building, Silver Spring, Maryland, on July 2,1985, during which the draft of the design manual and NRC's standard review plans were provided to all members for review.
Subsequently, informal comments (noted in the margin) were exchanged among the participants. This meeting, the subject of this trip a
i report, is the second of a total of three meetings planned for this task. The
]
meeting was held on August 6,1985, at the office of Morrison-Knudsen Engineers
~
(RAC) in San Francisco, California. The agenda, minutes of the meeting, and list of participants are attached to this memo.
i Banad Jagannath, WMEG bl
'/
Michael kford, WMGT Attachments: As stated cc: R. Rager, TAC C1 kmd Fde
'M.i;'rtct N. Banerjee, RAC (MKE)
CMM No.N_
R. Weeks, TAC PMM.
L. Hansen, TAC 1.F DR _ _
(
- 0. ' **
i 0510280430 850906
~ ~ ~ ~ -
~
PDR WASTE m
--1 n
0FC
- WMEG WMG7)(
WMG W G E6 MEG:
--- -- : - - -b - -- j c / - - --- - - - -- : -- - - - - -
+----:--- -- ----
SNegr
- MNataraja P u tu
- JGr ves NAME :BJagannath cj MBlackford : JValdes
- _____O___
f/5~/85
- )T/od85 DATE : 8
/85
- A/ /85 Gl/ /85 S/ f/85
/
85 99w 7
7
s ATTACHMENT 1 BJ/8/14/85/ UMTRAP DESIGN PROCEDURES MANUAL - GROUP II, GE0 TECHNICAL STABILITY Meeting: At MKE's Office in San Francisco, California August 6, 1985 AGENDA Introduction Opening Remarks Introduction of Members Status Report Design Standards Geotechnical Stability Site Characterization Settlement Stability Liquefaction Seismotectonic Characterization Investigations MCE, Procedure Seismic Design Conclusion
[
BJ/8/15
_1-ATTACHMENT 2 MINUTES OF MEETING DATE:
August 6, 1985 LOCATION:
Morrison-Knudsen Engineers 18 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA PURPOSE: Discussing review corments on D0E's Draft Design Procedures Manual and NRC's Standard Review Plans on Geology-Seismology and Geotechnical Stabildty.
PARTICIPANTS: List of Participants. (See attached list.)
SUMMARY
Members of the task group had reviewed the draft of DOE's UMTRAP Design Procedure Manual and the NRC SRP's and preliminary comments were exchanged among them. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and clarify the comments by several members of the task group. The following is the summary of discussions and conciusions.
1.
Design Standards After a lengthy discussion on the interpretation of the long-term stability aspect of the design standards (40 CFR Part 192.02), it was agreed that the goal of the design for UMTRAP sites should be effectiveness of controls for 1000 years and the 200-year clause can be used only if it is impractical to design for 1000 year effectiveness.
The discussion centered on the selection of the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) for design and it was agreed that the earthqua!:e selection would satisfy the 1000-yr effectiveness criteria.
2.
Site Characterization This chapter of the UMTRAP Design Procedure Manual will be revised to reflect the following.
Site investigation should be a phased activity wherein preliminary phase data will be used in assessing the scope of the subsequent
BJ/8/15 2-phases of field investigation. This statement is to emphasize that field investigations should collect adequate data to characterize both the site and the uranium mill tailings to be stabilized.
If the tailings are stabilized in-place, the field investigations should be adequate to determine the aerial location and thickness of the soft slime deposit within the tailings pile.
There should be a provision for continuous sampling, if needed, to obtain undisturbed samples of soft slime occurring in relatively thin layers within the tailings pile.
The scope of the field investigation suggested in the manual is the minimum recommended and it is likely to be expanded, as needed, to adequatelv chdracterize the site, and satisfy the data needs of both TAC ar.d RAC for the site.
Tne current emphasis is only on the geotechnical investigations; statements on the required geological site characterization should be added.
3.
Settlement The manual should recognize the possibility of high differential settlement and should recommend considering remedial measures to mitigate its adverse effects.
4.
Stability Scope of investigation and analysis mentioned in the manual to evaluate the static stability is acceptable.
S.
Liquefaction The manual should recommend a phased approach - starting with simplified Seed-Idriss method of analysis to a finite-element method of analysis depending on site specific conditions.
6.
Seismic Hazard Assessment l
It was agreed that step 1 (page 9) of the procedure foi determination of seismic hazard parameters in NRC's i'
geology-seismology SRP needs re-evaluation. The main issue is how to assess the hazards from floating earthquakes in the tectonic province (s) affecting the site.
It was agreed to review the Corps m
-~
i i
I BJ/8/15 l of Engineers' method of addressing this problem in working toward resolution.
Steps 2-4 (page 2-3) for determination of seismic hazard parameters in NRC's SRP are agreeable. These include:
(1) use of capable fault definition 1
(2) use of the maximum credible earthquake (3) use of 84th percentile values of acceleration attenuation.
It was agreed to designate Campbell's (1981)1* acceleration j
attenuation relationships as the preferred one to use. Other relationships can be used with proper justification, j
7.
Seismic Design Pseudostatic method of analysis is not applicable when the embankment consists of material that would exhibit loss of strength (greater than 15 percent) and develop high pore pressures in response to an earthquake loading.
For cases where pseudostatic analysis is applicable, the design seismic coefficient to be used in the design should be higher of either 0.1 or 67 percent of the peak acceleration of the Maximum Credible Earthquake at the foundation level of the embankment.
If this design seismic coefficient is higher than 0.2, then the dynamic stability should be investigated by other methods such as deformation type analysis and/or finite element method of analysis, to be determined on a site specific basis. The designer should provide adequate justification for the method of analysis chosen 1
and the conclusions reached.
8.
OTHER TOPICS The concept presented in NRC's geology-seismology SRP (page 6) in regard to natural resources evaluation, relying primarily on existing information, is agreeable but the wording needs to be clarified.
l; Campbell, K. W.,1981, Near-Source Attenuation of Peak Horizontal 1
Acceleration, Bull. Seismological Society of America, Volume 71, Pages 2039-2070.
4 L
_. _.. - _ _ -, _.. -. _ _.. _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _., _,., _ _ _. ~... _, _ _.. _ _. _, _ _. _ _ _. _..
BJ/8/15
_4-The concepts relating to geomorphic hazard evaluation presented in NRC's geology-seismology SRP are agreeable with the exception of specific requirements on the scale of site topographic mapping. The SRP will be revised to be less prescriptive in this regard.
9.
CONCLUSIONS:
It was agreed that the TAC /RAC will revise the Design Procedures Manual and distribute it to all members of the task team for comments by the end of this month. Final resolution of comments, if any, will be during the third meeting which will be scheduled during the first or second week of September.
ATTACHMENT 3 BJ/8/14/85/
UMTRAP Design Procedures Manual - Group II, Geotechnical Stability Meeting: At MKE's Office in San Francisco, California August 6, 1985 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Name Organization Phone #
Ronald E. Rager TAC 505-846-1250 Lawrence A. Hansen TAC 602-272-6848 Ralph E. Weeks TAC 602-272-6848 Sandra Wastler NRC/URF0 303-236-2811 Michael Blackford NRC 301-427-4597 Ben Kelly COE/00D 202-272-8684 FTS-798-5305 Charles Orvis C0E/ LAD 213-894-5305 Jose Valdes NRC/WMGT 301-427-4601 Banad Jagannath NRC/WMEG FTS-427-4629 a
Nani Banerjee MKE 415-442-7595 i
.