ML20134H619
| ML20134H619 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/07/1985 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8508290064 | |
| Download: ML20134H619 (7) | |
Text
bl h',m.hyg
. co na.,.
~ ~ ~. - -
--w--n-
~-
ag#.-,a,
.a wa w
.i m---
a d
a
+ - * = -
.-pm me->4-e e
3-m.
oc.
-e.
w, s
E w
/e A ne dr-ed
/k /-.siAce
- s n f m y e.
y skd e.
e e.
pnudam m sheAs e._ f/ & pe9 6-Ac.
e y w, A JA ~.
e m
Y,,.
k c
T IIl0
(
gifj g; "AD ~
E3
~~
Decket tio
~
au e
b c-y N
Distntution; M-N Aff.0 k } fg
~
d$6tNf' Q,[}'
i%=at y 850807 R
DATE ENGINEE RING REVIEW COMMENTS
.2 dayw/ PC C PREDESIGN CONFERENCE MINUTES [ CONCEPT
@ OTNER Draft PRELIMINARY PLANS FIN AL PLANS PROJE CT DESCR4PTION:
N AME OF REVIEWER:
Review Comments on UMTRAD Draft Dnenments rhnvlon nrv4a LOCATION:
F Y:
REVIEWING AGENCY:
USAED, LA Geotechnical Br 85 Geology Section SPLED-GG ARCN O MECNANiCAL O Nvo ENGR na O PLAN oiv counsel O C'v
O saECs s Esr O GEOTECH & MAT BR C REAL ESTATE O araCE ELEC O STauCTuRAL 0 ConsT-o* o'v O PROG DEV OFC UMT W CMT COMMENTS ACTION BY NO.
1.
EPA - 40 CFR 192 1.1 No comments, except the term " reasonable" is prevalent.
2.
NRc - Draft Standard Review Plan for G-S of UMTRAP Doc.
2.1 General 2.1.1 No studv nrocedure of the dnmn itself is inc1ndo4.
T=
t-h 4 = nnre nf the program?
2.1.2 Availability of document 10 CFR 1-0, App. A would be helpful.
2.1.3 No mention is made of " post-construction" control monitoring; for example, for monitoring groundwater changes. This should be part of the program.
2.1.4 Groundwater guidance is greatly lacking.
2.2 Specific 2.2.1 page 2.
Standards are given only for air.
Standards for ground and surface water should be given.
2.2.2 page 3.
The word " prevent" is absolute. Yet further on the words
" casual intrusion" and on page 4 " possibility" connote something less.
SPD Form 342 1 Oct 75 Mum # 1 m 73 W# k nW md/ e A A G E..l.. O F. L, P A M
DATE ENGINEE RING REVIEW COMMENTS O PREDESIGN CONFERENCE MINUTES ] CONCEPT OTHER O PRELIMINARY PLANS FINAL PLANS PROJE CT DESCRIPTION:
NAME OF REVIEWER:
UMTRAP Draft Documents c
nn,4e LOCATION:
F Y:
REVIEWING AGENCY:
)
O ARCN O uECNANiCA' O Hv0ENsRaR PLAN Oiv O COUNSEL O Civi' O SPECS
- Esr O GEOTECH & MAT BR O REAL ESTATE AFRCE ELEC C STRUCTURAL 0 CONST.CP DIV PROG DEV OFC CMT COMMENTS ACTION BY NO.
2.2.2 (continued)
The use of " prevent" is not consistent with the text following. flyr.fty m "redrY " O s, /) jf4 je&s=
2.2.3 page 4.
The phrase " Reasonable assurance of avoiding casual intrusion.."
implies treatment that may not meet the intent of EPAj e./ <e h ly v
ok nof
- pe v e'** +. "
2.2.4 page 4.
There is a dual meaning to the word " oversight". My first reaction to it is the meaning "omitted" or " forgotten".
Another word may be more appropriate 5+ed, 4 y cm.
o/
epeA s 2.2.5 page 5.
Phrase 1.
under 1.2.1.
(bottom of the page) does not make sense-what is meant by " ground failure"?
2.2.0 page 6 and elsewhere. Use of the phrase " vibrating ground motion" is redundant.
" Vibratory" is not needed.
2.2.7 page 7.
For geomorphic studies, LANSAT and other remote sensing 4
imagery would be helpful.
SPD Form 342 1 Oct 75 Edition et t./en 73 will be used set // edauefed.
PAGE. 2.. OF. 6. PAGES
~
DATE ENGINEE RING REVIEW COMMENTS PREDESIGN CONFERENCE MINUTES CONCEPT
] OTHER C PRELIMINARY PLANS FINAL PLANS PROJE CT DESCRIPTION:
N AME OF REVIEWER:
C. Orvis HMTRAP Draft Documents LOCATION:
F Y:
REVIEWING AGENCY:
ARCH O MECH ANICAL HYD ENGR BR C PLAN Div COUNSEL O civ
O sarcs
- EsT O GEOTECH & MAT BR O REAL ESTATE AFRCE ELEC O sTauCTuRAt O co"$7-o* o'v O PROG DEV OFC CMT COMMENTS ACTION BY NO.
2.2.8 page 7.
A 2-foot contour interval would be more practical than 1 foot,
especially on the face of the dumps e / </ jus [ h es,4 ep//c.
1 i
i l
2.2.9 page 8.
Include here a discussion on groundwater studies.
2.2.10 page 9.
On page 13 it is stated that " geologic terminology used should conform to standard references." The term " tectonic structuris" is not standard and should not be used with " fault" only. Folding is also a tectonic structure.
2.2.11 page 8.
An MCE should be defined here rather than on page 10.
)
2.2.12 page 8.
Should MPE or OBE be included in discussion? Are they necessary?
2.2.13 page 9.
In determining seismic parameters, would " site-to-focus" values be more appropriate than " site-to-epicenter" for near-field events?
2.2.14 Are dynamic analyses to be used?
SPD Form 342 Nd" d I ^'t 73 M# h used wt# ehed.
PAGE. 3.. OF,. 6. PAGES 1 Oct 75
f DATE ENGINEE RING REVIEW COMMENTS PREDESIGN CONFERENCE MINUTES ] CONCEPT OTHER O PRELIMINARY PLANS FIN AL PLANS PROJE CT DESCRIPTION:
N AME OF REVIEWER:
UMTRAP Draft Docm9esnts C. Orvis LOCATION:
F Y:
REVIEWING AGENCY:
ARCH MECHANICAL O Hvo ENGR BR O PLAN oiv counsel O civi' O specs & EsT O GEOTECH & MAT BR O REAL ESTATE O AFRCE ELEC C STRUCTURAL O coNST-om oiv O PROG DEV OFC CMT COMMENTS ACTION BY NO.
2. 2.15 page 10.
Is the' assumption that all faults are seismogenic (another non-standard term)?
2.2.10 page 12.
Duration should be another seismic factor.
2.2.17 page 12.
What is the rationale for no capable faults within 3000 feet of " embankment"? Distance could be shortened.
2.2.10 page 12.
If the term " embankment" means the tailings dump, the term is inappropriate. The term refers to a dike or dam.
- 2. 2.1E page 12.
Need discussion on non-tectonic subsidence.
3.
g - Seismic Hazard Assessments for UMTRAP 3.1 General.
3.1.1 For seismic standafds, this document is a good start with some revisio ts.
3.1.2 We assume that the present fills and foundations have been studied.
i 3.1.3 How is this data to be used?
SPD Form 342 Edition of 1 Jan 73 will be a, sed until eMed.
PAGE,.A,, OF, @,, P AGES 1 Oct 75 i
DATE ENGINEE RING REVIEW COMMENTS i
O PREDESIGN CONFERENCE MINUTES ] CONCEPT
] OTHER PRELIMINARY PLANS FIN AL PLANS PROJE CT DESCRIPTION:
NAME OF REVIEWER:
UMTRAP Draft Document Charles Orvis LOCATION:
F Y:
REVIEWING AGENCY:
O ARCN MECN ANiCAL 0 HYD ENGR BR O PLAN oiv counsel C CIVIL O SPECS
- EsT O aroTECH
- MAT =a O REAL ESTATE O AFRCE C ELEC O sTauCruRAL ConsT-OP oiv O PROG DEV OFC CMT COMMENTS ACTION BY NO.
3.1.4 I believe the use of MCE is too conservative for this procrram. The criteria is for an event that is reasonably expected to occur during the life of the facility - OBE would be reasonable.
3.1.5 Document needs an outline to make it easier to follow - especially Appendix C.
- 3. 3. 6 There is no discussion on duration.
3.1.7 Will there be DOE manual on other geologic assessment standards?
3.2 Specific.
3.2.1 page 4.
Geophysical surveys should be included in the Phase II exploration.
3.2.2 page 5.
Sideslopes of 5:1 are excessive. The maximum slopes would not need to be flatter than 3:1,and possibly steeper.
3.2.3 page 5.
Is the " engineered compaction" to be done on the complete fill, or only on the surface?
SPD Form 342 Edirlos, of f Je 7.1 will be used et// edeusted.
PAGE. 5.. OF. 6.. PAGES 1 M 75
t l
DATE ENGINEE RING REVIEW COMMENTS
] PREDESIGN CONFERENCE MINUTES ] CONCEPT
] OTHER C PRELIMINARY PLANS FIN AL PLANS PROJE CT DESCR4PTION:
NAME OF REVIEWER:
UMIRAp Draft Document Charles Orvis LOCATION:
F Y' REVIEWING AGENCY:
ARCH O =ECN ANiCA' O HYD ENGR BR C PLAN DIV COUNSEL O civ
O Specs a ssr O oroTeca a =^T =a O ac^' ESTATE AraCE ELEC O STRUCTURAL O cowsT-o* oiv O PROG DEV OFC CMT COMMENTS ACTION BY NO.
3.2.4 page 5.
Since side slopes are specified, should also specify minimum acceptable side acceleration.
3.2.5 page 5.
In discussing possibility of liquefaction, there is implication of analysis (dynamic?) on tailings. Have they been done? Is this a Phase III study?
3.2.6 page 6.
Need discussion on "potentially active" fault also since this is criterion on page 1.
3.2.7 Is N.R.C. " active" criteria 10,000 years or 35,0007 SPD Form 342 1 Oct 75 Edition of 1 Jan 73 will be used until edenoted.
PAGE.
- 6. OF.
- 6. PAGES