ML20138A298
| ML20138A298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/25/1985 |
| From: | Johnson T NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Martin D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-58 NUDOCS 8512110645 | |
| Download: ML20138A298 (2) | |
Text
'.
\\
DISTRIBUTION NM-5 WM Record Fife WM Projectb.___WM sf<
4 arson Qocket No.
WMGT rf TJohnson & rf RDR /
NMSS rf J Valdes RBrowning MWeber (ppg-MBell DSmith, URF0
"I 2 2 ' "
Distribution:
--I
~ ~ MKnapp EHawkins, URF0 i
MFliegel
- ' DMartin, LU
~
(Return to WM,623-SS)
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Dan Martin, WMLU FROM:
T.L. Johnson, WMGT
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
- SHIPROCK UMTRAP SITE On October 31, 1985, a meeting was held at the URF0 office in Denver, Colorado.
Attendees were:
T. Johnson NRC/WMGT E. Hawkins NRC/URF0 G. Thiers Morrison-Knudson, Inc.
W. Lin Morrison-Knudson, Inc.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a new design concept that the remedial action contractor (RAC) proposed to develop for the Shiprock, NM UMTRAP site. The new design concept was developed to respond to open items and previous NRC staff concerns regarding the design of erosion protection at this site.
In general, the proposed design changes included enlarging and flattening the slopes of the diversion ditches.
In an attempt to provide a design which could utilize readily-available rock, RAC acted on the suggestions of the NRC staff to modify the ditches to reduce velocities in the ditches as much as possible.
The following agreements were reached during our discussions of the proposed plan:
1.
NRC agreed that the proposed design concept was workable, subject to NRC's detailed review of calculations and design features. RAC agreed to submit this information as soon as possible.
2.
RAC agreed that channel bends and junctions would be carefully examined and that calculations and final drawings would be sent to NRC as soon as possible.
3.
NRC agreed to, perform a deteiled review of the filled-in arroyo design which has been submitted to NRC.
4.
RAC agreed to take into consideration the re-design of the outfall at the downstream end of the proposed diversion ditches.
8512110645 851125 PDR WASTE WM-58 PDR l
OFC :WMGT
- WMGT L____:____________:____________:____________:
NAME :TJohnson;hsk:MFliegel L____:____________:____________:____________:____________:____________:____________:.__________
l DATE :85/11/
- 85/11/
l l
l
.( 1.s TJ/85/11/06
_2-5.
RAC agreed to send NRC the reference which was utilized to calculate shear stress coefficients that were used in the redesign of the ditches.
6.
RAC agreed that the larger rock that will be processed during the production of other riprap will be stockpiled and saved for use in the most critical ditch areas.
As a separate issue, RAC provided URF0 with a copy of the Phase II construction documents, which were requested by URF0 in 02270-3) previous meetings.Our examination of these documents indicated (page that the D riprap size for the sn sides of the pile will be at least four inches, and wouTd probably average about 5 inches; previous specifications called for a minimum D f 3 inches on 40 the sides, which was judged by the NRC staff to b' too small t5 meet EPA standards.
Based on independent calculations, the NRC staff has concluded that a D riprap size of 4 inches is acceptable. Duringthismeeting,weindicatbto RAC that this proposed riprap for the sides of the pile is acceptable if it was also documented that differential settlement was either negligible or could be mitigated by various engineering measures.
RAC agreed to provide this documentation for NRC review and approval as soon as possible.
/C T. Johnson, WMGT A
_ _ :._ __ _ _.T f
)FC :
gg WG J g._: ___________:____________:.____________:
. _ _ _ _ : _ _. 7.,
(AME : TJohnson.dl MFliegel
.____:____________:__________.4:___._______:____..______.____________.____________.__________.
) ATE :85/11/Sf 85/11/
<