ML20138D817
| ML20138D817 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/06/1985 |
| From: | Greeves J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Higginbotham L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-41 NUDOCS 8510240460 | |
| Download: ML20138D817 (5) | |
Text
5, 3
4'W,
Distfibution: U!!-35724
' Mi' ~ >
H'1 file: WN 41 /
SEP 0 61985 W!!EG r/f
(
friSS r/f "i
REr3rowning v
hM-41/SS/85/9/4/0 MJ3 ell 4"(.
-1_
JTSreeves
\\A
!iSNataraja
- //,
- .1 SSmykowski HJ!1 iller i
'i MEMORANDUM FOR:
Leo B. Higginbotham, Chief J0 Bunting
.)/
Low-Level Waste and Uranium DGillen Recovery Projects Branch LHigginbotham Division of Waste Management PDR
-FROM:
John T. Greeves, Chief Engineering Branch W_
Division of Waste Management i
SUBJECT:
WMEG REVIEW 0F THE CLIVE REMEDIAL ACTION INSPECTION PLAN
.f/
As per-your Technical Assistance Request (TAR #85062) of August 14, 1985, we
-have reviewed the subject Inspection Plan for the construction of Clive
~
remedial action. The work performed for the requested technical assistance has consisted of reviewing items pertaining only to the geotechnical engineering construction _ activities of.the proposed Remedial Action Plan at this site and providing comments as attached.
Any qu'estions regarding this~ review shculd be directed to Steve Smykowski of my staff'at-x74109.
tA.sg Ang l
e John T. Greeves, Chief I
C Engineering Branch h.q Division of Waste Management
',. c-x e
Enclosure:
-As stated vi!,1 R rd Fi!e Wi.! Prcicct u*
Da Let Ho.
PDR V
$f LPilR._
W Distribution:
- (Retura to 3M, 6N 55')
r 8510240460'850906 PDR WASTE WM-41 PDR l0FC :KMEG WM G ' ___:WMEG f___..:____________:.._________:____________:_______...
,NAME :SSmyk 1:Jec MS ja:J renves DATE:09/6/85
- 09/td./85
- 09/j/85 e
~r-
~w
-~
r--
-r vv-~
~m-----,
m
-eew-r-~~-,---
,w
-p----e
.,+w,--.--
w-e rw~-p.
g
)-
'~
SEP 0g 19g5 1 Review of Draft Remedial Action Inspection Plan i
Clive UMTRA Site by Engineering Branch, WM CHAPTER 2 - TESTING AND INSPECTION Section 6.1, Field Density Control, Page 2 1.
Section 6.1.1 - Since the Troxler Nuclear Densometer is being used in radiation areas, it will require frequent calibration. The RAIP should specify the frequency (as per Section 6.7.4 of Chapter 5) for which sand cone tests will be used to confirm the results of the Troxler Nuclear Densometer rather than stating "when deemed necessary".
2.
Section 6.1.2. - The RAIP should additionally specify that a minimum of P_
density tests be performed per day when appreciable material is placed (in excess of 150 cubic yards) and that a minimum of one test be performed per lift and per every full shift of compaction operations.
3.
Section 6.1.3 - The RAIP states that a Proctor test will be run for every 20,000 cubic yards of contaminated material placed and for'a' minimum of every 20,000 cubic yards of radon barria" material placed. However, the Staff Technical Position [Ref. 1] ree s :nds that " supplementary laboratory compaction curves (base.1 e nplete Proctor tests) should be obtained, approximately one for zv fc r 3r 15 field tests, depending on the variability of materials."
15is' wasponds to a minimum of one complete test per 10,000-15,000 cubic yards of contaminated material placed and one complete test per 5,000-7,500 cubic yards of radon barrier material placed based on the STP recommendation for field density test frequencies. The STP also recommends that one-point Proctor tests should be-performed more frequently, and that whenever different material types are encountered, a complete Proctor test should be performed for each material type.
It is recomended that the frequencies of Proctor tests be increased such that they are consistent with the Staff Technical Position.
In addition, the RAIP should specify whether one-point Proctor tests or complete Proctor tests will be performed.
Section 6.2, Gradation Testing, Pages 2-3 1.
Section 6.2.1 - This specification should also state that at least one gradation test be performed for each day of sig'nificant material placement l
l
^I SEP 0 6 L3a5
. (in excess of 150 cubic yards) for all materials other than contaminated material (as per STP).,
2.
Section 6.2.3 - The RAIP states that " Gradation tests will be done on material that is taken from material that is 'in place' on the Clive site."
If the material coes not meet gradation specifications, then this "in place" material would need to be removed or reblended so that material that meets the specifications can be placed. Gradation tests on the soil and rock cover materials should be performed during placement rather than after the material has been placed to avoid the potential for removal of material.
Section 6.3, Soil Classification, Page 3 1.
The classification testing requirements should be based on a frequency criterion rather than "whenever called for by the engineer or the inspector."
Section 6.4, Other Testing, Page 3-4 1.
Section 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 - These sections should further state that at least one series of Atterberg Limits tests should be performed for each day of significant radon barrier material placed (in excess of 150 cubic Lyards).
2.
Section 6.4.3 - Specific Gravity and Absorption tests on rock erosion barrier material will be run "once a month and whenever they are deemed necessary." The requirement for these tests should be specified by the volume of material placed rather than on a time basis. The recommended frequency of testing should be consistent with that as specified for the soundness and abrasion tests.
3.
Section 6.4.4 and 6.4.6 - These sections indicate test frequencies of one test for every 120,000 square feet of rock erosion barrier material placed. The RAIP should also specify that a minimum of three tests equally spaced throughout rock placement should be performed for each type of riprap.
Furthermore, the RAIP indicates that the material to be tested will come from material that is already "in place".
For the same reason as identified in comment 2, Chapter 2, Section 6.2, the tests should be performed on the material' before placement rather than after the material has been placed.
l
'$EP_Of _1985 Section 6.5 Inspection, Pages 4-5 1.
Section 6.5.1 - The RAIP states that " Inspection shall be performed to assure that all excavation is done according to the approved plans and specifications."
If " excavation" as used in this section also applies to
_the Vitro site, then a statement should be made requiring verification by 4
the H.P. supervisor that all contaminated materials have been excavated.
4.
Section 6.5.2 - Reference to the 1-foot maximum lift depth should be clarified to indicate whether this is the loose or compacted lift thickness.
3.
-Section 6.5.3 - It is recommended that the first sentence of this section be modified to read as follows:
" Inspection of the radon barrier material will be performed to assure that the material is placed in accordance with the specifications."
Section 7.0, Records, Pages 5-6 1.
Section 7.1 - This section states that " Inspectors will be on-site whenever.there is progress being made on the project."
It is recommended that the word " progress" be better defined.
2.
Section 7.1 - This section should include a statement which requires that
.the status of inspection and testing be identified by charts, as-builts, or periodic status reports.
CHAPTER S - CONTROL OF MEASURING AND TEST EQUIPMENT Section 6.0, Procedure, Pages 1-4 1.
Section 6.3.2.4 - The results of the calibration should also include the required accuracy for the instrument that is being calibrated.
2.
Section 6.7.4 - This section states that "At least 10 sand cone tests will be performed when tailings are initially placed."
It is not clear what
" initially placed" is intended to mean (i.e. the first day of placement,
'the first lift of material, etc.)..It is recommended that this statement be clarified.
. ~...
. -., - _. - -. _.,. _ -.. _ ~.
)
.e SEP 0g mg o
1 1 l
CHAPTER 6 - NONCONFORMANCE AND CORRECTIVE ACTION Section 6.3, Corrective Action, Page 3 Section 6.3.4 - The RAIP states that if "the nonconformance is of a serious nature it may be necessary to inform the DOE UMTRA Project Office. This contact may result in approval and/or suggestions from the DOE." Clarification c
of this statement is necessary so that it is clear what the DOE would be approving.
.