ML20138G934
| ML20138G934 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/07/1985 |
| From: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Higginbotham L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-58 TAC-L04742, TAC-L4742, NUDOCS 8510280095 | |
| Download: ML20138G934 (2) | |
Text
[WM-58sfkSTRIBUTION NMSS rf WMGT rf 007 0 7 iU TJohnson & rf TJ/85/10/01 MFliegel LO M '
~
~
JBunt ng MBell MEMORANDUM FOR: Leo B. Higginbotham, Chief Low-Level Waste and Uranium 9>
Recovery Projects Branch yJ,1 R::crd file YC N4 '
~
Division of Waste Management D:M Ha L
~
p g a N___._-
FROM:
Malcolm R. Knapp, Chief LPDR _ -
Geotechnical Branch Division of Waste Management a W:' - -
))]
REVIEW 0FSHTHCKREVISEDER0$IODR0[i,0,c.mECTIfMc
-] Q
~
SUBJECT:
- - ~
,3 In accordance with your request (TAC # LO4742), we have completed a preliminary review of the information provided by DOE in response to previous NRC comments regarding erosion protection design at the Shiprock, N.M. site.
Based on this review, we conclude that insufficient information has been provided (1) to substantiate DOE's claim that the cost of providing erosion protection for the PMF is clearly excessive and (2) to substantiate that the proposed design will meet EPA criteria. Our review of the adequacy of the erosion protection cannot begin until this additional information is received. Our comments and questions are enclosed.
This review was performed by Ted Johnson.
If you have any questions, he may be reached at x74490.
Malcolm R. Knapp, Chief Geotechnical Branch Division of Waste Management
Enclosure:
As stated 8510280095 851007 PDR WASTE PDR WM-58
,, )
1 /
. {
DFC :WMGT
- WL9T If
- WMGT NAME :T o
- MFlie
- MKnapp
_____: _____ 1____:_
__ gel 3 ATE:85/10/0j
- 85/10/]
- 85/10/
~
TJ/85/10/01 1.
Provide copies of any revised drawings and cross-sections which show the design changes that were made and other designs that were considered.
It is not clear exactly what changes., if any, have been made, particularly with regard to channel curvatures and transitions.
2.
Provide supporting hydraulic calculations which were perfomed in the design of the erosion protection.
These calculations are needed to justify any increases or decreases in rock size or layer thickness.
3.
Provide information and analyses regarding the various designs (of varying slopes, alignments, and configuration, etc.) which were analyzed (a) to determine the difficulties in designing for the PMF (b) to detennine that a reasonable design has been identified, and (c) to detennine that all other designs are also clear?y impractical. These analyses are needed to show that other designs have been analyzed and that such designs cannot be practically implemented.
4.
Provide information regarding the erosion protection requirements and costs associated with the above designs and alternative rock sources, locations, and rock types that were considered. This is needed to justify that alternate rock sources are either too expensive or are not of adequate durability.
5.
Provide further information and analyses which justify the ability of the design to satisfy EPA requirements, particularly when the likelihood of occurrence of the selected design flood during a 200 - 1000 year period is very great. Additionally, provide further information regarding the analyses and logic which justify the reduction in flood criteria, particularly the confidence levels associated with protecting the site from a flood that was statistically derived from a limited data base.
l i
l l :WMGT
- WMGT
- WMGT h..: __________ :__....___...:.___________:..._________.____________:...._________:._____...__
IE :TJ;hnson
- MFliegel
- MKnapp f__:_______...__: ___________:__....______:_..________.____________.__________...___________
IE :85/10/01
- 85/10/
- 85/10/
l
-.-