ML20138G989
| ML20138G989 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/10/1985 |
| From: | Gillen D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Martin D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-58 NUDOCS 8510280153 | |
| Download: ML20138G989 (4) | |
Text
,
NI10 DMG/85/10/10/2 7933 hM-6 g
yn.iPmicct_
V,'M kt0;d N8 Dxkc! Nob Distribution:
pga M ______.- - A s/f S Smykowski WMLU r/f Ted Johnson-tpg NMSS s/f M Fliegel Di; M'0"'t
-F
~-
J0 Bunting D. Smith, URF0 MJ Bell E Hawkins, URF0 7']..-
RE Browning P. Garcia. URF0 MEMORANDUk,FOR:iif4;?./,in h> _..
LB Higginbotham Dan E. Martin, WMLU L
FROM:
Daniel M. Gillen, WMLU
SUBJECT:
ON. SITE CONSTRUCTION REVIEW; SHIPROCK VMTRA PROJECT Enclosed for your information is an on-site construction review report detailing the results of the review performed at the Shiprock site on October 1, 1985. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding, two copies of this report will be forwarded to DOE.
In addition, a copy will be sent to the Navajo EPA as requested by Mr. P. Charlie during the review.
d Daniel M. Gillen, WMLU
Enclosure:
As stated 8510200153 851010 PDR WASTE pg wn-Se
@FC :WMLU:rb 0____:__...Qg(s.:____.______:____________:_______...__.____________...___....__....____.__
.NAME :DM Gillen
- g. __:____________:___ _____...:___.._____..:_________....____________.____________..___.._____
DATE' :85/10/ s o I
1 2
i SHIPROCK ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION REVIEW i
DATE:
October 1, 1985 I
LOCATION:
Shiprock, New Mexico PARTICIPANTS:
NRC DOE / TAC RAC NAVAJO EPA D. Gillen K. Carlson D. Summers P. Charlie P. Garcia, (URF0)
R. Bearden P. Cate E. Hawkins, (URF0)
F. Davis J. Roesch PURPOSE:
a To conduct a review of construction activities at the Shiprock UMTRA Project for assessment of whether the quality control program is functioning in a manner that assures compliance with the RAP and the EPA standards.
i ENTRANCE INTERVIEW j
Following an introduction of all participants, the NRC staff indicated that the day's review would consist of a tour of the site, observation of testing, review of records, and an exit interview.
Frank Davis, the RAC site manager, described the status of remedial action construction and the activities presently in progress, and indicated that he and his QA supervisor (J. Roesch) i would be available to accompany the NRC staff on the site tour.
SITE TOUR:
The RAC personnel conducted the NRC representatives and the other participants on a tour of the site. Activities observed include the following major work i
areas:
1.
Pre-wetting of the radon barrier borr]w area south of the tailings by means of water guns spraying within a diked area.
l 2.
Stripping of the topsoil in the radon barrier borrow area.
3.
Excavation of sands and slimes tailings from the north side of the upper tailings pile.
4.
Placement and compaction of silty sand tailings in an area along the east side of the tailings.
j 5.
Placement and compaction of slimes in a low area between the upper and lower piles l
_ _ _ _ _ _, _ _. _ _ _ - _ _ - _. _. _ _ _.. _ _.., _.... ~. -. -.. -., _ _.. _ -
3 Other aspects of the project that were observed include the following:
1.
A large excavated area of contaminated material near the southwest corner of the pile; The excavated material has been placed and compacted in the pile and the excavation is awaiting backfill.
2.
The lined temporary runoff retention pond; The pond is lined on the bottom with Mancos shale and on the sides with PVC.
3.
The PVC lined temporary ditches to convey site runoff to the pond.
4.
The rock borrow area and the arroyos to the east of the pile; No work has begun in these areas, but rock processing is expected to begin in 2-4 weeks.
TESTING OBSERVATIONS:
During the site review, the staff observed quality control personnel during their performance of field moisture / density testing of relocated tailings material. A nuclear density test and a comparison sand cone density test were both performed on silty-sand tailings being placed on the east side of the pile. The quality control personnel appear knowledgeable in all facets of their testing and inspection duties, and followed appropriate procedures in performing the testing observed.
It was noted that the results of the density tests met the specifications, but the moisture was slightly above the specified upper moisture content limit.
RECORD REVIEW:
The staff selectively reviewr.d testing and daily inspection records and, with the exception of the issue detailed below in the exit interview section, found them to be complete and to verify performance of construction ir, accordance with applicable specifications.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES FROM PREVIOUS SITE-REVIEW:
Since this wet the first NRC construction review conducted at the Shiprock site, there were no previous issues to be resolved.
EXIT INTERVIEW:
Prior to leaving the site, the NRC staff met with DOE, TAC and RAC personnel to discuss issues and observations identified during the site review. The only items are as follows:
ISSUE:
A review of the testing records indicated that of the more than 300 moisture / density tests performed to date, at least two-thirds of the tests resulted in moisture contents which deviated from the l
i 4
4 I
specifications.
The specifications call for relocated tailings and contaminated material to be compacted at moisture contents between optimum and 2% below optimum. This large number of nonconformances had not been reported, nor were corrective measures taken. The DOE must qualitatively and quantitatively assess this nonconformance and provide proposed corrective action and resolution of this issue to the NRC for review.
OBSERVATION:
During the site visit, the NRC personnel were informed that processing of rock from the proposed site borrow area would begin in about 2a weeks.
Information that was recently submitted in response to NRC comments on erosion protection design indicates that compliance with the NRC comments would result in a significant cost increase. Early indications from NRC's review of this information are that additional justification of the proposed design (including alternatives considered) is necessary to complete the review. The NRC, DOE and RAC need to work quickly toward resolution of this issue given tne potential impact on the construction schedule, a
l 1
i f
I
. _