ML20141H293
| ML20141H293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/09/1985 |
| From: | Greeves J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Higginbotham L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141H264 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-58 NUDOCS 8601130517 | |
| Download: ML20141H293 (3) | |
Text
.. 3',c ISTRIBUTION: '
WM Reccid File WU Pnut3L.
D00ict k._._.
4 MEG r/f DEC 9 6 POL. /
REBrowning
,N ell'
/"'/ m5 tpa -
JGreeves
. Dis!ributilnr f
TJohnson
~
^
j MTokar
,r
@iufn to WM. 623 3Sj~"
MNataraja MEMORANDUM FOR:
Leo B. Higginbotham', Chidf~
BJagannath Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery SSymkowski
' Projects Branch, WM HMiller
.JOBunting FROM:
~ John T. Greeves, Chief
/20/(
Engineering Branch, WM
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F ATTACHMENT NO.1 TO THE SHI) ROCK REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
REFERENCE:
, Modifications to the R:: medial Action Plan
-and Site Conceptual Design for Stabilization of the
- Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Site at Shiprock, New Mexico, UMTRA-DOE-AL-0505040039, October, 1985 i
LIn response to the Technical Assistance Request-(WM85-1023), the modifications to the Remedial Action-Plan for the Shiprock site have been reviewed for compliance with the requirements.in 40 CFR Part 192. Several of the changes
-proposed in.the above referenced modifications document are being revised and are not finalized yet. However, the proposed changes have been reviewed and.
WMEG agrees to'them in principle pending future concurrence by'the NRC on the final revisions or expected changes mentioned in the review connents. The -
1 review comments are presented in the attachment.
This review was performed by Dr. Banad Jagannath, and he may be contacted on extension 74629.
G u
v John T. Greeves, Chief Engineering Branch, WM
Attachment:
As stated w%
~
c.<wnw" " n pNf' 8601130517 851209 PDR WASTE WM-58 PDR 1
GC
- WMGT
.0FC : WMEG WMEG g :
s WME 4
___:________2..:______
l._____:-__..A
- _____:... h__ _h/cj SSmykowski :
- NAME :BJagannat MNatara a : MTokar
- g Gmeves :TLhnsed
- _____
- _____6 / 85 it/q/8f:
'DATE : 12/
12/4 /85 :
12/ /85 :
12//o/85 :
12/A.V85 :
L_
E 5
BJ/WM-58/ ENCL Geotechnical Review of Attachment No. 1, Modifications to the Remedial Action Plan and Site Conceptual Design
.for Stabilization of the Inactive Uranium Mill. Tailings Site at Shiprock, New Mexico by: Banad Jagannath, WMEG
~ The, Remedial Action Plan-(RAP) and Site Conceptual Design for Stabilization of the_ Inactive-Uranium Mill Tailings Site at.Shiprock, New Mexico was concurred on' by NRC.(U.S. DOE Agreement No. DE-FC04-83AL16258, Appendix B) on April 11,
'1985. :The DOE has. submitted modifications to the above document (RAP). These
. proposed modifications have been reviewed for compliance with the requirements a.
E in 40.CFR Part 192. Review comments on the proposed changes are as follows.
1.
- Change No.'1: Construct a single tailings embankment with a single crest-and a top slope of 2 to 4 percent instead ~of two adjoining embankments p
of different heights separated by a swale.
The NRC agrees in principle with the proposed change. However, it is sour understanding that the design of the ditches surrounding the proposed
~ ingle pile of the tailings is being revised; this may result in changes 0
s e
'to the geometry of the tailings pile. The NRC would'like to review the
- ~
- final configuration of the tailings pile and surrounding ditches prior-to l
granting concurrence to this change.
.2.
.Cha.1ge No.'2: Cut the escarpment face to a 2(H):1(v) slope from a bench at elevation 4,930. Place an erosion protection layer over the cut slope.
^
The NRC agrees in principle with the proposed change. However, it_is our understanding'that the material proposed in Dwg SHP-PS-10-0021,' Rev 0, for. protection of the escarpment slope ~against erosion is being revised.
.l This final revision to the RAP should be concurred in by-the NRC.
I 3.
~ Change No. 4:
Change material-to be placed as radon barrier from silty
. sand to sandy silt, and change-erosion protection overlying the radon barrier from pit-run rock to select rock and select bedding material.
I The NRC. agrees in-principle to use sandy silt as radon barrier material, i
and to use select rock and select ledding material instead of pit-run rock for erosion protection. However, the thickness of-the radon barrier and i
details of the erosion protection have not been finalized, and these
~ items should be. concurred by the NRC.
('
I o
,w
~. -
BJ/WM-58/ ENCL Changing the radon barrier material from silty sand to sandy silt in the RAP document has been left out in the following places.
o Table E.6.2, Page E Pile cover material is indicated to be silty sand.
o Page 13 of Attachment A to Appendix E, Section 111,A, Paragraph 2 -
The cover material is described to be a silty sandy soil. The description of the soil is inconsistent with the proposed change.
o Table 2.3, Page 14 of Attachment A to Appendix E,Section III A -
radon barrier material is described as silty sand. The description of the soil is inconsistent with the proposed change.
o Page 15 of Attachment A to Appendix E,Section IV, Paragraph 1, Line 2 - Radon barrier material is described as silty sandy soil.
The descriptions of the soil is inconsistent with the proposed
- change, o
Table 10.1, Page 75 of Attachment A to Appendix E.
Identification of the cover material (gravelly sand, silty sand) is inconsistent with the proposed change, o
Figure 10.2, Page 73 of Attachment A to Appendix E - Description of radon barrier (soil No. 6) is inconsistent with the proposed change.
4.
Change No. 5:
Require that rock to be used for erosion protection meet specific gravity and absorption requirements.
The NRC concurs with the proposed change.
N N A
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _