ML20195G414
| ML20195G414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/10/1988 |
| From: | Matt Young NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Mclean R OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-B-0279, CON-FIN-B-279, REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8806270343 | |
| Download: ML20195G414 (4) | |
Text
' 's t Q
B0279/ APRIL MONTHLY /MHY/5 88 JUN 101068 Mr. R. B. McLean Energy Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O. Box X Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Dear Mr. McLean:
I have received and reviewed the April 1988 monthly progress report for FIN B0279. Werk completed to date is satisfactory. As mentioned in your report, we anticipate delivery of the Task 1 report entitled, "A Usar's Manual for the Contaminant Transport Module of the MIGRAT Code" by June 10, 1988.
We have completed the official agency review of the Task 6 report entitled, "Development of Riprap Design Criteria by Riprap Testing in Flumes: Phase II." Overall, the report presents a great deal of useful information regarding the data and analyses generated by the flume studies. This information will be very useful in developing design methodologies. The example problem and application presented in Section 7 were very helpful in sumarizing the data.
However, as a practical matter, it appears that the information and data could have been presented in a format that is easier to digest and understand. General sammaries should have been presented at the end of each chapter and at the end of the report. These sumaries should discuss the major conclusions reached in each area of the study M should provide some means of pulling all the data together in a broader manner. We suggest that the sumary be integrated into one or two pages and include a chart or table which discusses the major conclusions reached. The sumary should also direct the reader to the recomended method for computing or analyzing each particular variable, such as riprap size, Manning's 'n' value, or interstitial flow.
Mr. Ted Johnson and Dr. Richard Codell reviewed this document. Their specific coments are enclosed. Please contact Mr. Johns. on(FTS) 492-3440 if you have any questions regarding the comments on the CSU report. Please indicate in your next monthly report when you anticipate submitting the final camera-ready copy.
The action taken by this letter is considered to be within the scope of the current contract. No changes to cost or delivery of contracted products are authorized. Please contact me imediately if
~
8806270343 080610 r PDR WMRES EXIDRNL B-027'? PDR ,3
B0279/ APRIL MONTHLY /MHY/5 88
-you believe this letter would result in changes to costs or delivery of contract products prior to the expiration of FIN B0279.
Sincerely,
'?
Michael Young. Project Manager Technical Branch Division of low-Level Waste Management and Decowmissioning, NMSS cc: J. B. Cannon
Enclosure:
As stated Distribution:~
Central Files NMSS rf LLTB r.f MYoung JStarmer JSurmeier JGreeves RBangart TLJohnson RCodell, HLWM OFC :LLTB f NAME:MYoung/ec :
DATE:6' /n>/88 :
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
7 l
l ENCLOSURE 1 )
NRC STAFF SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON CSU REPORT ENTITLED:
"DEVELOPMENT OF 0F RIPRAP DESIGN CRITERIA BY RIPRAP TESTING IN FLUMES: PHASE II"
- 1. General, Throughout the Text - The word "effects" should replace "affects" several places in text. The abstract has an example where the word should be changed.
- 2. P.ge 74, Section 5.2, last line - The staff does not necessarily agree with the statement that "the data indicate that the measured and calculated velocities favorable (sic) compare over the wide range of slopes, rock sizes and rock layer thicknesses tested." It appears that the straight line drawn through the data in Figure 5.2 would be less than 45 degrees, indicating some correlation between velocity and another variable as well as porosity. This point was covered in a draft paper submitted to ASCE, authored by Dr. Richard Codell (NRC), suggesting that there might be an "effective porosity" different from the measured porosity. The staff suggests that a note be added sur:gsting that although there is generally a good fit in Figure 5.1, ta velocity does not appear to be strictly proportional to the inverse of porosity, and that other facters may be important.
- 3. Page 84, Section 6.2, Paragraph 1 - The first sentence of Connent 1 seems out of place, because at this point in the section the experiments with
! clayey soils have not been discussed. The staff concludes,that the report
! could be improved if this comment follows the discussion of the other ,
I experiments.
l 4. Page 86, Section 6.4, Table 6.2 - The staff suggests that another column l be added to Table 6.2, which provides the estimated values of qf from I equations such as 4.5.
- 5. Page 89, Section 6.6, line 2 - The staff suggests that "intact" replace "in tact."
- 6. Page 89, Section 6.6, Paragraph 3 - The staff notes that Test 52 did not test the gradual erosion by lesser storms and runoff over a period of time. Over a few tens or hundreds of years, the soil could be removed in such a manner that there would be channelization, leading to a situation that is worse than no cover at all. If this were to be the case, CSU's conclusion in this section would be misleading. Another factor which could lead to possible error in calculating runoff is the amount of water stored in the soil-filled matrix. The effect of storage on the runoff was not incorporated into the calculations because the flume experiments were conducted in steady-state where storage is not a factor. Storage is a
., s.
factor in the calculation of runoff from precipitation falling directly onto the embankment, and would lead to increased runoff. Calculations in NUREG-1263 demonstrated the increase in runoff when storage in the rock matrix was eliminattd.
The staff concludes that the report should discuss these factors when discussing soil-filled riprap layers.
- 7. General, Section 7 - The equations in this section are misnuntered. They should have started with "7".
- 8. Page 92, bection 7.1, Step 1 - The staff is unclear on the meaning of "tributary" in this case. If the re] ort discusses the runoff of water from rain falling directly on the emaankment, then some indication should be provided about how the user can calculate "q" from runoff. Perhaps the Phase I report should be referenced. Also, "tributary" should be either defined or modified to improve clarity.
- 9. Page 92, Section 7.1, Step 1 - The staff is unsure how the concentration factors "C " are derived, and believes that they ney have been empirically derived,akdthusphysicallyunsubstantiated. If so, the speculativa nature of the factors should be discussed.
- 10. Page 94, Section 7.1, last paragraph - The staff notes that Equation 4.1 should read Equation 1.1. Also, Equation 6.6 is dimensionally inconsistent. To resolve the inconsistency, the width of the flume needs to be incorporated into the equation, otherwise "q" , expressed as flow per unit width of the flume.
- 11. Page 96, Section 7.1, Step 5 - The staff notes that the procedure to ,
reduce the flow is inconsistent for use with a soil-filled matrix, because the rock mass would not conduct appreciable water. This possibility could be important in estimating the runoff from severe storms of short duration. Also, when applying the procedure for bare riprap, the staff questions whether sone consideration should be given to the infilling of the rock by windborne or waterborne sediments. The report should discuss the significance of sedimentation of particles into the rock pores by airborne or waterborne transport.
., . , - ,, - - , - . - - -- -- . ,n- --