ML20205F569
| ML20205F569 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/15/1985 |
| From: | Higginbotham L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Themelis J ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-58 NUDOCS 8511120288 | |
| Download: ML20205F569 (2) | |
Text
"
041fd -
eg WM Record E!e00T 151985 Project WM58/
/85/10/15 Docket
_D4fribythm 5--,- -.., CSSS).D E@t b Wii g
Mr. John G. Themelis, Project Manager Distribution:
UMTRA Project Office
/WM58 s/f Ted Johnson U.S. Department of Energy WMLU r/f J0 Bunting Post Office Box 5400 NMSS s/f MJ Bell Albuquerque, New Mexico 87115 DM Gillen RE Browning DE Martin Q
Dear Mr. Themelis:
M Fliegel We have completed a preliminary review of the information provided in your letter of September 6,1985, that responded in part to previous NRC comments regarding erosion protection design at the Shiprock, New Mexico 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 criteric. Our review of the adequacy of the erosion protection cannot begin until this additional information is received.
An itemized list of information needs is provided in the enclosure. Dave Ball of your staff has already been informed of these information needs, and the list has been telecopied to the RAC in order to speed the review process.
Should you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me or Daniel Gillen of my staff.
Sincerely, mww Leo B.H m Leo B. Higginbotham, Chief Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated 8511120288 851015 PDR WASTE WPf-58 ppg 0FC :WMLU:rb
- WML WM 4.____::
- DEMaiNn NAME :DM Gi en ginbotham DATE :85/10/i5
- 85/10/6
- 85/10/t{
,-p
=
,~
~
,--,-~,c,,,
c OCT 15 G85 ENCLOSURE REVIEW 0F DOE RESPONSE TO NRC COMMENTS ON SHIPROCK EROSION PROTECTION DESIGN by Geotechnical Branch, Division of Waste Management Request for additional information 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 performed 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 determine that a reasonable design has been identified, and (c) to determine that other designs are also clearly impractical.
These analyses are needed to show that other designs have been analyzed and that such designs cannot be practically implemented.
4 Provide inforration 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.
i l
l
-