ML20212J961
| ML20212J961 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/08/1986 |
| From: | Fliegel M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Hawkins E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212J942 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-99-311 NUDOCS 9910060059 | |
| Download: ML20212J961 (3) | |
Text
1
~
UNITED STATE 8
/.
'o,,
a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!ON n
r-wAsHiNoTow. o.,c. rosse g
l
.9
,-r
%%,,,,,/~
s MAY 8 1986
[
t& LUM 9
O p
MAY l 31986* j
^
d.M7 YEN W.
M4 1
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Edward F. Hawkins, URF0 FROM:
Myron H. Fliegel, Section Leader
,9
\\
Wa n,,
';fy{
WMGT i.
REVIEW 0F MONUMENT VALLEY ORAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PL
SUBJECT:
in accordance with your recent request, Ted Johnson has completed a review of the subject remedial action plan. Our surface water hydrology and erosion protection coments and questions are enclosed.
j In general, we conclude that the proposed remedial action plan is unacceptable Due to serious flooding and erosion conditions at this site, we consider that it may be difficult to provide a design which meets EPA standards and that serious consideration should be given to moving the pile to an alternate location.
427-4490.
If you have any questions, please contact Ted Johnson at W'
r
/
Myron H. Fliegel, Section Leader WMGT
Enclosure:
As Stated I
0F C A 200iET COPY DD i
}
~~
}
KUEPFER99-311 PDR
, y, *.
r
~
- I UNITED STATES o,,
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
wash NQToN,0.,C.20566 r-a n
[
9
[f MAY l 31986 t4ELEiWL
'9 MAY 8 1986
[]
/
l Nk' 7%%#b "
M4P J1 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Edward F. Hawkins, URF0
/.
/
.,[* * $p p
wy,,
FROM:
Myron H. Fliegel, Section Leader'
',g7 g
'd,
\\
00cna WMGT REVIEW 0F MONUMENT VALLEY DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLA
SUBJECT:
In accordance with your recent request, Ted Johnson has completed a review of the subject remedial action plan. Our surface water hydrology and erosion protection comments and questions are enclosed.
(
In general, we conclude that the proposed remedial action plan is unacceptable.
Due to serious flooding and erosion conditions at this site, we consider that it may be difficult to provide a design which meets EPA standards and that serious consideration should be given to moving the pile to an alternate location.
427-4490.
If you have any questions, please contact Ted Johnson at P
="
r
(
I Myron H. Fliegel, Section Leader WMGT i
Enclosure:
As Stated 05C A J0CIET COPY b\\\\
10060059 991004 R
~~
EPFER99-311 PDR i
9
$1 4' ' -
e s
2 i
h Monument Valley DRAP Surface Water Hydrology
< Questions and Coments lr Our review of surfacerwater hydrology and erosion protection aspects of 1.
the proposed design indicates that the site is located in an extremely flood-prone area and that the proposed erosion protection may not be adequate.
he southern and northern The apron and erosion protection along
{'*
(a) portions of the pile are designed with fairly steep slopes (in the direction of flow). It is doubtful that the proposed 4" PMF.
RegardlessO)rockcanresistvelocitiesproducedbyaf the size (average D5 for these portions of the apron will be very short and the PMF will likely be larger than possibly expected due to the steepness of the Your conclusion that there will be no significant flooding terrain.
impacts (page B-45) is not supported by any infomation regarding natural bedrock contours or flow velocities.
For the purposes of a draft RAP, information should be provided to Such infomation document the ability of the apron to resist a PMF.
should include (1) apron width, shape, and cross-sections, including location of bedrock; (2) apron slope (in the direction of flow);
(3)drainagearea(s);(4)PMFpeakflow(s);(5)PMFvelocitiesat various points along the apron; (6) riprap and riprap toe requirements; (7) details of exit of ditch to natural topography, including depths
(
to bedrock at the exit point; and (8) topographic maps and cross-sections of the area showing washes, channels, and design features.
The apron and erosion protection along the eastern portion of the (b) pile should be designed to resist a PMF in Cane Valley Wash, Geomorphic assuming that a shift in the main channel occurs.
evidence indicates that there is a potential for major channel charles in the alluvial floodplain. We do not agree that the proposed design, which allows for undercutting of the rock toe and rock ar m (with subsequent collapse), is acceptable, particularly if it is The erosion possible to key the erosion protection into bedrock.
protection should be designed assuming that the altered channel is very close to the pile, unless it can be conclusively documented that The erosion protection such a phenomena could not reasonably occur.
should be sufficient to withstand PNF channel velocities and should b l
l keyed into bedrock, if possible.
q u
a i
i HAWKINS/MEM0/TJ/86/05/05
- \\
(c) The erosion protection for the east side (and possibly the south side) of the pile should also be designed to resist flooding and lateral erosion in the small tributaries which parallel and discharge to Cane Valley Wa',n.
The information provided is not sufficient to citablish what effects these steep washes will have on the pile.
In order to document the effects of these channels, it will be necessary to provide design information similar to that requested in 1(a),
f above. Addition' ally, the potential effects of lateral erosion and headcutting for these channels may need to be considered, depending j
on velocities and bedrock elevations.
p (d) The erosion protection for the west side of the pile may need to be designed to withstand flooding and erosion since it appears that significant potential exists for latera1 erosion and/or gullying.
Overall, the NR(, staff concludes a significant amount of additional documentation and design changes may be needed in order to demonstrate the acceptability of the site remedial action design. Because of the site location in a floodplain at the base of steep, highly-eroded slopes and the potential for significant geomorphic changes to' occur, it is likely that the erosion protection design will require significant modifications, which may prove to be very costly to implement and, in fact, may be very difficult to design. We also conclude that strong consideration should be given to moving the pile to a more stable location, especially in light of the measures that will be needed to provide adequate flood protection.
2.
The NRC staff does not necessarily agree with the rock durability criteria outlined in DOE's Technical Approach Document (TAD), and does not agree that these criteria are acceptable.
In general, the criteria in the TAD are much less stringent than other normally acceptable criteria, such as the USBR criteria for good-quality rock. However, we do agree that oversizing may be a viable alternative and can only be evaluated af ter additional durability tests are performed.
Based on the preliminary data provided it does not appear that the rock from the Alhambra Rock source will meet USBR criteria for even poor-quality rock. We suggest tha.t additional efforts be made to locate rock of better quality.
If such rock cannot be found, DOE should indicate the methods and criteria that will be used to oversize the poor-quality rock that is available.
'C
- WMGT
- WMGT
.ME :TJohsnon
- MFliegel TE :86/05/
- 86/05/