ML20216B719
| ML20216B719 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/27/1998 |
| From: | Joseph Holonich NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Rael G ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| REF-WM-66 NUDOCS 9803130163 | |
| Download: ML20216B719 (9) | |
Text
i g
f cp l0 l'
February 27, 1998 Mr. George Rael, Director U.S.. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office ERD /UMTRA P.O. Box 5400 l
Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400
SUBJECT:
CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROBLEM RESOLUTION REVISION NUMBERS 20, 22,23, AND 24 FOR THE NATURITA DISPOSAL SITE
Dear Mr. Rael:
By letter dated November 14,1997, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) transmitted l
. Construction Phase Problem Resolution Revision (CRR) Numbers 20,22,23, and 24 for the l
Naturita, Colorado, Upper Burbank disposal site to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for l
review and approval. Based on its review of the information provided by DOE, the NRC staff has concluded that the subject CRRs, as proposed, are acceptable.
The proposed revisions relate to Specification 02278 and Drawing Numbers NAT-DS-10-1791, NAT-DS-10-1789, and NAT-DS-10-1797. The staff's review is documented in the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report. If you have any questions conceming this letter or the enclosure, l
please contact the NRC Project Manager, Robert Carlson, at (301) 415-8165.
Sincerely, i
i
[0riginalsignedby]
Joesph J. Holonich, Chief 1
Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety -
and Safeguards
/
Enclosure:
As stated b
[f[,
cc:
B.- Cornish, DOE Alb 8
I F. Bosiljevac, DOE Alb
- E. Artiglia, TAC Alb q
DISTRIBUTION w/ Encl.:
File Chter NMSS r/f URB r/f CNWRA ACNW PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION w/o Encl.: CAbrams MLayton RCarlson MFederline DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\MWH\\NAT-PIDS.LTR
- See previous concurrence _
OFC URB
- URB
- E UR$/
h NAME MHaque DGillen JH hich OhfM8 DATE 02/20/98 02/25/98 H
OFFICIAL RECDRD COPY 9903130163 990227 I~
P NlM',UR.R,,
l m. waste
.4
l l
i I~
. Mr. George Rael, Director U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office ERD /UMTRA P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400
SUBJECT:
CRR NUMBERS 20,22,23, AND 24 FOR THE NATURITA DISPOSAL SITE Daar Mr. Rael:
By letter dated November 14,1997, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) transmitted Construction Phase Problem Resolution Revision (CRR) Numbers 20,22,23, and 24, for the Naturita, Colorado, Upper Burbank disposal site to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for review and approval. Ba,,ed on its review of the information provided by DOE, the NRC staff has concluded that the subject CRRs, as proposed, are acceptable.
The proposed revisions relate to Specification 02278, and Drawing Numbers NAT-DS-10-1791, NAT-DS-10-1789, and NAT-DS-10-1797. The staff's review is documented in the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report. If you have any questions concerning this letter or the enclosure, please contact the NRC Project Manager, Robert Carlson, at (301) 415-8165.
Sincerely, Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch j
Division of Waste Management i
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
{
and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated cc: B. Cornish, DOE Alb F. Bosiljevac, DOE Alb E. Artiglia, TAC Alb i
DISTRIBUTION w/ Encl.:
File Center NMSS r/f URB r/f CNWRA ACNW PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION w/o Encl.:
CAbrams MLayton RCarlson MFederline DOCUMENT NAME: S:\\DWM\\ URB \\MWH\\NAT-PIDS.LTR j
OFC URB URB 1 /.
6 URB NAME MHaque d.W DGillk JHolonich DATE 02/M98 02//[/98 8
02/ /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY j
f I
Dep:rtm:nt of En:rgy l
l Albuquerque Operations Office P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-5400 M V 1 4 199h Mr. Robert Carir.,n Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards MS-T7J9 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738
Dear Mr. Carlson:
Enclosed are copies of CRRs numbered 20 through 24 pertaining to the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project site at Naturita, Colorado. CRR No. 20 allows Type A rock to be used as bedding in the interceptor channel. CRR No. 21 involves well head protection and/or the extension of existing monitor wells near the disposal cell. CRRs No. 22 and 23 amend the erosion protection specification, Section 02278, to clarify the testing of small gradation materials and provide a method for the field selection of oversized sandstone. CRR No. 24 changes specification Section 02278 to allow up to 50 percent of the rock to have a minimum dimension less than one-third of the maximum.
Please call me at 505-845-5654 if you have any questions.
Sincerely, b
p Robert E. Cornish Naturita Site Manager Environmental Restoration Division Enclosures cc w/o enclosures:
C. Abrams, NRC l
l e'q m w w w g9
l i
Page 1 of 2 UPPER BURBANK DISPOSAL SITE CONSTRUCTION PIIASE PROBLEM RESOLUTION FORM RESOLUTION / REVISION No. 20 Date: Aucust 18.1997 Commentor: R. Waddincton Organization: MK-Fercuson Drawing: NAT-DS-10-1791 Specification: N/A Section: N/A Problem (Continue on next page if more space is needed):
f Amount of Type A rock produced exceeds reauirement due to increase in cell volume and decrease in ton surface area. Some of excess rock could be used as beddine in the Interceptor Channel. See filter criteria compatibility check next pace.
Solution (Provide a brief discussion of rationale including references):
6"o(c.fn Add Note 6 to Dwe. NAT-DS-10-1 91statine that Tvne A rock may be used in place of beddine in areas of the Intercentor Channel where beddine is reauired.
Issue revised Drawine NAT-DS-10-1791. Rev. 2.
Umetco Project Manageb, Date: 6-/9'37 u
Date: 8 -/6 '77 Umetco Design MinC Umetco QA Manage
/
Date: 8 * /8
- 7-MK-F Site Mana
-4 r.--
Date: 8
/ !97 MK-F Construction Engi
//01Q Date:
T/
MK-F Q/A Manager 4~.e.W. b 4To Date: 8 2//f 7
/
l Approved Disapproved Approved as Noted Criteria Change?
Yes XX No (if yes, DOE approval needed)
DOE Site Manager Approval N.4.
Date:
g#*%
e
\\
UNITED STATES p " Zl j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
I t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 os,...../
February 27, 1998 l
Mr. George Rael, Director i
U.S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office ERD /UMTRA P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400
SUBJECT:
CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROBLEM RESOLUTION REVISION NUMBERS 20, 22,23, AND 24 FOR THE NATURITA DISPOSAL SITE i
Dear Mr. Rael:
By letter dated November 14,1997, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) transmitted Construction Phase Problem Resolution Revision (CRR) Numbers 20,22,23, and 24 for the Naturita, Colorado, Upper Burbank disposal site to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for review and approval. Based on its review of the information provided by DOE, the NRC staff has concluded that the subject CRRs, as proposed, are acceptable.
The proposed revisions relate to Specification 02278 and Drawing Numbers NAT-DS-10-1791, NAT-DS-10-1789, and NAT-DS-10-1797. The staff's review is documented in the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report. If you have any questions conceming this letter or the enclosure, please contact the NRC Project Manager, Robert Carlson, at (301) 415-8165.
i Sincerely, Q
- n Joseph J. Holonich, Chief Uranium Recovery Branch Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
B. Comish, DOE Alb F. Bosiljevac, DOE Alb E. Artiglia, TAC Alb i
l
i
(
9 4
i-
- e j
i I
t i
i r
1 ENCLOSURE NATURITA DISPOSAL SITE CRR NUMBERS 20,22,23, & 24 i
l l
l t
I L
TECHNICAL EVALUATION NATURITA CRR NO. 20 DATE:
February 17,1998 FACILITY:
Naturita, Colorado Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project site PROJECT MANAGER:
Robert Carlson TECHNICAL REVIEWER: Mohammad Haque
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS Based on its review of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) submittal by letter dated November 14,1997, the staff concludes that use of some of the excess Type A rock as bedding in the interceptor channel, as proposed by DOE, is acceptable.
DESCRIPTION OF DOE'S REQUEST AND TECHNICAL EVALUATION 1
By letter dated November 14,1997, the DOE submitted Construction Resolution Revision (CRR) 20, requesting to use some of excess Type A rock as bedding in the interceptor channel.
DOE indicated that due to an increase in cell volume and a decrease in the top surface area, the amount of Type A rock that was produced was in excess of its required volume.
in support of its request, DOE provided an appropriate filter criteria compatibility check to show that there will be a prevention of migration of fines into the riprap and prevention of erosion of base material.
Based on its review, the staff concludes that because of the proposed revision, the bedding in the interceptor channel will actually be improved, while maintaining layer uniformity. Therefore, the staff finds the proposal acceptable.
I f
l l
I
(-
TECHNICAL EVALUATION l
NATURITA CRR NO. 22 l
DATE:
February 17,1998 FACILITY:
Naturita, Colorado Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project site i
PROJECT MANAGER:
Robert Carlson TECHNICAL REVIEWER: Mohammad Haque i
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS By letter dated November 14,1997, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted Construction Resolution Revision (CRR) 22, requesting changes in Specification 02278, to eliminate testing for Schmidt Hammer and Splitting Tensile Strength tests after proce,* sing of riprap Type A material because its size is too small for these tests. Based on its review, se staff concludes that the proposed changes in the specification will have no significant impact on the construction, and therefore, are acceptable.
DESCRIPTION OF DOE'S REQUEST AND TECHNICAL EVALUATION By letter dated November 14.1997, DOE submitted CRR 22, requesting the following changes I
in Specification 02278, in order to eliminate testing for Schmidt Hammer and Splitting Tensile Strength tests after processing of riprap Type A material because its size is too small for these
)
tests.
Amend the first sentence of Article 2.2.A.4, as follows:
The Schmidt Hammer Test, Splitting Tensile Strength Test, and Petrographic Examination will not be required at the frequency specified in Paragraph 1.6.C on the bedding and Riprap Type A materials, and in lieu thereof for scoring, the initial test results obtained during investigating the source shall be used.
Amend the last sentence of Article 2.1.F as follows:
For bedding and Riprap Type A materials, Schmidt Rebound and Splitting Tensile Strength tests shall be performed for source material before any processing.
Based on its review, the staff concludes that the proposed changes in the specification will have no significant impact on the construction. Therefore, the staff finds the proposal acceptable.
i j
l TECHNICAL EVALLsTION NATURITA CRR NO. 23 DATE:
February 17,1998 FACILITY:
Naturita, Colorado Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project site PROJECT MANAGER:
Robert Carlson TECHNICAL REVIEWER: Mohammad Haque
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS By letter dated November 14,1997, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted Construction Resolution Revision (CRR) 23, reouesting to ;nclude a procedure for selection of oversize sandstones, ir Opecification 02278, as discussed below. DOE indicated that since oversize sandstones available at the site did not meet durability standards in all instances, there was a need for a method for selecting suitable sandstones. DOE's proposed procedure includes a rock monitoring plan, and a rock placement plan. DOE's proposal revises Specification 02278, and drawings numbars NAT-DS-10-1797 and 1789. Based on its review of the information provided by the DOE, the staff concludes that the changes proposed in DOE's request dated November 14,1997, are acceptable.
DESCRIPTION OF DOE'S REQUEST AND TECHNICAL EVALUATION in a submittal dated November 14,1997, DOE requestad a revision to Specification 02278, and drawings numbers NAT-DS-10-1789 and 1797, to be able to implement its proposed procedure for selection of on-site oversize sandstones for three supplemental erosion protection design i
features at the Upper Burbank disposal cell. The current design for the Upper Burbank disposal site calls for placing sandstone riprap to establish three erosion control features: 1) an ap.on i
trench to regulate off-site runoff and to serve as an energy dissipator; 2) an erosion blanket on
)
the slope above the apron trench to protect the trench from potential gully flow; and 3) a sediment trap dam to control sediment originating from the upland areas.
The current specifications require that the riprap for these three features shall be a Da size of approximately 36 inches, a minimum size of 24 inches, and a rocktcore of about 50. A total of approximately 9400 cubic yards of sandstone will be required.
1 The total volume of DOE's current stockpiles of sandstone boulders ranging in size from one foot to a maximum of 12 feet is about 4,000 cubic yards. DOE expects that about 30,000 cubic yards of sandstone will be produced by the excavation of the extension to diversion Channel No. 2. Based on its field and laboratory tests and a geological assessment, DOE has l
categorized those sandstone as " satisfactory" and " unsatisfactory." The rockscores for the satisfactory rocks ranged from 41% to 51.1%. In order to minimize the impact on construction costs, health and safety, and schedule delay required to import higher scoring rocks from a greater distance, DOE proposes to utilize the on-site " satisfactory" sandstone for riprap for the apron trench, the erosion blanket, and the sediment trap dam.
l l
1 l
I.,
I
.e
~
The other general physical features considered by DOE for " satisfactory" rock included:
I The sandstone is fine grained, with calcite and quartz mineralization, and has a very low porosity. The rock is relatively hard; surface scratching (test for hardness) hardly penetrates the rock surface.
The rock block size ranges from 18 inches to over 10 feet. Vertical and horizontal i
partings of the rock blocks are relatively insignificant. The rock blocks are generally angular and show little evidence of chemical or physical weathering processes that induce rounding of angular fragments.
Rock weathering, as indicated by discoloration or staining, ranges from a few mm to five mm into the rock. A few individual rock fragments are more weathered, but during riprap production, these weathered rock pieces will be rejected.
Rock exfoliation attributed to the removal of cementing material from the interstices is almost non-existent.
Rocks lamellae due to interbedded weak or clay material is non-existent in " satisfactory" rocks. However, rock lamellae were noted along some block surfaces due to the presence of bedding contacts between durable, hard sandstone and interbedded, poorly cemented sandstone.
l DOE further explains that both the apron trench and the erosion blanket features are not part of j
the disposal cell but will serve as a part of the off-site structures. Their design function is to regulate off-site runoff and provide energy dissipation. The sediment trap dam is intended to control sediment from the upland areas.
DOE provided proposed revisions to the specifications to demonstrate that the larger rock could be acceptably placed in the apron trench, the erosion blanket, and the sediment trap dam under j
the direction of a field engineer or a geologist. The riprap shall be placed so that the larger l
pieces are uniformly distributed and the smaller pieces serve to fill the spaces between them to provide well-keyed, densely placed layers of the approximately specified thicknesses.
Based on the considerations of health and safety, impact on construction costs, schedule delay
)
in importing higher scoring rocks from a greater distance, and DOE's field procedures, the staff concludes that the proposed revisions are acceptable.
i
I I
I l
l TECHNICAL EVALUATION NATURITA CRR NO. 24 l
DATE:
February 17,1998 l
FACILHY:
Naturita, Colorado Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project site PROJECT MANAGER:
Robert Carlson TECHNICAL REVIEWER: Mohammad Hague
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS By letter dated November 14,1997, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted Construction Resolution Revision (CRR) 24, requesting a revision to the criteria for shape requirement in Specification Section 02278, Article 2.1.E. The proposal suggests that the shape of at least 50 percent of the material, by weight, shall be such that the minimum i
dimension is not less than one third of the maximum dimension. The current specification requires at least 75 percent of the material to have that shape (dimension ratio of 3 to 1).
Based on review of tho field assessment performed by DOE, including evaluation of the interlocking behavior of the riprap on a test ramp, the staff concludes that the proposed revision to the specification would not impact the stability and performance of the riprap. The staff, j
therefore finds the proposal acceptable.
BACKGROUND The stone shape (dimension ratio) requirement implemented in the Erosion Protection Specification for the Naturita site was roughly based on the 1970 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers riprap protection guideline for riprap channel protection (EM 1110-2-1601, Engineering and Design, Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels, July 1970). In general, the shape requirement primarily provides a better interlocking of rock particles.
DESCRIPTION OF DOE'S REQUEST AND TECHNICAL EVALUATION By letter dated November 14,1997, DOE submitted CRR 24, requesting to revise the criteria for shape requirement in Specification Section 02278, Article 2.1.E. The proposal suggests that the shape of at least 50 percent of the material, by weight, shall be such that the minimum dimension is not less than one thira of the maximum dimension. The current specification requires at least 75 pelcent of 4,e material to have that shape (dimension ratio of 3 to 1).
Based on review of the field assessment performed by DOE, including evaluation of the interlocking behavior of the riprap on a test ramp, the staff concludes that the proposed revision l
to the specification would not impact the stability and performance of the riprap. The staff, therefore finds th' proposal acceptable.
e l
1 i
Page 2 of 2 UPPER BURBANK DISPOSAL SITE CONSTRUCTION PIIASE PROBLEM RESOLUTION FORM RESOLUTION / REVISION No. 20 (Problem Continued)
)
Filter Criteria Compatibility Checks:
UF'I'IRi lT Filter Criteria (NUREG/CR-4620):
Qg Filter
< 5 to prevent migration of fines into Riprap.
D,3 Base
<10 to prevent erosion of base material.
Type A/ Type B1 Compatibility:
Dsi max. Type B1 = 185 mc D,3 min. Type A = 42 mm
)
i 185/42 = 4.4 Check Base Soivrype A Compatibility:
D15 max. Type A = 38 mm D85 avg. Base Soil = 31 mm (from Site mater;al gradations for sediment transport analysis).
38/31 = 1.22 Check i
Page1of 2 UPPER BURBANK DISPOSAL SITE CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROBLEM RESOLUTION FORSI RESOLUTION / REVISION NO. &
f I
Date:
June 19.1997 Commentor:
Wei Lin Organization:
MKES Drawing:
Specification:
02278 Section:
2.2. A.4 Respond by (Date):
Problem (Continue on next page if more space is needed):
The size of Riorao Tvoe A material is too small to test for Schmidt Hammer and Eolittine Tensile Strength.
Solution (Provide a biief discussion of rationale including references):
Amend the first sentence of Article 2.2.A.d as follows-
"The Schmidt Hammer Test. Solittine Tensile Streneth Test. and Petroernehic
{
Examination will not be recuired at the frecuenev soecified in Paracraoh L6.C on the beddine and Riorno Tvoe A matetials. and in lieu thereof for scorine_ the initial test results obtained durine investicatine the source shall be used."
Umerco Praject Manager
- 2. -
Date: # -e f 7 Date:
/0//o/97 Umeteo Design Engi r
v Umeteo QA Manage k
Date: lO /O 97-MK-F Site Man _e 8/
M
-C4 Date: 9Ifo/97
%/4W/bDate:
> /SO/%
MK-F Construction En r
973ob7 MK-F QA Manager '
cle t Date:
_1 3
X Approved Dlscpproved Approved as Noted i
Criteria Change?
Yes X
No (If yes, DOE approval needed)
DOE Site Mana;;er Approval Date:
l l
l
UPPER BURBANK DISPOSAL SITE CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROBLEM RESOLUTION FORM RESOLUTION / REVISION NO.22
[
il Amend last sentence of Article 2.1.F as follows: For bedding and Riprap Type A materials Schmidt Rebound and Splitting Tensile Strength tests shall be performed for the source material before any processing.
I
Page 1 of 24 UPPER BURBANK DISPOSAL SITE CONSTRUCTION PEtSE PROBLEM RESOLUTION FORM RESOLUTION / REVISION NO. 7b Date: October 1, 1997 8FNIHB Commentor:
P.K. Chen Organization:
MKES Drawing:
NAT-DS-10-1789 6 "AT-DS-10-1797 MJ Specification: 02278 2.4.A.2 Problem (Continue on next page if more space is needed):
Oversize sandstone availab e at the site does not meet durability standards in all instances.
A method for selecting suitable sandstone is required.
Solution (Provide a brief discussion of rationale including references):
Procedure for selection of oversize sandstone was developed (attached) and revisions to specifications and two drawings were provided.
dpec111 cations and drawings will be revised accordingly.
Umeteo Project Manager L -zm Date: /V/o / 97 Umeteo Desig 1 Engineer 2-Date: / o[/0[4 7 Umeteo QA Manager Date:
/0 /C N MK-F Site Managef
.[/4/
Date: Ocf.
/,/997 I o /t / ?~f 44r Date:
MK-F Construction Enginee bl h Ow likh7 lofi[9"7 8
I a
s MK-F QA Manager Date:
v X
Approved Disapproved Approved as Noted Criteria Change?
Yes X No (If ve. DOE approval needed)
DOE Site Manager Approval Date:
UMTRA PROJECT - UPPER BURBANK DISPOSAL SITE PROCEDURES FOR SELECTION AND UTILIZATION OF SANDSTONE FOR THE APRON TRENCH, EROSION BLANKET AND SEDIMENT TRAP DAM 1.0 PURPOSE On-site sandstone is proposed for the construction of three supplemental erosion protection design features at the Upper Burbank disposal cell. The purpose of this paper is to present the procedures for the selection and utilization of the on-site sandstone.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Design Requirement The curTent design for the Uppr Burbank disposal site calls for placing sandstone riprap to establish the following three erosion control features: 1) an apron trench to regulate offsite runoff and serve as an energy dissipator; 2) an erosion blanket on the slope above the apron trench to protect the trench from potential gully flow; and 3) a sediment trap dam to control sediment origi2ating from the upland areas. The apron trench, which is part of the diver. ion channel, is i
located along the north perimeter of the disposal cell. The erosion blanket and the sediment trap i
dam are located at Station 5+50 to 7+75 and at Station 10+50 to 13+20, respectively, of the me cm W diversion channel No.2. Figure 1(lshows the location of these features, while Fig corresponding cross sections and details.
According to the current specifications, the riprap used to construct these three features shall be well graded with a D size of approximately 36 inch:s, a minimum size of 24 inches r.nd a rock 3
NbrrRAWATSANsTONE. DOC 1
3ssS.NAT-R414282341 i
score of about 50. A total of approximately 9,400 cubic yards of sandstone will be required. The features and design requirements are illustrated in Table 1.
i
'J "I 17 7 lMP'iP'1L'lbI TABLE 1 Desien Features and Riorno Reauirements Feature Required Ranges of D a Estimated Volume 3
( inches )
( cubic vards)
Apron Trench 10 to 36 3,900 Erosion Blanket 23 to 31 2,800 Sediment Trap Dam 16 to 33 2,700 Total 9,400 2.2 Available Sources l
l The riprap for these features will be obtained from sandstone of the Saltwash member of the Morrison Fonnation. Specific sources include:
existing sandstone stockpiles at the borrow material stockpile area (primary) and on the e
disposal cell nonh floor (secondary),
additions s n ' stone excavated from the Club Mesa Borrow Arer during production of the j
e radon and frost protection barrier materials.
1 If necessary, additional sandstone rocks produced by the excavation of the diversion Channel No.
2 extension may be used.
Current stockpiles of sandstone boulders ranging in size from about one foot in diameter to a maximum of 12 feet have been produced from the following r.ctivities; 1) excavation of the 1 slope on the north end of the disposal cell; 2) the development of the Club Mesa Borrow Area; EtMIRA\\NAMANSToNE. Doc 2
3885-NAT R 0102823 01 m
and 3) the excavation of the Interceptor Channel. These rocks are in two separate stockpiles.
The total volume of these stockpiles is about 4,000 cubic yards.
k l
e: a l
According to Umetco personnel, approxirrately 30,000 cubic yards of sandstone will be produced l
l by the excavation of the extension to diversion Channel No. 2. During this excavation, Umetco will maximize the production of rocks having a minimum size of 24 inches.
l 3.0 DURABILITY SAMPLING AND TESTING CIIRONOLOGY Rock durability of sandstone to be used for energy dissipation structures wts investigated and l
evaluated on sandstone rocks from the Salt Wash Member of the Morrison Formation at the Club Mesa Area of Uravan in 1996 and 1997 by both MKES and TAC geologists. General descriptions of the sandstones are discussed in each trip report (see Attachment A). Geological assessments of the sandstones are in agreement among all the geologists, and as a result the sandstone can be categorized into two basic groups "setisfactory" and " unsatisfactory". Four types of sandstones were identified by Jose Cercone, Mr. geologist: Type S-2, S-3, S-4 and Others. Types S-2 r.nd S-3 were categorized as " satisfactory"; while types S-4 and "others" were j
categorized as "unsatisfactcry" Specific geologic evaluations at the site are summarized below.
Trip Report: Oversize and Type C Erosion Protection Material Evaluativi,10 -13 June a.
1996, by Ralph Dow (MKES).
The stockpiled sandstone rocks from one foot in diameter and larger were from the excavation of the 1. I slope on the north end of the cell. The sandstone is fine-grained and tan; some is tinged a light green color; few cracks are present in the large pieces; jointing is widely spaced r bedding planes in the more massive pieces are tight. Four samples d
of sandstone rocks were obtained for testing from the existing stockpile on the disposal 3
3885-NAT-R.0102B23 01 JALMTRA'NAMANSToNE. Doc
i l
cell floor, however, the samples were inadvenently combined into one very large sample and the rock tests were not performed. Thus, in July 1997, four additional samples of the l-oversized sandstone rock were obtained from the stockpiles at the borrow material stockpile area. They were designated as sample Nos. S-2, S-3 and S-4 for rock testing.
l b.
Trip Repon: Inspect Oversize Erosion Protection Material, Inspect Erosion Protection l
Quarries, and Conduct Visit to Material Testing Laboratory, Sept.10-Oct. 2,1996, by Mike Godwin (MKES).
Oversized sandstone rocks in the stockpiles at the borrow material stockpile area north of the disposal site were inspected. The rocks were composed ofred sandstone, pale green
]
to white sandstone, green siltstone, conglomerate, and red sandstor.e with rip-up clast layers. The green siltstone and the red sandstone with rip-up clast layers are differentially soft and fractured easily parallel to bedding. The rest of the sandstone seems hard, dense and wellindurated.
c.
Correspondence, Discussion of Schmidt Hammer Testing Procedure and Results of Tests Conducted on SarJstone Boulders at Upper Burbank Disposal Site Near Uravan, CO, 4/22/97-
Reference:
Trip Summary Repon, Naturita Site Visit,4/22-24/97 (G. Lindsey, J.
Lommler, A. E. Artiglia ),28 May 1997, by.Gerry Lindsey (TAC).
Founeen sandstor.: boulders were picked at random,10 on the upper level and 4 on the lower level of the disposal site, and tested with an AGRA Hammer (Model CT-320A).
This hammer is commonly used for concrete testing. Results including the hammer readmgs ("R" values) and the compressive strengths of the sandstone boulders are presented. A follow-up memo titled " Assessment of Rock Quality of Sandstone Boulders JAUhrilt/.\\NAT\\SANSTONE. Doc 4
3885-NAT R410282341
Proposed for Use as An Energy Dissipation Field for the Upper Burbanx Disposal Site of the Naturita Waste Cell" is enclosed from Gerry Lindsey to John Lommier on 27 June 1997.
... fl kl I. J f t u. u; d.
Trip Report: Geological Assessment of Sandstones at The Club Mesa Borrow Area for Use as Large Riprap at The Upper Burbank Title I Disposal Site,1-2 July 1997, by Jose i
Cercone (MKES)
Inspected and conducted petrographic examination and Schmidt hammer testing ma representative sandstone samples to determine durability qualities at the existing stockpiles in Club Mesa borrow material stockpile area. Performed geological assessment and trained MKF-QC personnel to visually inspect and test the sandstone with Schmidt hammer and geological hammer. Developed procedures of field monitoring plan for selection of sandstone.
It is to be noted that efforts to locate suitable rocks with a minimum size of about 12 inches and meeting the UMTRA rock score of at least 65 were made during several of the above-mentioned geologic investigations. Similar efforts were made during the design phases of the Dry Flat disposal site and the Slick Rock disposal embankment.
4.0 SUMMAP.Y OF TEST RESULTS
)
1 4.1 Field Tesu l
Rebound Hardness tests on sandstone boulders, Sample Nos. TAC-1 through TAC-14, with an AGRA Hammer were conducted by TAC on 22 April 1997. The same boulders were retested with a Type L Schmidt Hammer by MKES on 2 July 1997. The AGRA Hammer does not read "R" values directly, because it is not a "L-Type" Schmidt Hammer (used for rock), but rather the AGRA Hammer was designed for concrete testing. Using correlations to compressive strength, 5
3 :5.NAT-a4142:2341 JAUMTRA\\NAT3ANETONE. Doc I
1 th,e AGRA hammer test results were converted to equivalent "R" values. MKES also performed Schmidt Hammer tests on rock boulders which were retrieved earlier and stored at the laboratory (refer to Sample Nos. MKES #2 -#X). The test results are tabulated as follows:
[
-,u'J
,d l
j i
l l
l l
J:0MTRAWAT$ANS1DNE. DOC d
3885-NAT-R410282341
TABLE 2 Field Test Results I
SCHMIDT SAMPLE AGRA HAMMER HAMMER EQ "R" READING (AVE)
"R" VALUE REMARKS TAC-1 45 41 Top of rock TAC-2 43 42 Massive bedded TAC-3 40 43 Clay inclusions TAC-4 44 40 Massive bedded TAC-5 45 Med-fine bedded TAC-6 47 41 Med-thin bedded TAC-7 44 44 Fresh fracture TAC-8 48 44 Next fresh fracture TAC-9 44 Cross bedded i
l l
TAC-10 48 43 On fracture face l
Conglomerate l
TAC-11 55 Conglomerate l
TAC-12 55 Fine-grained med bed TAC-13 55 TAC-14 44 MKES-#2 49 Type S-2 MKES #3 44 Type S-3 MKES #4 20-29 Type S-4 MKES #X 30-39 Others JalM13AiNAMANSTONE. DOC 7
3885.NAT-R 010282341
'f 4.2 Laboratory Tests
- '.. ' 11 The rock scoring method adopted by the UMTRA project is based on the fo!!owing test data:
Specific Gravity, Absorption, Sodium Sulfate Soundness, Los Angeles Abrasion, Schmidt Hammer, and Tensile Strength. The rock test results of the sandstone from the existing stockpiles (refer to the trip report in June 1996) are shown in TABLE 3.
TABLE 3 Laboratory Rock Test Results SODIUM L.A.
SCIIMIDT TENSILE ROCK SAMPLE SPECIFIC ABSORPTION SULFATE ABRASION IIAMMER STRENGTil SCORE IXPE No. GR AVITY LE
($
(%for100rev )
(readme)
(_ mil
(.E S-2 2.46 2.7 11.6 18.2 53 1400 51.1 S-3 2.42 3.4 15.8 23.6 48 1498 41.0 l
S-4 2.34 5.2 78.1 56.9 33 915 24.0 5.0 GEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY
The following geological assenment of the sandstone stockpiled at the Club Mesa borre/ area is primarily based on surface geological examinations, magascopic examination with a 10X hand lens magr.!fier and the evaluation of all test results.
The predominant sandstone rocks at Club Mesa are classi5ed as " satisfactory" (approximately 85%). These sandstones are relatively hard and durable. A ringing sound is produced when they are struck with a geologist hammer. Mohs' hardness is above six based on a scratching test with a hardened steel tip. The boulders are usually large, massive pieces with sizes ranging from about
)
one foot to larger than 10 feet in diameter. Jointing is widely spaced, generally ranging from two to several feet apart. These observations are also evident for sandstones located at existing 1
distinct near-vertical cliffs along the disposal cell, County Road EE-22 and adjacent Hieroglyphic LUhrrRA\\NABSANSToNE. doc 8
380s-NAT-R 0102823 01
C.anyon. The rock pieces are mostly blocky to elongated. The rock is generally angular and shows little evidence of undercut by chemical or physical weathering processes which induce rounding of angular fragments. Superncial weathering is slight, less then 3 mm. No weathering rinds were noted.
Based on the magascopic analysis with a 10X hand lens magnifier, the sandstone is mostly fine-grained, well-cemented with calcite and quartz mineralization. The predominant rock color is light gray to bluff; some is tinged a reddish brown due to hematite content. The reddish brown sandstone appears to be as indurated and resistant as the light gray one. The sandstone appears to be relatively impermeable, displaying no open pores as noted with the hand lens.
Other general physical features, for " satisfactory rock", based on visual examinations consist of:
The sandstone is fine-grained vith calcite and quartz mineralization, and has a very low porosity The rock is relatively hard; surface scratching (test for hardness) hardly penetrated the rock surface.
The rock block size ranges from 18-inches to over ten feet. Vertical and horizontal partings of the rock blocks are relatively insigniScant. The rock blocks are generally angular and show little evidence of chemical or physical weathering processes that induce rounding of angular fragments.
j Rock weathering, as indicated by discoloration or staining, ranges from a few millimeters to 5 mm into the rock. A few individual rock fragments are more weathered, but during riprap production, these weathered rock pieces will be rejected.
Rock exfoliation attributed to the removal of cementing material from the interstices is almost non-existent.
EUMTRAWATSANSToNE. Doc 9
3ss5-NAT-R414282341
ll[
'd]l*0[:tp]?;m -
Hy[l
. 'y Rock lamellae due to interbedded weak or clay material is non-existent in "satisfiiitory" rocks. However, rock lamellae were noted along some block surfaces due to the presence of bedding contacts between dur>ble, hard sandstone and interbedded, poorly cemented sandstone.
Poor quality " unsatisfactory" rocks (approximately 15%) are either individual pieces or a portion of one of the good quality sandstones. " Unsatisfactory" sandstone is interbedded, coarse-grained and small pebble-size conglomerate and thin bedded, fine-grained sandstone, containing clay pockets, clay partings, and small cavities (vugs). These rocks types are considered unsuitable rock material and will be separated and rejected during field operations.
6.0 ENGINEERING DESIGN ASSESSMENT Both the apron trench and erosion blanket features are not part o' the disposal cell but will serve as a part of the offsite structures. TNn iesign function is to regulate offsite runoff and provide energy dissipation. The sediment trap dam is intended to control sediment from the upland areas.
Firstly, design criteria for these features are conservatively based on the occurrence of a PMP /
PMF event. For a rainfall event less than a PMP, the design, in terms of rock sizes, has more than I
ample factors of safety (See Table 5). Secondly, since these are offsite structures serving specific functions, any ma'd ictions would not immediately and directly impact the disposal cell embankment.
With respect to resisting long-term potential erosion and weathering of the sandstone, one of the-primary contributing factors is to keep the bottom of the apron trench, erosion blanket, and sediment trap dam unsaturated. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the erosion blanket is placed directly on the steep upslopes above the apron trench and the sediment trap dam directly connects to the diversion channel No. 2. To facilitate drainage of the apron trench, two design features are samtAWABEANSToNF Doc 10 3s 5.NAT.R4102823 01
ftYf,r f" incorporated: reasonable longitudinal gradient for the apron trench itself and transverse french drains connecting from the bottom of the apron trench to the invert of the diversion channels.
With the aid of the permeable bedrock foundation of the site (as evidenced at the bottom of the disposal cell excavation), it is expected that at most only a few inches of the bottom of the sandstones will be inundated with water during a rainfall event less than a PMP. The remaining l
bulk of the sandstone will be exposed to ambient air conditions. Thus, the design criteria of an
" occasionally saturated area" for the onsite sandstone is considered conservative.
l I
1 l
l 1
j;gJul,1AWAT\\sANSTONEDOC II 3885-NAT R410282341
~
i lf'?;T TABLE 4 Rock Sizes vs. Rainfall Events of Desien Features Required Range ofD,
3 Feature (Inches)
Rainfall Event Apron Trench 7 to 24 Half of a PMP 6 to 19 One-Third of a PMP 4 to 12 500 years Erosion Blanket 16 to 28 As above 12 to 24 7 to 15 Sediment Trap Dam 11 to 28 As above 8 to 23 5 to 17 7.0 DISCUSSIONS Discussions of rock quality of" satisfactory" sandstone boulders which will be selected for erosion l
protection material are presented below.
7.1 General Compared to metamorphic and igneous rocks commonly used on the UMTRA Project for erosion protection, sandstone always has lower rock scores due to its relatively lower structural strength.
Sandstone that scores greater than 50 is relatively rare, as can be seen from the limited test data available from the UMTRA Project shown on Figures 3 and 4. Reviewing data from the Club Mesa sandstones, a rock with a specific gravity of 2.54 would have to have an "R" value of about 57 to have a rock score of approximately 50. Field Schmidt Hammer "R" values for
" satisfactory" rock were consistently between 40 and 45 with a few values up to 55 on high'y
-mraosromooc n
n.s.ur.am m m.
f h
~
-~
.;g
" desert varnished" conglomerates. It is well documented in geologic literature that sandstone boulders with even minor development of desen varnish have existed in essentially their current configuration for many thousands of years.
In addition to the consistency of Schmidt Hammer "R" values and the consistency of the
" satisfactory" rocks' grain size and porosity, other factors contributing to the conservatism of their utilization in energy dissipation features include:
The required ranges ofD,o rock sizes for these three features are about 10 inches t. 36 inches. The available sandstone rock is greatly oversized for the intended purpose.. The boulders have an estimated size range of 3x3x2 feet to 5x6x8 feet sizes with a corresponding weight range from 2,600 to 34,800 pounds The blocky shape of the boulders is resistant to movement from runoff.
7.2 Resistance to Water Exposure and Weashering The general trend of the regional temperature and precipitation data indicates alternating (seasonal) cycles of cooling and warming periods that for the next hundred to a thousand years will probably continue (Baker,1983). Trends in precipitation are roughly inverse to those for temperature but are less constant. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the sandstone will continue to be exposed to wetting and drying and freeze and thaw. Under these conditions, the rock is expected to be subjected to physical stresses from ice expansion, absorption, and to i
chemical aiteration due to pH changes and salt crystallization in the ponding water.
1 i
Based on the macroscopic (hand lens) petrographic analysis, the sandstone has the following
~
physical and chemical properties that will resist long-term physical and chemical weathering under both dry or saturated conditions:
DUMTRNNAMANSTONF. Doc 13 3885-NAT-R414282341
%ll$ilur~ :
%!n l
Many of the sandstones are fine-grained sand cemented with quartz. Quartz is an inert' l
j silica mineral highly resistant to weathering. Weathering or alteration of quartz l
mineralization is a very slow process.
Carbonate mineralized sandstones are also present, but they should not present any problems due to the predominant dry weather and consequently high evaporation rates in the area. These climatic conditions result in high pH which should not affect the rock calcite mineralization.
l Close visual inspection indicates that the rock porosity is relatively low ( rine grained, well-cemented with few fractures and no open pores or rusts ), therefore, the effects of interstitial freeze-thaw are low or insignificant.
Vertical or horizontaljoints, fractures, seams or parting of the ro9k blocks, which tend to induce ice wedging, are relatively insignificant.
l The boulders are self-sizing as a consequence of separation during excavation / handling i
along an existing widely spaced joint system and rarely along clayey laminae bedding l
planes. It is rare to observe a fresh mechanical fractured face that is not a joint face since the sandstone rock strength is adequate to form boulders to 8x8x8 feet. Close examination I
l of the existing stockpiles shows a few larger boulders with calcite cemented joints, which have sizes averaging 5x5x5 feet. These could split in half from additional handling but would still have effective sizes of 2.5x5x5 feet.
1 l
The sandstone rock has been derived from massive bedded formations where boulders with any significant type of bedding are in the minority within the stockpiles of boulders.
Those bedding planes which do not have silt or clay lamination, (mostly observed as cross bedding with short lateral extent), are uniformly cemented and show minimal signs of deterioration on weathered or desert varnished surfaces. Schmidt hammer tests that were mumAMMANSTONE Doc 14 M8s-NAT a414MD.01 l
fi. Ilio ll, normal and parallel to the bedding planes show there is no decrease in strenhhissociated with these features from the massive unbedded portions.
It is expected that most weathering due to inundation and other factors would be surficial rather than split the blocks.
In summary, based on the assessment and evaluation of the field inspection, laboratory test data and professional geological judgement, sandstone classified as " satisfactory" at the Club Mesa borrow area are anticipated to have a service life expectancy of more than 200 ;r.rs.
3 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION 8.1 Design Revision Specification Section 2278 will be revised as shown in the attached specification section 2278, with the following specifics.
The apron trench and the sediment trap dam shall be constructed with the sandstone riprap having a minimum Dw ize of approximately 36 inches and a minimum size of 24 inches.
s Oversized rocks shall be placed as directed by the field engineer or geologist.
The sediment trap dam shall be constructed with the sandstone riprap having a minimum D size of approximately 36 inches and a minimum size of 24 inches. Oversized rocks 3
shall be placed at the exterior portion of the dam. Rocks smaller than 24 inches are allowed to be placed at the interior portion of the dam, if needed.
i The erosion blanket shall be constructed with the sandstone riprap having a minimum D,o i
size of approximately 36 inches and a minimum of 6 inches. Oversized rocks shall be used l
as directed by the field engineer or geologist.
1 JSUMTRA\\NAT3ANSTONF. Doc 15 3::5-NAT-R 0102:23 01 l
i
-llhll;_,,
9 Construction drawings will be revised as shown on DWG. Nos. NAT-DS-10-1737 and 1789/
Apron trench drains shall be constructed to connect the bottom of the apron trench to the e
inverts of the diversion channels on approximately 100 feet centers as shown on drawings. The drains consist of a 2-foot-thick Type A riprap layer underlain by 6 inches of bedding material. Adequate gradient should be made to promote drainage.
l l
8.2 Field Procedures 8.2.1 Rock monitoring plan Assign a licensed professional geologist to select and label all" satisfactory" sandstones.
The rocks selected for placement shall be visually inspected for consi:,tency in grain size, porosity, cementing and durability. The rocks shall not containjoints or planes of weakness with a spacing ofless than 24 inches and shall be predominantly angular and blocky in shape. As necessary,- devices such as a Schmidt hammer, geologist hammer and magnifying lens will be utilized in the selection process. The general selection process will be documented with a video tape.
All" unsatisfactory" rocks will be identified and separated from the " satisfactory" l
rocks. This operation is reasonably achievable due to the large sizes of these rock pieces. " Satisfactory" rock and " unsatisfactory" rock can be separated using equiprnent such as a clamp, grapple, or front-end loader.
i The geologist will train QC/QA personnel to assist in the sandstone boulders inspection / selection procedures. A training video will be produced on how to i
JM7hrrRA\\NAT.SANSToNE. DOC I6 3885-NAT-R414282341
' \\Iffll?'i
~
~
oJ iL u c c inspect and select suitable sandstone in the field to standardize QC/QA procedures, if necessary. The training of the QC/QA inspector will include selection of unfractured boulders, identifying uncracked seams and checking for particle shapes to assure they meet the maximum and minimum dimensions criteria.
Videotape and photograph rock selection, testing (if required), hauling and placement to document for quality control and quality assurance.
8.2.2 Placement Plan The selected oversized sandstone shall be reasonably well graded throughout the apron trench, the erosion blanket and sediment trap dam with a minimum D a ize of s
3 approximately 36 inches and a minimum size of 24 inches to 6 inches respectively. Large oversized rocks shall be placed as directed by the field engineer or geologist. The riprap shall be placed so that the larger pieces are uniformly distributed and the smaller pieces serve to fill the spaces between them to provide well-keyed, densely placed layers of the approximately specified thicknesses.
l l
l DUhrrRA\\NAMANSToNE. DOC 17 3885-NAT-R41428341
~
fl INl;If.',[j';!;\\j j.
h! i;
8.2.3 Equipment Requirement Equipment and facilities needed to implement the above plan are as follows.
An excavator with a clamp or grapple, and front-end loaders to manipulate the large boulders for inspection, stockpiling and hauling.
A working area for inspecting, selecting and stockpiling both suitable and unsuitable rocks.
l A geologist nammer or a lightweight sledge hammer, HCL acid (10% concentration), and spray paint.
A video camcorder and a camera.
8.2.4 Rock Monitoring Enhancement Plan Other alternative options which are relatively simple, efficient and economical that may be implemented to enhance the rock monitoring plan:
Schmidt Hammer Test. The test consists of striking the rock surface with the Schmidt Hammer to determine the rebound hardness ("R" value).
Schmidt Hammer data of" satisfactory" Sandstone rocks indicate that the "R" value of these rocks ranges from 40 to 48. Sandstone rocks passing field visual inspection and having "R" values higher than 40 will be considered as suitable riprap.
JntrRAWAMANSTONE. DOC 18 3885-NAT.R414282341
l,I lf]!,I]li)!.
9.0 CONCLUSION
S In addition to the above-mentioned discussions on the use and selection of on-site sandstone for the oversized energy dissipation rock, the impact on construction costs, health and safety, and schedule delay required to import higher scoring rocks from a great distance should be evaluated and considered, t
l l
anmLAWABBANSTONE. Doc 19 3885-NAT R414282341
. nnh=n::n==n::::::n:n nnnn===---- ]p ::' ' 5:r',9-] g f::
h*
- % L.I i- -
aj i
!::.. g.
.g:::.
==:nn;;&nnnnnnn nnnnn:n n.
.nn n
~W Al
. A:
- ?, !g ;. -
enrat=n:n:nnn=nn:nn==nn;::::: :jn.g y :.3 22 sr.'r s
'~s:QS~~}-.j'(,lg'G',}
k=_
,..g 1
4,,,
R +f*:*-[..}ghl
.T.
. g.
-ii'::.
t
(' e 4 l
.s M~~i i
f j
1--
3 ( 4J,1,,9 cv j l
[f\\. 4.._(.hf3 :-
. i,,
-.t
+-
j
- i. 'f l
] I. _
is i
..s.
- 3 i
s 7 " T, :.y%.,y....
' ]'l ;..,'!a gl>I! *p Il
.. i *
."h 4#5?fr,51 x 3
.7. :4 :
.6..,
j:
V) i l-r*3f-f
--R-7 l
l:1 eI2
jl. :)'
4N/
l lh I
gg E
y l..
a i
. v..- n4:
Dlle=
j, -
t 1
&. M,-Lil. l!L_....
_ _ _ --_ __.1_,.,-
I k
e
_';j_ ~'
y
.ly;. A
. Q &.. '.' ~,,,_ -
-lf M.,.u::@gy.yj.;c-
.]
ss. g
--p 3
2 fl Ie gy R:g-m=
os m.,
~~-
l;,.
v)
<r ".;'[-3j.i u,ra -
^
..' [ m -- -- + -
( -
y(;..-
pr 54 n./
(
g I,.g :: - '$
M:,N'. 7 -
~ IIl
.;h -
f S
1
-ar
. ;i.e 4:-
c g.
=;
- s3 -
ol P,F 5
l,',;
1 L.5.')h;' +L M-la ss 1
l l6 e
g4 p N f a s dy! %g y:. u
"* -l l ~
M v.x e
'ht.,y,.: i
{
. f il
- p..
n;
+
fb c.:..
m g r.m I GJ.5 o i '
\\ il l5 A) f!]
x.p::. - :O
. h.
I-(
l% In!
{ :
m).-*.
J
~~~'N,,
I e
~
- e %j),, '[.j. 4'.ij l.[
y\\
&._ s'jj l
a e
. M, 4
,g y
p.
g L.!J i
3 l:
,, g
,. 1:
,/-
/ '; g-:: -., /.:j
~,
s l
\\./,,
i., I,
w h, e
Q
/,..
, N.
p$
_,, 3 e -
+..
N% +.,
..a, f
. \\
p-s
.. y.g s t
,3 g
Q,,
.,., s,
t i s s,
}
- e
.jh.,
o
,5
%, 's,.;sV, \\
, f'
.,a g
, s,-
\\ 'y, yN p
a ',-
\\
I
%),::,'\\ '::q% [. /7%Q" ig. '
.,..N A.'N'9 9 j. v..
z ss
. i 'k
~
k
?
. ),4
.pe
r 1
1 x
i 1l 2
A e
g l
El
! ll!
=y
~
l
\\ t M
s
.L I
e e
4 g
i a i,
di en
[
1r l 'e
'1 ii l~fr,s 'l 5
1*
I!?
a
" ilt i l?
S ~ '.
%l l
N,j is ' =j E in, i
ai
'?
14 m.
.ll L
w l..
n aj l a o
u i
83 i
l 5
l1
$II[T a
- /
3 i
v
/
f l
Il
$ ~ui l/-
3 i
5 l
5
+
~l I
%,! g. A :! l
_11 t I I
i l
8 ni h,
l v
a i
4 m..
3 i=!*
ll
\\
l N
,/ 4a t gg3d
#St8 lE Q
E d
an i
b1 fpk E lb li t
i$$pai g
it
.i
- l. 3 E I
"a d'
I"
$$$iIE!!3$
ll,I,
[j 9 132J M NORVA]U a
I
-i
-i d
~i 1
p
-u-ut i
j j
w o
L 6
9.
MR *.
g
_ par '
g n.
t-N 3-I e
i
- _ m d
"g.
==.
S
- 6 e.n
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _
. #g.
%u N
~
-s
[.
b 4
.,si 1
i t
.=
Y m
D.
J
[..
l W
ans 9RW S i-V i
i j
I
. f Q l
i el Ii
__I___
-__ __i
.__i_____ __
- "j".
t w
l t
i I
l N
l 3.
i 1-I j
Z i
i t
j i
l I
I i
g-l 1
l l
w.
i i
i i
g
.m_______,__.
r9 w
Id l
k m O 2
Q i
Z M.
$h d
5 C
< c) 6 :,
N.
g g
h p
l
[
.2
.2 s
4 O
I i
m
.o a
U l
i.
i m
o
-4
)
8 rd U u C.
l l
i M
i i
i W
t
{ G X < l_____9_________.,x______x__;_.__._____
g x
x m
(
)
x i
I i
i i
l o
I j
i I
ri l
l l
l l
o o
o o
o o
l N
c c
4 m
n i
(%) 3EODS N3OM j I
i
07 d
\\
S W
S E
N
\\
\\
D
\\
\\
R
\\
\\
A
\\
I I
t i g l
'iI l
il 1 i i l i l, l
,,1 i,t
,i iiI I ! ' 1 I p, t i 60 D
\\,. !
n N
I l
l O
H E
X.~
R R
E M
x 0
I t i i l '
iI l
i i iI i i i '
i,l i,
1,
i,I iiiiii8 I I l
, i I i 5
N X
A I
I T
D l
l h
I I
C S
X 0
S i i I l
' i I l i I i I I i t l, l i, i1, 1, I i i il l I 4 I I l
, Ii 1 4
VE N
E X
O R T a
)
O l
e l
S r
i l
CD A
I o
w 3 N l
o li a
hA r
d r
r o
o CS B T r
(
c OF as y
0 s
i RO i I i M C i l I 1 l t I l,
l i, 1 i, t, I i i i I I 4 I I l, I i i 3
e it R
0 n
b s
e l
u e
4 l
la r
s C
F G
E R
l
$XA i
G IF 0
2
~
0 0
0 0
0 0
7 6
5 4
3 2
d EOo"Mu L7
c
~.
)
l
\\
i t
p Revise Specification Section 02278, Erosion Protection, as follows:
Article 2.4, Revise the paragraphs to read as folicws:
J l
2.
Sandstone Rock for the Apron Trench, Erosion Blanket and Sediment Trap Dam:
1
\\
L l
a.
Sandstone rocks shall consist ofvarious sizes of hard, durable and sound sandstone rock selectively obtamed from the existing stockpiles at the Borrow l
Material Stockpile Area and the Club Mesa Borrow Area. Additional sandstone l
rocks shall be selectively obtained from the proposed diversion Channel No. 2 extension work.
b.
Sandstone rocks selected for use in this application shall be selected by the l
Contractor's qualified geologists familiar with the specific characteristics of this l
rock, i.e., mmeral compositions, jointing, etc.
L c.
The rock shall be prequalified or selected from the above designated borrow areas.
l Satisfactory sandstone shall be separated and labelled from the unsatisfactory rock using equipment such as a clamp, grapple or front end loader prior to p4~ ment.
d.
Sandstone selected for placement shall be visually inspected for consistency in cementing and durability. If=~~= y, devices such as a Schmidt hammer, l
J geologist hammer and magnifying lens will be utilized in the selection process t
L e.
The sandstone rock shall be angular and blocky in shape. The shape of at least 50 percent of the material, by weight, shall be such that the minimum dimension is not less than one third of the maximum dimension or as directed by the Contractor.
f.
The selected sandstone riprap layer shall be placed to the lines and grades established on the drawings in accordance with Article 3.1 of this Section. The l
riprap layer shall be reasonably well graded throughout the layer thickness with a l
minimum D, size of approximately 36 inches and a minimum size of 24 inches and 6 inches for 1) the apron trench and sediment trap dam and 2) the erosion blanket, respectively. Large oversized rocks shall be placed as directed by the Contractor.
The riprap material shall be placed so that the larger pieces are uniformly I
distributed and the smaller pieces serve to fill the spaces between them to provide r
4 well-keyed, densely placed layers of the specified thickness.
g.
Activities of selecting and testing sandstone shall be documented by videotape and photographc 1
- O h -
j i
i
Page 1 of 4 UPPER BURBAN.K DISPOSAL SITE CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROBLEM RESOLU FION FORM RESOLUTION / REVISION NO.
r Date:
Seotember 26.1997 Commentor:
Pam Li / Wei Lin Organization:
MKES Drawing:
Specification:
02278 Section: 21E Respond by (Date):
Problem (Continue on next page if more space is needed):
The current soeci6 cation recuires that "the shace of at least 75 oercent ofthe (rock) material.
by weicht shall be such that the muumum dimension is rigLless than one third of the maximum dimension " However. the dimension analysis of the Tvoe B rock samoles from the West End Pit indicated that 58 4 to 76 cercent by weicht of the material. met the maximum / minimum dimension ratio reauirement.
Solution (Provide a brief discussion of rationale including references):
Revise Snecification Section 02278 Article 21 E to read as follows-
"E. The shane of at least 50 cercent of the material by weicht. shall be such that the minimum dimension is not less than one third of the maximum dimension "
See brief discussion of rationale on the following nages.
Umetco Project Manager Date: 'o -/ o - 9 7 e
Date: /0//0/47 Umetco Design En_
Umeteo QA Manager -
Date: /o /0 9 P h%F Site Manag 8.lddA)Mk Date: /o/6h7 MK-F Construction Engi eer N1fteJ Date: to!!,]47 av-
- I h%F QA Manager D[ Clc.ssJ Date:
16/(l9~7 Approved E isapproved Approved as Noted Criteria Channe?
X Yes No Ifyes, DOE approval needed)
DOE Site Manager Approval b
Date:.h27N7 i
IWfhrftaWAT\\M4BS4fW YY M47
l Page 2 of 4 S.@ili931(Cont'd)
Discurion of Rationale:
lL e;)
Design Cn.tena The stone shape (dimension ratio) requirement implemented in the Erosion Protection Specification for the Naturita site, as for many other UMTRA Project sites, was roughly based on the 1970 Army Corps ofEngineers riprap protection guideline for riprap channel protection (EM 1110-2-1601, Engineering and Design, Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels,1 July 1970). According to our engineering judgement and experience, the stone shape requirement was primarily to provide better interlocking of rock particles. A similar stone shape requirement is documented in a Caltrans final report titled " California Bank and Shore Rock Slope Protection. Design" (No. FHWA-CA-TC-95-10). Based on our discussion with the author, this dimension requirement of 3(maximum dimension) : 1(minimum dimension)is intended to exclude placing large flat pieces of demolished concrete blocks / slabs which are common y provided for river shore protection, and placing flat riprap material for protecting natural steep slopes [(up to 1(H) : 1(V)].
Field Assessment A total of eight samples of Type B material from the West End Pit was tested for dimerzion ratio. The percentage by weight of the material meeting the maximum required dimension ratio (3 to 1) ranges from 58.9 to 76 percent, with one sample (Sample No. 2) exceeding the minimum required 75 percent.
Sample No. 6 of the Type B material was selected to be analvzed for particle dimensions in detail. The sample weighed 3556 pounds and consisted of 196 rock pieces; 59 of which were elongated particles. 31.4% by weight of the sample had a dimension ratio exceeding the manmum tequired ratio of 3:1. Figure I shows the percent by weight vs. dimension ratio for rock pieces having a dimension ratio greer than 3:1. As can be seen, although the dimension ratio ranges from 3.1 to 9.3:1, the majority falls in the range of only 3.1 to 4.1:1.
To evaluate the interlocking behavior of the riprap, a test ramp using Type B material was constructed during September 18-19,1997 at the West End Pit borrow site. The test ramp 13DMTRAW AT#1DJtESOLXX.NAT
s Page 3 of 4 was 20 ft. long by 10 a wide and the thickness varied from la at the bottom to 5 R at the top to simulate the 5(H):l(V) embankment sideslope. The test ramn was built of Type B material obtained randomly from the on-site stockpile by use of a f: ant-end loader. The test ramp material consisted ofboth rounded and elongated (i.e. with dimension ratio > 3) rock peticles.
There were approximately 23% (by piece count) of elong-led pieces by observation from the surface. The ramp was then inspected by a1 MKES geologist to evaluate the interlocking behavior of the rock particles during and aner construction. The rounded and elongated panicles were observed to be interlocking well. Also, no segregation of particles was noted.
Eneineering Assessment f
The correlation of elongated rock particles with the angle of repose is not exactly known.
However, it is judged that the etTects of the presence of the percentage (24% to 41%) of elongated panicles in our Type B material would be insignificant. An angle ofrepose of 38*
is conservatively assumed for rounded Type B rock particles with a minimum D of 5.6 inches 3
in the design. The design slope of the embankment sideslope is relatively flat [5(H):l(V), i.e.
I1*]. The rock only requires an angle of repose of 16.7' and 22.6* to be stable for the static and seismic cases respectively.
Based on the results of field gradation tests on ten Type B samples, the actual D a of the 3
material ranges from 6.5 to 7 inches, exceeding the required minimum D a of 5.6 inches as 3
detennined by the Stephenson's method for the embankment sideslope and the Safety Factor method for the diversion channels. Moreover, on the channel reaches where Type B rock is provided for erosion r rection, the computed factor of safety for the required minimurr D,
3 is in the range cf 1.210 2.0, which exceeds the iquired factor of safety of 1.0. The factor of safety would be even higher for the actual D of 6.5 to 7.0 inches. Thus, even if the presence 3a of elongated particles might in some ways affect the hydraulic parameters used in the design, the margin of safety would be adequate to prevent impact on the minimum D a design rock 3
size.
Conclusion Based on the above assessment, it can be concluded that the presence of flat rock particles would not impact the stability and performance of the riprap. The original purpose of the J WMTRAWATiP!DJtESOLXX. HAT
4 Page 4 of 4 dimension ratio requirement was for better interlocking of the rock particles. The test ramp de' scribed above provides supporting evidence that the slightly c,ut-of-specification Type B riprap matenal satisfies the purpose. Since Article 3.1 in the current specification has tiready included placement control requirements to provide a well-interlocked riprap, the dimension ratio requirement in Article 2.1.E can be revised as indicated on page 1, Solution.
bif{la;:7~nTT II
'x i
t.
l 1
f I
l
[
1.WMTRAW AT7IDJtE50LXX NAT
i
)
ii H
si o
Illlllfill !!Il I+IIll!!llllllllll'I l llllllllllll
[2 lI!illllI!!IIIIIIlllllliliII!!lIIIIIII!llllllllll 23 lillllllillilillilllllllllllllli!'llllllill llll
_7 y
lillllllllllillllllllllilllllillllllillIill l i ne
_=
y{
I l ! l l l l l l l I l ! I l l l l l 1 l l l l l l l l l l l l ! I I l l 111 l l l l lllll
?
I l ! l l l l l l l l l 111111111 l l l l l l l l Illtilllllllllllj lll D lliIllllilllj!11!Illlllllllllllllilllllllllll lll 7
11llllllllllllllll111ll Illilll!iilllillll1iI l
7_
lllllllllll11'll!IIllll Ill Illlilillllllllill
{
m b
lllllll111lllll1lllllll Ill llllllllll lil'Il il C'
lllllll lll1111llllll11 lil I
lillllli li it il lllllll illllillllilllllll I
11lllllllll ll l
W llIllllllllIil1llllllllllll l
IIllllllllll ll l
l ll i l l l i l l l l l l i l l i l i l ! ! i l l l l l l I l Illllllll'Il ll ll H$_
l l l t l l l 1 ! !!! i l i ! t ;; 1 lllll l I'11 ! ! I l l i ll;illliliil 3gj 11llllIl!II!i, I i l l i i ! i l ! i l ! I l i l I i i ! 11 i l i l l i i i i i i l (E33 lllIIIIIII!IllIi!lIIIIIIlliii!III iiiIiiIIiiliI y
b O >- 2 lillllllllilllllllllllll1ll t llllll1iii!iiii!
iiil S5
$kd8 t illlllllllllillllllillillililillllilllillll
$5
~
Hm2E IIlllllllll11lllll111!
11lll lllllllllllll1 I
i I
c2 m
$# 4$
lillllillllill!ll Illi IIlll llllllllllllllI l
l *$3 b
3 h },
llll1 11llllllll Ill l ll lllllllll l
i i
I fd {
4cLEi llll llllllll111!)
I ll l
llllll ll l
111111 5 5 j
%$y
.llIlli ll!!Il!!Ullli _Sj_j_ llilli l'il 21
! $$$ h-W lllllllllll111!Ill1lll1 lilllll!!Illiiiiii!i C'
lilllilllllllillll!Ill (I l l lllllllll ll lillk lili1111111lllllilllll l
CL ITI-Mh
~ll ill i.I!
T))] TrriTTiTTITT ll i:!
n..,
e T
lli i _LU_ l til ~3If_lT_[_'''''''''
i CC l
lil I
lil llllll lill 11
_L i l l l i l l l g
lil ll Illllllll Ill ll ll lIll llll l
l I
i lll ll ll1lll1 I
Ill ll ll ilil Illi I
l 3
111lil ll Illl l
Ill Ill Ill 111llllllll ll l
5 IllillIll Illll!llil l l l 1 l l l l l l 11 l I l l l l l
]
11lllllllllIIllll!8ll l
lill'illlllllillll l
m N
....i....i........... i........i...i....,....i S
Y O
0 3
.146 aM q luamed
/