ML20217N831
| ML20217N831 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/05/1990 |
| From: | Tokar M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Fliegal M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217N400 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-99-336 NUDOCS 9910290142 | |
| Download: ML20217N831 (5) | |
Text
,
o
\
- , NATURITA/8J .
. MEMORANDUM FOR: Hyron fliegel, Section Leader h )- I i
Operations Branch !
l Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decomissioning, MISS l FRON: Michael Tokar, Section Leader Technical Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decormissioning, NMSS ;
I
SUBJECT:
GE0 TECHNICAL ENGINEERING REVIEW OF DRAFT I RAP - NATURITA UMTRA PROJECT- ,
REFERENCE:
Letter of August 10, 1990 from H. Matthews of DOE to P. l t
Lohaus of NRC; transmitting Draf t Remedial Action Plan }
(RAP) along with supporting documents (total of 11 volumes) for Naturita, Colorado, Uranium Mill Tallings Remedial {
Action Project.
As per your request, we have performed a review of the referenced draft RAP and '
supporting documents submitted by the DOE for the Naturita, Colorado, UMTRA project. The scope of this technical review was limited to the geotechnical engineering aspects of project. Because of the draft status of the information, the emphasis was to perform an overall technical review and to identify areas that need to be addressed in detail in the final RAP documents. I Preliminary coments were given to the Project Manager on September 27, 1990, I and they were discussed with the DOE in a telephone conference on October 2, '
1990. The coments require the DOE to provide' adequate justification for the geotechnical design parameters used in the design, sensitivity analysis for the radon barrier design, and additional information on slope stability analysis.
Attached is the formalized version of the comments which were discussed with the DOE.
Banad Jagannath performed this technical review, please contact him should you like to discuss this with him.
Nichael Tokar, Section Leader Technical Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decomissioning, PNSS
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
Centr &F1Te% ~
NMSS r/f RLBangart PLohaus JJSurmeier JGreeves JAustin LLTB r/f BJagannath MTokar SWastler PDR Yes: 4/
PDR No: / . Reason: Proprietary / / or CF Only / X /oj ACNW Yes: L/ No: /QJ /
SUBJECT ABSTRACT: GE0 TECHNIC L NGINEERING REVIEW OF DRAFT RAP - NATURITA LitTRA PROJECT UTC :LL"B :LLIB :LLTBQg : : : :
4 (L VT v s
h\u '
NAhE:Bjagannath pkar :JSurmeier: : : : \
UATE: fo/ 5 /9D : so/(/90 :/8/5 /90 : / /90 : / /90 : / /90 : / /90 9910290142 991027 DL 336 -
a T
, NATURITA/8J i -
. MEMORANDUM FOR: Myron F11egel, Section Leader f3 Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, M SS FRON: Michael Tokar, Section Leader Technical Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, NMSS r
SUBJECT:
GE0 TECHNICAL ENGINEERING REVIEW OF DRAFT RAP - NATURITA UMTRA PROJECT
REFERENCE:
Letter of August 10, 1990 from H. Matthews of DOE to P.
\
Lohaus of NRC; transmitting Draft Rea dial Action Plan (RAP) along with supporting documents (total of 11 volumes) for Naturita, Colorado, Uranium Mill Ta111r.gs Remedial Action Project.
As per your request, we have performed a review of the referenced draft RAP and supporting documents submitted by the DOE for the Naturita, Colorado, UMTRA project. The scope of this technical review was limited to the geotechnical engineering aspects of project. Because of the draft status of the information, the emphasis was to perform an overall technical review and to identify areas that need to be addressed in detail in the final PAP documents.
Preliminary coments were given to the Project Manager on September 27, 1990, and they were discussed with the DOE in a telephone conference on October 2, 1990. The comments require the DOE to provide' adequate justification for the geotechnical design parameters used in the design, sensitivity analysis for the i radon barrier design, and additional information on slope stability analysis. .
Attached is the formalized version of the comments which wern discussed with l the DOE. '
l Banad Jagannath performed this technical review, please contact him should you like to discuss this with him.
i Michael Tokar, Section Leader Technical Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Manageir.ent and Decommissioning, INSS
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
Cant,rakFife'A w' NHSS r/f RLBangart PLohaus JJSurmeier JGreeves JAustin LLTB r/f BJagannath MTokar SWastler PDR Yes: 4/
PDR No: / Proprietary / / or CF Only / X /oj ACNW Yes: L_/pl. Reason:/QJ No: /
SUBJECT ABSTRACT: GE0 TECHNIC NGINEERING REVIEW 0F DRAFT RAP - NATURITA UMTRA PROJECT
- LLlB :LLTBQj :
OFC :LL"B L V1 f n\g g
NAME:Bjagannath pkar :J5urmeier: : : : \
DXTE: fo/ 5 /90 ro/ r/90 :/'/T /90 : / /90 - / /90 : / /90 : / /90 9910290142 991027 EDL , , . 336- . PDR , - , _
. .r .
, y l
\
l
. . ammm aommmm mmammS l
- Roo m Acro raN URANILM M_IIL 7AILINGS RDEDIAL ACTION IRlTECT l IMURITA, COLCRADO l Paviewed by: Banad Jagannath,. Geotechnical Engineer, LLTB
. i i.
- 1. Secticri 1.2 Site ard proposed Action; P=adial Action Selection Rgort, page 5 h proposed r=adial action does not include rumwal of ocastaminated material l frun certain areas, and DOE plans to request Supplemental Standards for these areas. The DOE should provide a detailed justification for requesting Supplemental Standards and not performing arry remedial actions at these areas.
- 2. Section 3.3.1 Cbnstruction Methods and Ibatures; Ranadial Action Selection Report, Decolition, page 38 The report does rot stata hther the demolition debri to be buried in the trench beside the disposal cell is contaminated or uncontaminated. The report should clearly state that any radiologically contaminated debri will be disposed of in the di m i cell. '
- 3. Geotechnical Design Parameters - Information for Bidiers, Volume II, ard Preliminary Design Calculations, Volume II, Calculaticris 17-737-01-00, sheet 3 through 7.
I h dratt RAP <*^=nts present data of geotechnical field aM laboratory l I I' l
l investigations in the "Information for Bidders" volume and the design details I
in the " Calculations" volume. The "Information for Bidders" volume presents i all the data collected without arrf nterpratations i and recarr_ndations on the site characteristics and design parameters. The' design " Calculations" volume presents the laboratcry test data, tabulation of the parameters frun the tests,
~ ,-.
d
,, , rh..wded design paramstans, ard suscrtirg design calculctims. How/ar, the following information is ,missirg .in the *calculaticts" clumes : 1) '
profiles and cross sections to sw.ut the maarad c.rettyg/tly and to demonstrate the adequacy of the scope c.f the gect.actedna hurastigations, 2) l justification as to why the lutcratory test.irg :;e.r:f.md it adequate, 3) justificatim as to why the average m3ues of tes:1 res e.s d a few selected Earples are appropriate design pararantars. Sectico 3 cf '".Stardard Formt ard l Content for Wmatation of F*ial Action SeLu:1. ion at Ti.tle I Uranium Mill l Tallirgs Sites," February 24,, 1989, presenta the % technical inforation to bo l provided in a Famadial Action Project der'= ant. She final RAP h= ants should provide the missing information identified above and justify the design parameters.
'l
- 4. Disposal Cell OcVer ard Radm Barrier - Preliminary Design Calculations, Volume II, Calculations 17- 741-02-00.
The sketches and drawirns presented in the slope stability calculation sheets (for ex. sheet 15 of Radan Barrier Design calculations, page 61 of .I Renedial Action Selection Report) show a bentonite mat as a layer / clement of the cover. But the Bid Specificatims ard Drawirgs dev~nt do not imlude this as a work item. This inconsistency is noted in other locations in this mlti-volume draft RAP dN=nts; please rectify this. l
.l The radm barrier thickness calculaticn assumes that the radon barrier layer is underlain by a minim m of 4.2 feet thick or a 21-feet wide wedge of Windblown matarial (low contaminated material) in the north ard east sicpes of the dimi cell ertankment. However, this design requirumnt is rot carried through to the drawings ard specifications. 1he drawirgs ard specifications should be revised to indicate the above requirement to ensure implementation of this design assunption.
1he radm barrier design assumes that high-contaminated materials will be placed at the battan of the al&1 cell ard low-contaminated materials l will be placed at the top or idiately beneath the radan barrier layer.
The drawi.gs aem-nying the Bid Specifications do not irdicate any
m ,l o s
, . requinment of selective placemnt of otattaminatsd untarials in the l MW 1 onll. To eners hfdenarcati:n of his deign assunptions, the drawings should be twined, .at 2saac by :s ::cte, to .irdicate tM above requirement. ,
'Ihe final design of the ra5an ha:rlar .strmld crssider the above mnoerns and also present a sensitivity ma3ysis to hdd.a the conservatism in ,
the design parameters (particalarrly the :lan$tes meisture content of the l j
Windblown material) ard the design thickr.esstf the radon barrier.
- 'Ihe design value of the coefficient of satzrratai hytraulic corductivity ;i i
(2.2 x 10 -8 cas/sec.) for the radcm barriermaterial is the average value of the parameter determined frum laboratory testa performed on a few selected sanples. 'Ihe permeability tests have been conducted selectively on soil sanples which have a high piu.W4 of passirq NO. 200 sieve size and significant clay content, as indicated by the plasticity index of the material. a2t there are many sanples frun the same borrtw area which do not have the above property. Provide a justification as to why this selective testing ard using the average laboratory test value as a design parameter for field conditicos is an acceptable and conservative approach.
Pzuvide a rational as to why a field trjdraulic conductivity test is not r* --Tded for this case, that too when the'desind hydraulic conductivity is 2.2 x 10 -8 cas/sec..
- 'Ihe specificaticos for the radon barrier material should be based on the l properties of the soil sanplan tested in the laboratory to establish the design parameters. However, the specifications have no Plasticity Index requirurnent for the clay material intended for the radon barrier layer, ard the present requirement for the mininum percent passing No. 200 sieve is not a wreervative 41dation of the material tested in the laboratory (see page 02228-2 arti 02228-4 of Bid Specificatiers ard sheet 3 of Design Calculations, Volume II). 'Ihe specificaticos should be zwised so that any soil satisfyirq this specification would be expected to have properties similar to the soil sanples tested in the laboratory.
- _ . ~
f,' , 5. Slope Stability - PIsliminary Design Calculations, Volume II, Calculations 17-740-01-00. ,
4 The critical cross section of the slope analytad for stability shows the thickness of the frost protection layer to 'be 1 : feet, Mureas the thickness of this layer as par the dradngs snwanyirg the bid specifications is 3 feet. Currvet thickeas of this layer should be used in the slope stability evaluation that vill be presented in the final PAP
@ = nts.
As indicated in the calculatiaro (cheats 1 a.M 6 of slope stability calculations), nest of the soil paramters have been ammai and their validity should be established (see ccarents en geotedinical parameters).
In the abemos of adequate tastirg to establish design parameters for all '
materials, sensitivity analyses should be performed to d=au= Late the conservatism in the design resultiry frun the a=* values for the material parameters.
In the calculaticms to be subnitted with the final PAP @wnts, please irclude copies of the amputer print cut of the stability analysis for the critical case shaving - 1) the cross section analyzed, 2) soil stratigraphy and parameters used, 3) critical failure surface, 4) the minima factors of safety against slope failure for the corxiitions analyzed.
t