ML20138G867
| ML20138G867 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/06/1985 |
| From: | Gillen D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Martin D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-39 NUDOCS 8510280063 | |
| Download: ML20138G867 (7) | |
Text
d CONb yl'.i Reccid ide WM Proicc
, , . _ _ _ _ Dodel!D. - -
I PDR_.____ Distributi n LPy' w s/f 41/DMG/85/08/01..c,m. [ WLU r/f
_ _ __ c 1 , DM Gillen
--~; ~ ~~
] LB Higginbotham
, JO Bunting g j. ; t o ,. . h a ~; ___
FfJ Bell MEMORANDUM FOR: Dan E. Martin, Section Leader RE Browning Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch g
Division of Waste Management FROM: Daniel M. Gillen, Project Manager Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT: CSU FLUME STUDIES, EROSION PROTECTION DISCUSSION GROUP, AND SALT LAKE CITY CONSTRUCTION SITE REVIEW Attached for your information are summaries of the three separate activities that I participated in during my recent travel the week of July 22, 1985. Further details on the flume studies and erosion protection discussion group meetings are to be provided in WMGT trip reports by T. Johnson and R. Codell. The report on the Salt Lake City construction review will be forwarded to DOE with copies to the State of Utah.
Daniel M. Gillen, Project Manager l Low-Level Waste and Uranium Recovery Projects Branch Division of Waste Management
%0$%
wn-39 PDR 0FC : WLU:r
.............b,W..............................................................................
.L: : : : : :
NAME : DM Cill(en : : : : : :
~
1 1
) CSU FLUME STUDIES t
i
- DATE: July 23, 1985 j LOCATION: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado PARTICIPANTS: NRC CSU TAC /RAC T. Johnson S. Abt B. Keshian i R. Codell J. Nelson M. Bone D. Gillen D. VanZyl J. Thiers 4
E. Hawkins, (URF0) J. Ruff PURPOSE:
i l To receive an overview and tour of CSU's riprap flume studies for assessment of
- erosion protection of reclaimed uranium mill tailings.
DISCUSSION:
Steve Abt of CSU presented the proposed set-up, data collection, and reporting details of the NRC funded riprap flume studies. The participants toured the
) indoor and outdoor flume areas and witnessed a demonstration of the operation
! of the indoor flume. The tour was followed by discussion of the project plan and possible modifications that may be beneficial. Details of the fiume study meeting may be found in a trip report being prepared by T. Johnson and
~
R. Codell of WMGT.
i 4
l
_r - . _ . _ - . - _ _ . _ . ,. _ .m, __. , _ , . . . . _ _ , _ . . _ , . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ , . . . _ _ , _ _ _ . , - , , - _
_ . _ , . , _ _ _ , _ _ . ~ . _ , , ~ . .
1 i
l e .
l 1
EROSION PROTECTION DISCUSSION GROUP DATE: July 24, 1985 LOCATION: Urani,um Recovery Field Office, Denver, Colorado PARTICIPANTS: NRC TAC /RAC T. Johnson 8. Keshian R. Codell M. Bone D. Gillen .
J. Thiers E. Hawkins, (URFO)
DISCUSSION:
As part of the effort to discuss generic UMTRAP technical issues, and exchange information pertinent to NRC's development of Standard Review Plans and DOE's 9
development of a Generic Design Manual, the erosion protection discussion group convened for their second meeting. Items that were discussed include flow concentration, use of the PMF, extrapolation of rainfall, use of the Safety Factors Method, channel design, rock durability, and upstream dam considerations. Details of these discussion items are being presented in T. Johnson's trip report.
SALT LAKE CITY ON SITE CONSTRUCTION REVIEW Performed by Daniel M. Gillen, Division of Waste Management, NRC DATE: July 25, 1985 LOCATION: Salt Lake City and Clive, Utah PARTICIPANTS: NRC DOE / TAC STATE OF UTAH TO0 ELE COUNTY
- 0. Gillen M. Matthews M. Roshek J. Durrant R. Searden C. Judd A. Brijs PURPOSE:
To conduct a review of construction activities to assess whether QA/QC systems are functioning in a manner that assures compliance with the RAP and the EPA standards.
DISCUSSION:
I arrived at the Vitro site in the morning and met with M. Matthews (DOE), R.
Bearden (TAC-QA), M. Roshek (Utah 00T Project Engineer) and C. Judd (Utah DOT Field Engineer). I was presented with a draft copy of the Salt Lake City Remedial Action Inspection Plan (RAIP) which has just been drafted by the State of Utah and is under 00E review. I in turn gave a copy of our draft staff technical position (STP) on testing and inspection to the State for their information. I briefly reviewed the draft RAIP during this meeting and offered the following comr.ents:
o The specified frequency of density testing (one test per 2,000 cubic yards of material placed) does not meet the frequencies suggested in the STP (one test per 1,000 cubic yards of contaminated material and one test per 500 cubic yards of radon barrier material).
E l l
2- !
o Specific Gravity and Absorption tests on the rock cover material are specified by the State as "only when the project engineer deems necessary". The STP suggests a minimum of three tests (at one-third, two-thirds and final placement) for each gradation of riprap placed..
With these exceptions, the RAIP appears to adequately address organization, testing and inspection, personnel qualifications, records control, equipment control, and non-conformance and corrective action in a manner similar to other DOE RAIPs. Mark Matthews informed me that following DOE's review of the Salt Lake City RAIP, it will be transmitted to NRC for formal review and concurrence.
I then toured the Vitro site and observed the following activities:
o break-up of old building foundations.
o spreading and discing of wet contaminated material, o bulldozing contaminated material into stockpiles along the railroad tracks. .
o loading of railroad cars by front-end loader, o Wash-down of loaded railroad cars, o Testing of soil for certification of clean-up in small area at the northwest corner of the site.
16 Vitro clean-up operations appear to be running smoothly, with two trainloads of contaminated materials leaving the site per day.
In the afternoon, M. Matthews, R. Bearden and M. Roshek accompanied me to the Clive site. We met Mr. Brijs, the Utah DOT site inspector and Mr. Durrant, the Tooele County project inspector, and proceeded to tour the site. I observed the process of over-turning the railroad cars to dump the contaminated I
r 1
. material. Scrapers were hauling the dumped material to a contaminated stockpile. No other earthwork operations were being performed since the State inspector had prohibited further placement of contaminated fill until placed material could dry to a point where compaction requirements could be achieved.
The contractor has been having difficulty meeting the compaction requirements (90% of Standard Proctor maximum dry density) due to excessive moisture in the contaminatedmateria). It should be noted that even greater difficulty would exist if the contractor were made to meet moisture requirements presently in the RAP. A request for modification of these requirements has just recently been sent by the 00E to the NRC for review and concurrence.
I reviewed testing records kept at the Clive site and found them to be adequate with regard to documentation detail and frequenc9 of tests.
CONCLUSIONS:
- 1. In light of the fact that construction at Clive is well underway, every effort should be made to finalize, approve and implement the RAIP as soon as possible.
- 2. Although a request for modification of moisture requirements for placement of contaminated fill has just been received by the NRC, the State has implemented the modified requirements from the beginning of fill placement. It is very likely that approval of this RAP change will be forthcoming. However, the State should be informed that the DOE and subsequently the NRC should receive early notification of any future proposed changes to avoid performance of potentially unapproved activities.
- 3. Regarding a non-earthwork related matter,~it was brought to the NRC's attention during the Clive visit that restriction of access to the site has been lax, and that there have been incidents of unauthorized vehicles and personnel entering the construction area. This concern should be passed on by DOE to appropriate State personnel.
- 4. In general, the State's project management, inspection performance, and recordkeeping activities were found to be of high quality. No indications of generic problems, inadequacies, or other weaknesses that might impact the acceptability of remedial action were found.
t