ML13309A987

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shine Medical Technologies, Inc. Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information, Enclosure 2, Attachment 1 RFI-AMEC-2011-0033 Rev 1, Construction Inputs
ML13309A987
Person / Time
Site: SHINE Medical Technologies
Issue date: 10/04/2013
From:
SHINE Medical Technologies
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML13303A887 List:
References
SMT-2013-034 RFI-AMEC-2011-0033, Rev. 1
Download: ML13309A987 (6)
v • d • e


Text

ENCLOSURE 2 ATTACHMENT 1 SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AMEC-2011-0033, REVISION 1 CONSTRUCTION INPUTS 5 pages follow

Sl Medical Technologies REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

SHINE Procedure PM-001, Rev 2 RFI Number:RFI-AMEC-2011-0033 RFI Revision: 1 Sargent & Lundy Construction Inputs Information needed to support the assessment of impacts associated with construction of the facility. Requested information to include the following:

1. Proposed grading plan including site runoff calculations, infiltration analyses, detention basins and design flows, erosion and sediment control measures and BMPs)
2. List of Construction Equipment Expected (AMEC will use to identify potential noise emission rates during construction)
3. Site Excavation and Soil Management Plan (depth of excavation, soil stockpile/disposal locations, etc.)
4. Construction Dewatering Plan (Need for dewatering, method/location of water disposal SHINE DAlE SHINE Licensin : Date: 06-13-12 Date Re uest Forwarded to Res onder RFI RESPONSE
1. Proposed Grading Plan A Site Utilization Plot Plan (SUPP), Rev 0, and Construction Grading Plan, Rev 0, have been developed. As advised by City of Janesville Economic Development Department personnel, under the Rock County Airport Development Plan detention/retention basins are not allowed at the SHINE site because of concerns about glare and water fowl interfering with aircraft using the Southern Wisconsin Regional Airport. Therefore, basins are not shown on the SUPP or Construction Grading Plan. Instead, storm water is controlled using ditches, culverts, swales, diversion berms, etc., as described below.

During operation, all storm water runoff from the developed parts of the site flows through a vegetated swale where the peak flow is controlled (detention) and a portion of the water is allowed to infiltrate. Any water that does not infiltrate is discharged through an outfall control structure to the existing drainage ditch along Highway 51. Runoff from the undeveloped parts of the site follows natural draina e atterns and is dischar ed throu h a culvert to the draina e

ditch along Highway 51.

During construction, storm water run-on is diverted around the site via perimeter berms and ditches and then discharged back on the existing agricultural field through a flow spreader.

Storm water falling on disturbed construction areas is routed to the sedimentation and flow controls discussed above prior to being discharged to the existing ditch along Highway 51.

Construction erosion and sedimentation controls will be in place throughout construction activities. Operational controls will be installed during the later part of construction.

Final site design will include preparation of detailed grading plans and construction details, site storm water runoff calculations, infiltration analyses, peak discharge requirements, sediment reduction modeling, and water quality improvements. A storm water management plan for erosion and sediment control during and after construction will be developed in accordance with Wisconsin Administrative Code NRs 151 and 216, and City of Janesville Ordinances 2004-228 and 2004-229. Designs for storm water control will include Best Management Practices (BMPs) as presented in the Wisconsin Best Management Practices Manual, as adapted to specific physical conditions of the SHINE site. All controls will be designed to minimize potential adverse effects such as erosion, increased runoff, sediment transport off-site, and water quality management issues.

Both construction and operation erosion, sedimentation, and other storm water controls will be designed, at a minimum, to meet City of Janesville ordinances and State code requirements.

Such controls must comply with the standards for multiple storm events up to and including the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall. Culverts and ditches will be designed to convey the 100-year, 24-hour storm event.

Storm water controls shown on the Rev 0 SUPP and Construction Grading Plan reflect preliminary sizing approximated in compliance with applicable regulations and guidance manuals. During final design, detailed runoff calculations and infiltration analyses will be submitted along with required documentation, in permit application form, to the City of Janesville for their review. Once acceptance of the permit application is achieved, the storm water control features will be incorporated into the design and construction documents, specifications, drawings, and details.

2. List of Construction Equipment Attachment 1 includes bounding estimate of the construction equipment necessary to construct, start up, and commission the Shine facility. This estimate is based on input information provided by responses to RFis AMEC-2011-0041, AMEC-2011-0031, S&L-2012-0030 and information included in this RFI. The table provides the estimated average monthly construction equipment by type and quantity deemed necessary to construct the facility.
3. Site Excavation and Soil Management Plan Excavation quantities were estimated based on Layout Option 3 for the main building (provided in a June 28, 2012, e-mail from to ) and decisions reached in July 2012. The anticipated maximum depth of excavation is 39 feet below final grade, based on the following:
  • The top of the lowest subfloor is considered at a depth of 32 feet, based on the Facility Review Team Final Report, dated June 22, 2012. Below this depth there is a six foot thick concrete mat, and a one foot over-excavation for mudmat placement, as decided during a

July 13, 2012, telephone conversation with (documented in meeting notes prepared by ).

  • The in situ soil at the bottom of the excavation is assumed to be suitable for supporting the loads from the building. This assumption will be confirmed when the loads have been established and an evaluation of bearing capacity has been performed .

In order to provide a bounding estimate of excavation quantities, the entire Radiological Control Area (RCA) shown in Layout Option 3 was assumed to be excavated to the maximum depth of 39 feet. Ancillary buildings and underground utilities, as shown on the Site Utilization Plot Plan (SUPP), Rev 0, were assumed to be excavated to a depth of 5 feet. Based on the RCA dimensions shown in Layout Option 3 and the dimensions of ancillary buildings and underground utilities shown in the SUPP, the estimated excavation for these structures is 210,000 cubic yards.

There is an additional 68,000 cy of excavation and topsoil removal for the remainder of the site development area. Thus, the total excavation and topsoil removal for site development is 278,000 cy. This quantity includes a 25% margin for bounding considerations.

The fill material needed for the site grading is estimated to be 10,000 cy. This includes a 15%

increase for shrinkage of material during compaction. This is needed to grade the site to a Rough Grade Elevation of 824 feet NAVD 88 in the building area. This quantity would reduce the 71,000 cy of excess excavated material not used as backfill as noted below.

In addition to adding 25% margin, the following assumptions were made in order to provide bounding estimates for this RFI response:

  • The maximum frost depth is no more than 4 feet. A minimum depth of 5 feet was considered for the ancillary building foundations. Thus, all foundations will be at least at this depth.
  • The bearing material at the final depth of excavation is suitable for supporting the design load; therefore, over-excavation will not be needed.
  • There is no separation between the upper 1 foot of topsoil and the underlying sand (SP) material. All material beneath the topsoil is considered to be the same material.
  • An allowance for a 12" thick mudmat was considered at the bottom of all excavations.
  • No dewatering of excavations will be needed except after periods of heavy rain, as discussed in Item 4 below.
  • Excavated slopes are stable on a slope of 1.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (1.5H:1V).
  • An 8-foot wide bench is included in the RCA excavation for slope stability concerns since the overall excavation is 39 feet deep.
  • The excavation is 10 feet wider around the sides of the RCA block at a depth of 39 feet to allow for erection of forms and providing a working area.

Disposal of all excavated material can be on the site. There is an estimated 61 ,000 cy of excavated material that will not be reused as backfill in the excavations after site grading. This material can be spread out over the site as general fill. It would be equivalent to approximately 1 foot over 38 acres, or 2 feet over 19 acres. This 61 ,000 cy could alternatively be used to construct berms around the site for drainage control or for site control. The topsoil could be stockpiled for final grading and seeding. The Construction Grading Plan, Rev 0, shows tentative locations for topsoil and cut/fill stockpiles.

4. Construction Dewatering Plan Soil borings at the site encountered groundwater at a depth of approximately 59 feet to 65 feet, which corresponds to an approximate elevation of 764 feet NAVD 88. Considering a final site

grade at elevation 827 feet NAVD 88 per the SUPP, a groundwater level at approximately elevation 766 feet NAVD 88 (used for conservatism), and a maximum depth of excavation of 39 feet (as discussed in Item 3), the groundwater level will be approximately 22 feet below the bottom of the mat excavation. Even with a possible variation of several feet in the site grade elevation and a slight rise in the groundwater level, there should be no need for a construction dewatering program. In addition, the granular nature of the in situ soil should allow infiltration of any precipitation during construction. However, the use of sumps and pumps may be required after periods of heavy rain during the excavation and backfilling of the buildings.

Responder: Item 1

  • Responder Phone:

Item 2

  • Items 3 & 4
  • Date Response Provided: 07/30/2012 Independent Reviewer: 5 -*

=-.~

--.. ~-

=-~~-

~---

'-" Date: --- *~--------=

---=-' :.----...;.c. L: ..,..:.- _,----_ ~-

-'--~~

SHINE Licensing: Date:

d to Originator 7-31-12 Originator Acceptance: Date:

RFI-AMEC-2011-0033 Attachment 1 Months of Construction <-7/1/2013 <-1/1/2014 <-1/1/2015 6/30/14->

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Notice to Proceed 3/4 Ia. Site Development Mobilize to site Site Preparation Ib. Substructure Excavation, Foundations, Substructure Backfill & Compact Support U/G Utilities - Installation IIa. Above grade civil/structural/architectural Facility above grade structure Roof Architectural details External Building Foundations III. Mechanical Installation Piping & Equipment HVAC Examination, Construction Testing & Turnover IV. Electrical Installation Electrical Raceway (Conduit, tray and supports)

CablePull&Termination V. Construction & Site Support VI. Final Site work/Grading VII. Turnover, Start-up, & Commissioning Equipment Asphalt Compactor, Cat CB434C, 107 Hp 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Asphalt Paver, Barber GreeneAP-1000, 174 Hp 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Backhoe/Loader - Cat 430 - 105 Hp 2 4 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 6 4 2 1 Boom Lift, JLG 800AJ, 65 Hp 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 7 8 8 3 5 5 4 2 1 Concrete Pump, Putzmeister 47Z-Meter, 300 Hp 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crane - Lattice Boom, Manitowoc 8000 - 80t, 205 Hp 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Crane - Picker, Grove RT530E-2 30t, 160 Hp 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 Crane - Picker, Grove RT600E - 50t, 173 Hp 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dump, Dual axel (15 cy) Mack 350 Hp 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 Excavator - Large, Cat 345D L, 380 Hp 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Excavator - Medium, Cat 321D LCR, 148 Hp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Extended Forklift, Lull 1044C-54, 115 Hp 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 8 8 8 8 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 Fuel Truck, Mack MP6, 150 Hp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Material truck 2-1/2 ton, F-650, 270 Hp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 Mechanic's Truck 2-1/2 ton, F-650, 270 Hp 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 Motor Grader, Cat 140M, 183 Hp 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Pickup Truck, F-250, 300 Hp 4 4 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 5 4 Semi Tractor & Trailer (20 cy), Mack MP8, 450 Hp 3 21 21 16 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skidsteer Loader- Case SR200 - 75 Hp 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 1 Tracked Dozer, Cat D6, 150 Hp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 Tracked Dozer, Cat D7, 235 Hp 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Tracked Dozer, Cat D8, 310 Hp 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tracked Loader, CAT 973C, 242 Hp 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 Vibratory Soil Compactor, Cat CS74, 156 Hp 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Water Truck, Mack MP6, 150 Hp 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 Portable Air Compressors <50Hp 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 0 0 2 2 1 Portable generators <50 Hp 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 0 2 2 1 Portable Welders <50Hp 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 Walk behind compactor <50 Hp 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML13309A987&oldid=2056684"