ML13317A448

Requests Addl Info Re SEP Topic II-4.F, Settlement of Structures & Buried Equipment Per 811102 Safety Assessment. Response Requested within 30 Days of Receipt of Ltr

ML13317A448
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	12/01/1982
From:	Paulson W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Dietch R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
References
TASK-02-03.B, TASK-02-03.C, TASK-02-04.D, TASK-02-04.E, TASK-02-04.F, TASK-03-03.A, TASK-03-03.C, TASK-03-06, TASK-09-03, TASK-16, TASK-2-3.B, TASK-2-3.C, TASK-2-4.D, TASK-2-4.E, TASK-2-4.F, TASK-3-3.A, TASK-3-3.C, TASK-3-6, TASK-9-3, TASK-RR LSO5-82-12-001, LSO5-82-12-1, NUDOCS 8212020307
Download: ML13317A448 (16)

Text

December 1, 1982 Docket No. 50-206 LS05-82-12-001 Mr. R. Dietch, Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Operations Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

SUBJECT:

SEP TOPIC II-4.F, SETTLEMENT OF STRUCTURES AND BURIED EQUIPMENT SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 By letter dated November 2, 1981, you sub itted a safety assessment report on this topic. Your letters of February 1, 1982 and August 17, 1982, pro vided additional information on this subject. As discussed in the enclosed draft topic evaluation, the staff concludes that the following information is needed to resolve this topic.

1. Updated information concerning the areal extent and in situ properties of backfill materials adjacent to seismic Category I and safety-related facilities founded partly or entirely upon backfill materials which have been obtained by means of appropriate field investigation techniques.

2. Up-to-date settlement data related to seismic Categgry I and safety related facilities founded partially or entirely upon backfill mater4 ials to supplement available recordskthbQygh 1970.

3. Shear moduli and damping characteristics of backfill materials includ ing the variation of moduli and damping values with strain-for backfill materials at appropriate relative densities and confining pressures.

4. An estimate of potential static and dynamic settlements and differential settlements of structures, manholes, piping ducts and other facilities founded partially or entireff upon or within backfill materials.

8212020307 821201 PDR ADOCK 05000206 PDR OFFICER SURNAME)

NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RE ECO R D COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960

Mr. R. Dietch

-2 This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated plant safety assessment unless you identify changes needed to reflect the as-built conditions at your facility. Your response is requested within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained Amithis, letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.

Sincerely, arigi al signed b' Walter A. Paulson, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/enclosure:

See next page

• See Previous Concurrence HGEB:DE*

JPearring 11/30/82 OFFICE SEPB*

SEPB*

SEPB*

SEPB*

ORB#5*

ORB#5*

SURNAME

.TCheng:b1 EMcKenna RHermann WRussel.

WPaulson DCrutchfield SURNAME AT

/11/30/82 11/30/82

.10/2 12/1/82 12/1/82.....7 782 DATEN F................0.....

02 R E C O R D......

C O..

I..

NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 O FF ICIAL R ECO RD COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960

Mr. R. Dietch

-2 This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated plant safety assessment unless you identify changes needed to reflect the as-built conditions at your facilitq. Your response is requested within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

Siincerely, Walter Paulson, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/enclosure:

See next page HGEB:DEB:P JPea ring 1/ /?o/82 OFFICE SEPB NSEP AE P B OR" TChe g:b1 EMcKenna RHerman WRussd SURNAME

..T

'AE

/3V /82.

1f'82I~

7.v2 JV 7-17 7:1./

DATEN FO**..................

318 (.0-80. NCD.

NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COP Y USGPO: 1981-335-960

Mr. R. Dietch San Onofre Unit 1.

Docket No. 50-206 cc Charles R. Kocher, Assistant General Counsel James Beoletto, Esquire Southern California Edison Company Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 David.R. Pigott Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Harry B. Stoehr San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 1831

.San Diego, California 92112 Resident Inspector/San Onofre NPS c/o U. S. NRC P. 0. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 92672 Mayor City of &en. Clemente San Clemente, California 92672 Chairman Board of Supervisors County of San Diego San Diego, California 92101 California Department of Health ATTN:

Chief, Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office ATTN:

Regional Radiation Representative 215 Freemont Street San Francisco, California 94111 Robert H. Engelken, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V 1450 Maria Lane Walnut Creek, California 94596

SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC II-4.F SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 TOPIC:

II-4.F, Settlement of Structures and Buried Equipment I.

INTRODUCTION This topic pertains to the review of plant geotechnical engineering aspects related to the properties and stability of subsurface mater ials and foundations as they influence the static and seismically induced settlement of critical structures and buried equipment.

1:I.

REVIEW CRITERIA A. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A

1. General Design Criterton 1 - "Quality Standards and Records."

This criterion requires that structures, systems and components important to safety shall be designed, fabricated,,erected,",and tested to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be performed. It also requires that appropriate records of the design, fabrication, erection, and testing of structures, systems and components important to safety shall be maintained by or under the control of the nuclear power plant licensee throughout the life of the plant.

2. General Design Criterion 2 - "Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena."

This criterion requires that safety-related portions of the system shall be designed to withstand the effects of earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunami, and seiches without loss of capability to perform their safety functions.

B. 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, "Seismic and Geologic Siting Criterta for Nuclear Power Plants" - These criteria describe the nature of the investigations required to obtain the geologic and seismic data necessary to determine site suitability and identify geologic and seismic factors required to be taken into account in the siting and design of nuclear power plants.

III.

RELATED SAFETY TOPICS AND INTERFACES Geotechnical engineering aspects of slope stability are reviewed under Topic II-4.D. Other interface topics include:

II-3.B Flooding Potential and Protective Requirements II-3.C Safety-Related Water Supply (Ultimate Heat Sink)

II-4.E Dam Integrity

-2 III-3.A Effects of High Water Level on Structures III-3.C In-Service Inspection of Water Control Structures 111-6 Seismic Design Considerations X-3 Station Service and Cooling Water Systems XVI Technical Specifications IV. REVIEW GUIDELINES In general, the review process was conducted in accordance with the procedures described tn Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800) Section 2.5.4. The geotechnical engineering aspects of the design and as constructed conditions were reviewed and compared to current criteria, and the safety significance of any differences was evaluated.

The following Regulatory Guides provide information, recommendations, and guidance and, in general, describe a basis acceptable to the staff that may be used to implement the requirements of the above described criteria.

A. Regulatory Guide 1.132, "Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants."

This guide describes programs of site investigations related to geotechnical engineering aspects that would normally meet the needs for evaluating the safety of the site from the standpoint of the performance of foundation and earthworks under anticipated loading conditions including earth quakes in complying with 10 CFR, Part 100, and 10 CFR, Part 100, Appendix A. It provides general guidance and recommendations for developing site-specific investigation programs as well as specific guidance for conducting subsurface investigatiOns, the spacing and depth of bortngs, and sampling.

B. Regulatory Guide 1.138, "Laboratory Investigation of Soils for Engineering Analysis and Design of Nuclear Power Plants."

This guide describes laboratory investigations and testing practices acceptable for determini'ng soil and rock properties and character istics needed for engineering analysis and design for foundations and earthwork for nuclear power plants.in complying with 10 CFR, Part 100, and 10 CFR, Part 100, Appendix A.

V.

EVALUATION A. Site Description The San Onofre Unit 1 site is located on the Camp Pendleton Marine Reservation on the coast of California in San Diego County about 51 mi northwest of San Diego and about 62 mi southeast of Los Angeles.

-3 The topographic features of the immediate coastal area include a narrow band of beach sand terminating at seacliffs which reach a height of 60 to 80 ft in the vicinity of the site. A gentle coastal plain extends inland to the western foothills of the Santa Margarita Mountain Range approximately 1-1/2 mi to the east.

The plant site is on the shoreline. Prior to conttruction of the plant, the original plant site elevation at the top of the sea cliff bluff ranged from +80 to +115 ft MLLW. The finished plant grade elevation is +20 ft MLLW. Recorded measurements indicate the ground water level to be about elevation +5 ft NLLW (Ref. 2).

The subsurface soil structure exposed in grading and in excavation for plant faciltis include the Quarternary terrace deposits which overlie a Pliocene age sand material named the San Mateo Formation.

The terrace deposits consist of tan, buff, and light brown, silty or clayey, fine to coarse sand With some cobbles. These deposith.

are crudely stratified with a thickness of up to 55 ft. The San Mateo Formation is a cemented, massive, well-graded, yellow-brown, fine to coarse sand with gravel and occasional lenses of thin- '

bedded gray shale or siltstone and is approximately'1,000 ft thick at the site. At grade, the San Mateo Formation is a poorly cemented but very dense sand.

To accomodate the plant, the seacliff bluff was cut back using a "Bench Design" approach. Cut slope profiles consist of a 15-ft wide bench at the interface of the terrace deposit and the San Mateo Formation. The San Mateo Formation comprises the lower 25 ft of the cut slope. Above and below the bench, the cuts were excavated to a slope of one horizontal to two vertical (Ref. 2).

The main plant Seismic Cateogory I facilities include a reactor containment structure and sphere enclosure building, a turbine build ing and turbine pedestal, an administration and control building, a circulating water system intake structure (pump well), a ditsel generator building, a refueling water storage tank, and a seawall.

A condensate storage tank, although not currently classified as a seismic Category I structure, has been identified as a safety-relate4 facility to be reviewed in conjunction with this topic. All of the main facilities except portions of the ventilation equipment building, turbine building, refueling water storage tank, condensate storage tank and seawall are bearing directly on undisturbed native San Mateo Formation sand. Figure 1 presents a site location plan for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 (SONGS 1) plant facilities.

0O INI UO I I Shoterete Uned Channe U

10O Lh

.22 U)U Figure 1 San Onofre General Site Plan

-4 B. Properties of Subsurface Materials In situ material.

The initial soil investigations at the San Onofre Unit 1 site were performed in September and October 1962. Foundation exploratory drilltng was accomplished in May 1963. A total of 14 test holes were drilled at the site. The licensee has presented boring logs depicting the soil conditions encountered in these in vestigations (Ref. 3).

Field investigation efforts included stan dard penetration tests (SPTs) and soil sampling using a Pitcher rotary core barrel.

Surface seismic refraction surveys were also made at the plant site using dynamite blasts as the energy source.

Laboratory testing of soil samples was accomplished to determine significant engineering characteristics and physical properties.

Testing included specific gravity determinations, natural moisture content and unit weight determinations, particle size analysis, minimum and maximum relative density determinations, and consolida tions and direct shear testing (Ref. 3).

Considerable additional field exploratory sampling and laboratory testing, including cyclic triaxial testing, was performed in 1972 to 1974 during geotechnjcal investigations associated with the San Onofre Units'2 and 3 project (Ref. 4).

Table 1 presents soil:.strength parameters for undisturbed native San Mateo Formation Sand which were developed by the licensee from the results of the site subsurface and laboratory investigations and used in foundation settlement analyses.

Based on a review of the information presented by the licensee, the staff concludes that the scope of field and laboratory testing was adequate to deftne conservative strength parameters for the undisturbed San Mateo Formation sand.

Backfill material. At the San Onofre Unit 1 site, backfi1l was origin ally reported by the licensee (Refs. 2, 3, 5) to be reconstituted San Mateo Formation sand compacted to a minimum of 95% Modified Proctor density. The reported results of 55 inplace density tests performed in 1964 and 1965 in the reservoir area, around the circulating water screenwell, and in the area of miscellaneous buried utilittes indica ted that all but 16 areas tested initially met the required 95%

Modified Proctor density specification. Field notes presented with the test results indicated that backfill areas where initial tests did not indicate 95% density were reworked and retested.

In April 1982, SCE notified NRC that backfill soil consisting of San Mateo Formation sand compacted to less than 95% Modified Proctor density was encountered during ongoing modifications for the turbine building.

Investigations to evaluate the in situ density of backfill material were undertaken by the licensee and a report of field observations and backfill characteristics for the north, northwest, and southwest turbine

Table 1 Summary of soil properties for undisturbed San Mateo Formation Sand -

SONGS I Site Soil Property Values Unified Soil Classification SW Natural Water Content Above water table (%)

2 Below water table (%)

11 Dry Unit Weight (lb/CF) 120 Shear Strength Cohesion (K/SF) 0.75 Friction 0 (degrees) 41.5 Standard Penetration Test (blows/ft) 100.,.

In Situ Relative Density (%)

100 Plasticity Index Non Plastic Shear Modulus, G (lb/SF) 100 km (am) 2/3 Km (0.0001% strain) 590 Km (0.001% strain) 315 Km (0.01% strain) 150 Km (0.1% strain) 60 Poisson's Ratio High stress 0.25 -

0.33 Low stress 0.40 -

0.45 Seismic Compressional Wave Velocity Above water table (FPS) 3000 -

7000 Below water table (FPS) 7000 -

7500 Seismic Shear Wave Velocity Above water table (FPS) 3000 -

7000 Below water table (FPS) 7000 -

7500 Seismic Shear Wave Velocity Above water table (FPS) 1000 -

2200 Below water table (FPS) 1900 -

2750 Water Table Elevation (feet MLLW)

+5

-5 building footing modifications project area was submitted in August 1982 (Ref. 6).

The report presented the results of 84 Inplace density tests accomplished in February to May 1982 including 73 tests in the immediate area of the turbine building modification project and 11 tests in miscellaneous utility trench backfill areas At the site. Reported results indicate that the tested backfill materials were found to be compacted to a density between 80% and 100% Modified Proctor density. Of the 84 tests reported, 47 (56%), 29 (34%) and 9 (10%) tests were below 95%, 90%, and 85%.Modified Proctor density, respectively.

Based upon the results of the recent backfill testing program submitted by the licensee (Ref. 6) and lacking confirmatory evidence to verify the condition of these areas not specifically included in the recent testing program, it is the position of the staff that the areal extent and the in situ condition of all backfill areas have not been suffi ciently defined by the licensee to allow an accurate safety assessment.

The staff considers that additional evaluation effort by the licensee is appropriate in view of the potential dynamic settlement and liqui faction of loose backfill sand material due to a Safe Shutdown.Earthquake (SSE) event of 0.67 g and the resulting effects on seismic Category I structures, manholes, burted piping and ducts founded upon or within backfill materials.

C. Settlement Evaluation The licensee has submitted observed settlement records for several seismic Category I structures covering the period 1964 through 1970 (Ref. 7).

Settlement observations were initiated during construction by establishtng settlement markers at strategic locations associated with major structures, and subsequent observations were recorded at varying time intervals. The observations show that settlement of the reactor, reactor building, containment vessel foundation, and all other structures founded entirely upon undisturbed San Mateo Formation sand was less than 0.4 in. during the period of record. The staff has in dependently estimated expected settlement due to net foundation pres sures of up to 4.0 KSF. Considering conservative strength properties of undisturbed San Mateo Formation sand (Table 1) and using procedures presented in Reference 8, results indicate that settlements of up to approximately 0.5 tn. could be expected for the static loading condi tions considered. Because of the high inplace relative density (100%)

and inplace strength properties of undisturbed San Mateo Formation sand, the staff considers that liquefaction and subsequent structural settle ments are not possible under the dynamic loading conditions associated

-6 with an SSE event of 0.67 g. Based upon the above and also considering the information presented by the licensee in Reference 5 that no con crete cracks larger than hairline (as defined in Ref. 9) were found during an inspection of the SONGS 1 facilities, the staff concurs in the licensee's assessment that settlement of structures founded upon un disturbed San Mateo Formation sand due to either static or expected dynamic loading is not a safety concern.

As mentioned in Section B above, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) notified NRC in April of 1982 that backfill soil conditions en countered at the San Ohofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 site during excavation activities associated with foundation modificattons to the turbine building were not consistent with prior backfill soil:

property assumptions. The initial concern was the effect that the differing backfill material surrounding, supporting, and embedding seismic Category I structures, manholes, piping, and ducts would have on previous seismic adequacy and design conclusions. SCE has initiated a detailed evaluation of the in situ backfill soil conditions through out the site to determine the inplace engineering properties of the.

existing backfill materials and the effect of any deviation from past assumed conditions on the seismic reevaluation of affected structures.

A report entitled, "Report of Soil Backfill Condition:- San Ohofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1," which provided the results of this evaluation, was submitted to NRC by SCE in August 1982 (Ref. 6).

Based on a review of the above referenced report and of other geotechnical engineering-related data previously submitted by SCE to NRC (Ref. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), the following paragraphs are presented for the licensee's consideration and appropriate action.

C.1 Areal Extent of Loose Soils Insufficient information has been presented by the licensee to allow an independent verification of the areal extent of material compacted to less than 95% Modified Proctor. While assumptions of excavation widths and slope angles have been made by the licensee to attempt to place limits on the possible areal extent of potentially loose soil, no evidence has been presented to support the validity or conservatism of the assumption. Furthermore, the angle of excavation slope assumed by the licensee is not in accordance with a previously submitted construc tion drawing (Ref. 10).

Due to the ambiguities associated with the licensee's method of defining areal extent, and considering the conse quence of error in determining an acceptable, conservative slope., it is suggested that the licensee definitely establish the areal extent and actual densities of backfill materials by field investigation, where accessible, at all locations where soil properties could affect the response of stability of seismic Category 1 structures, buried ducts, and equipment.

-7 C.2 Settlement of Backfill Insufficient information has been presented to allow an independent analysis of estimates of settlement. Calculated estimates based upon procedures of Silver and Seed (Ref. ll).and Lee and Albaisa (Ref. 12) have been adjusted by the licensee using unspecified techniques.

Information related to the adjustments made to the calculated estimates to account for "variations of depth of fill below the foundations" and "proximity of adjacent boundaries which constratn the development of shear strains" is required.

The staff considers that differential settlements up to and exceeding 5 in. and tilting of foundations can be expected when structures founded upon reconstituted San Mateo Formation sand compacted to less than 85% Modified Proctor density undergo dynamic loading conditions associated with a 0.67 g SSE, based on the unadjusted procedures of Reference 12. Such potential movements may have a significant effect on the safety function of these facilities.

C.3 Shear Moduli Reduction Factors Staff's calculation of shear modulus reduction factors based upon data presented in past licensee submittals (Ref. 3) and correlation data between relative density and shear moduli values for typical sands presented by Seed (Ref. 13) indicates that reduction factors (at strains fo 10-4%) of 0.8, 0.7 and 0.5 are appropriate for sand at relative compaction of 90%, 85% and 80%, respectively. The staff suggests, therefore, that the licensee consider using a low strain reduction factor of about 0.7 for sand at 85% relative compaction (50%

relative density) and a reduction factor of 0.5 for sand near 80%

relative compaction (30% relative density). These reduction factors are considered valid only for reconstituted (i.e., backfill) San Mateo sand. Previous calculations by the licensee, which assumed the back fill possessed properties of native San Mateo sand at low strain (10-3 10-4%) must, of course, be reduced to account for the loss of modulus values at low strain levels attributed to cohesion in the undisturbed San Mateo sand.

C.4 Liquefaction Potential of Backfill Because the areal extent of the loose backfills soils has not been definitely established, it is not possible for the staff to identify areas where a potential for liquefaction exists. The position of the licensee, that San Mateo sand soils compacted to below 85% relative compaction (i.e., less than 50% relative density) should be considered as potentially liquefiable, is concurred in. The position of the li censee, that San Mateo sand material compacted to greater than 95%

relative compaction can be considered nonliquefiable, is also acceptable.

Without more definitive data regarding the in situ properties and the areal extent of soils which are compacted to less than 95%, the staff cannot accurately assess the liquefaction potential of the affected soils or the possible impact of liquefaction on settlement of structures and foundations resting upon backfill soils.

-8 C.5 Field-Erected Tanks Two safety-related, field-erected tanks, a 240,000-gal-capacity refueling water storage tank and a 240,000-gal-capacity condensate storage tank, have been founded on backfill materials at the site.

The refueling water storage tank is a 34-ft-diameter cyltndrical welded steel structure with a domed top'supported by a 35-ft 6-in.

diameter, 2 ft-thick circular reinforced concrete slab foundation.

The condensate storage tank is identical in size to the refueling water storage tank; however, it rests directly on a 6-in.-thick layer of coarse gravel which extends two ft beyond the tank's shell.

Settlement records for plant structures presented by the licensee in Reference 7 indicates the initial settlement after construction of the refueling water storage tank was less than 0.3 in.

with dif ferential settlements less than 0.15 in. Settlement data subsequent to February 1966 was not presented. Settlement records for the condensate storage tank indicate initial settlement recorded after construction in 1966 was 0.35 in,. with differential settlement less than 0.2 in. Subsequent recorded settlement data indicates that as of May 29, 1970, total settlement was 0.7 in. with a differential base settlement of 0.8 in. tilting 0.13 degrees to the northeast.

No settlement data subsequent to 1970 was provided.

Because of uncertainties concerning the areal extent and engineering strength properties of the backfill material supporting these struc tures, the staff cannot attest to the capability of the subsurface soils to safely support the structures. The staff recommends that the licensee obtain up-to-date settlement data for both structures and accurate data regarding the in situ engineering properties of the supporting backfill materials.

VI.

CONCLUSIONS Based on a review of information submitted by the licensee, on other site data available in NRC docket files, and on information obtained during a visit to the site, the staff can not concur in the licensee's assessment that "the settlement of foundations and buried equipment will not be a safety problem of concern for the Unit 1 facilities" (Ref. 5). The staff concludes that:

A. There are no foreseen potential static or dynamic settlement problems associated with any seismic Category I facility founded upon the undis turbed San Mateo Formation sand at the SONGS Unit 1 site.

-9 B. Adequate substantive data has not been presented by the licensee to allow the staff to independently determine the inplace condition and engineering properties of backfill materials in the immediate vicinity of several seismic Category I and safety-related structures, manholes, piping, ducts, and other buried facilities at the site.

The soil conditions beneath the ventilation equipment building, the condensate storage tank, the refueling water storage tank, portions of the seawall, the turbine plant cooler foundation, the 480-kV switch gear room slab, areas adjacent to the east and southeast turbine building foundations, electrical ductbank runs, tntake culverts, and miscellaneous:piping and supports have not been suffitcently defined to allow the staff to identify the portions of the facilities founded on backfill material versus undisturbed San Mateo Formation sand.

In order for the staff to complete its topic review, the licensee should provide the following:

A. Updated information concerning the areal extent and in situ properties of backfill materials adjacent to seismic Category I and safety7related facilities founded partly or entirely upon backfill'materials which has been obtained by means of appropriate field investigation techniques; B. Up-to-date settlement data related to seismic Category I safety-related facilities founded partially or entirely upon backfill materials to supplement available records through 1970; C. Shear moduli and damping characteristics of backfill materials including the variation of moduli and damping values with strain for backfill materials at appropriate relative densities and confining pressures; and D. An estimate of potential static and dynamic settlements and differential settlements of structures, manholes, piping ducts, and other facilities founded partially or entirely upon or within backftll materials.

-1 0

VII.

REFERENCES

1. "Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants - LWR Edition," NUREG-0800, July 1981.

2. Final Safety Analysis Report, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-206.

3. Southern California Edison Company letter R. Krieger to D.M. Crutchfield,

Subject:

SEP TOPIC II-4.D AND II-4.F, SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1, dated February 1, 1982.

4. Final Safety Analysis Report, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 50-361/362.

5. Southern California Edison Company letter Moody to D.M. Crutchfield,

Subject:

"SEP Topic I1-4.0 and II-4.F San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1," dated November 2, 1981.

6. "Report of Soil Backfill Conditions - San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1," August 12, 1982, submitted under cover letter from K.P. Baskin, Southern California Edison to D.M. Crutchfi'eld, NRC, dated August 17, 1982,

Subject:

"In-situ Soil Conditions SEP Topic 111-6, Seismic Design Considerations San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1."

7. Southern California Edison Company - Technical Drawing, "San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 Settlement Observation Markers,"

Drawing Numbers 8202080430 and 8202080435, Revisions 1-4, dated April 17, 1975.

8. J. E. Bowles - Foundation Analysis and Design, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill.

Book Company, New York, 1977.

9. ACI Committee 201, ACI Journal Proceedings, Vol. 65, No. 11, "Guide for Making a Condition Survey of Concrete in Service," November 1968.

10. Excavation Plan Plant Area -

Drawing No. 567760 Dated September 16, 1964.

11.

M. L. Silver and H. B. Seed -

"Volume Changes in Sands During Cyclic Loading," ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 97, No. SM9, September 1971, pp. 1171-1182.

12. K. L. Lee and A. Albaisa - "Earthquake Induced Settlements in Saturated Sands," ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 100, No. GT4, April 1974, pp. 387-406.

13. H. B. Seed and I. M. Idriss -

"Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analyses," University of California Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. FERC 70-10, December 1970.