ML17258A571

Forwards Safety Evaluations of SEP Topics II-4.D,stability of Sloped, & II-4.F,settlement of Foundations & Buried Equipment.Slopes Cannot Be Considered Stable Due to Failure to Use Appropriate Values in Calculations

ML17258A571
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	02/19/1982
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
References
TASK-02-04.D, TASK-02-04.F, TASK-2-4.D, TASK-2-4.F, TASK-RR LSO5-82-02-079, LSO5-82-2-79, NUDOCS 8202240235
Download: ML17258A571 (11)

Text

g

~

February 19, 1982 Docket No. 50-244 LS05-82-02-079 Mr. John E. HaIIee; Yice Presideht Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

Dear Hr. Ihier:

2h 4'e~p~

+O 4~

>ox~~

~o

SUBJECT:

SEP SAFETY TOPICS II-4.D, STABILITY OF SLOPES AND II-4.F, SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS AND BURIED EQUIPMENT - R.

E.

GINNA PLANT We have completed our review of the subject two topics of R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.

Enclosed is a copy of our Safety Evaluation Reports of these two topics.

As discussed in our evaluation for Topic II-4.D.

Stability of Slopes, the NRC cannot conclude that on site slopes are stable since the tested shear strength of soils from on-site borings was not used in your calculations and the r eported valves of shear strength were low.

This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety assessment for your facility unless you identify changes needed to reflect the as-built conditions at your fa441ity.

This topic assessment may be revised in the future if yOur faCility deSign iS Changed Or if HRC Criteria relatoo ing to this topic are modified before the integrated assessment is comp'1 pleted.

5 Sincerely,

Enclosures:

As stated Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.

5 Divisdbbti5fLidc:enhiyg

~4&)

cc w/enclosures:

See next page

• See revious Concurrence EPB

'EPB OFFICE) 00$0r 00

~ ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ 000

~ ~(

~

~ ~ ~

0 ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~

TChenq:R5l RHermann SUANAMEf 000 ~ 0 ~ 000000 eosroooo 0 ~

~ 0000 ~ 0000000000000

~ ~ 0 ~

7/11 /AP 2/1 2/82, 8202240235 820219 SEPB

~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ 0 ~ 0000 ~ l

~ ~ ~

WRuss e

~ 40 ~ 00000 ~ ~

~

0 ~

~

san 2// /82

~ ~ ~ ~ 100 ~ elooo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ORB¹

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~

JL s

~ ~

~ ~ 0 ~ 0

~

2/ I'7/82 0

DCr 1d

....Rl/gL82.....

AD:DL

~ 0

~ ~

~

0 ~

~

~ 0 ~ 00 ~ 0 ~

G i na s

~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ op g 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 2/id /82

~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~

000

~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 00 ~\\ ~ 0 ~ 0 N'(,'PDR

. ADOCK 05000244

'~"P.','...'

',: PDR;.)

i",

OFFICIAI RECORD COPY USGPO: 198I~r960

4 r ~ 1 ~ ~

r

~

~

I A (

1 ~

1 I

I, 1

~

4 I

I E

14

~ ~ I

~

F 1'h E ~

~ ~

C 1

~

~l) 14",

~ 1 1 ~

,'l vr"

)

~

Earl>

E ~

~ E vh Er

'EI E, Ih.

- ~

Er lrr v

~ I il

~

~"

-'r 1

~

~

I 1'

4r

~

4 I

~

I

~

E

~ E

-illwrv~ I 4

=

1 41 1

1 DCl l 49 1 ~

1

~

vl 1 1-Dl

<<<<CAi 1'+

Q A

Docket No. 50-244 LS05-82 Hr. John E. Maier, Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 5 Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

SUBJECT:

SEP,,

'OPICS II-4.D, STABILITY OF SLOPES AND II-4.F, SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS AND BURIED EQUIPMENT - R. E.

GINNA PLANT l<e have completed our review of the subject two topics of R.

E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.

Enclosed is a copy of our draft evaluation reports of these two topics.

As discussed in the draft reports, the Topic II-4.D, Stability of Slopes, remains open because no sound basis was provided in your evaluations.

This evaluation will be a basic input to the integrated safety assess-ment for your facility unless you ide tify changes needed to reflect the as-built conditions at your facility. tlith respect to the potential upgradings outlided in the conclusion of this report, a determination of the need to actually implement these changes will be made during the same integrated assessment.

This topic assessment may be revised in the future ifyour facility design is changed or if NRC criteria relating to this topic are modified before the integrated assessment is completed.

Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.

5 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/enclosures:

See next page OFFICEI SUANAME/

DATE$

SEPB:D~L

...Tcheog.N

..el/gaz.......

NAG FOAM 318 (10-80) NACM 0240 SEPB:DL

..JNeBQkf......

..2j.Q(82........

SEPB:DL

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~

~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

..!iRN.~.e.l.l......

ORB85:PM

~ 0)OLYOPNO 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~

ORGk5: BC

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0

~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 00 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~

.D(ratohf.is.l.

~ 02 jo ~ ~ 00 j0820 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

w 2joooo j0820 ~ 0 ~ 000 2jo ~ ~ 0)8200000000

~

OFFlCIAL RECORD COPY AD:SA:DL'

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0

~ ~ 0 ~\\ ~ 0 ~ 0

..Lai.os........

AO

~2j 0 F00/A140 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0

~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 00 ~ 0 ~

uSaFO: 1981-33~ Mo

0 a

A

,I

~ f' 0,>>

P

Mr. John E. Maier CC Harry H. Yoigt, Esquire

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.

W.

Suite 1100 Washington, D. C.

20036 Mr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester, New York 14618 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Resident Inspector R. E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S.

NRC 1503 Lake Road

Ontario, New York 14519 Director, Bureau of Nuclear Operations State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road West

Ontario, New York 14519 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic 'Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 U. S. Environmental. Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:

Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Herbert Grossman, Esq.,

Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I Office of Inspection and Enforcement 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM T

I I -.D R.

E.

GINNA TOPIC:

II-4. D, Stability of Slopes INTRODUCTION In order to assure that:all safety related structures, systems and components are adequately protected against the failure of natural or man-made

slopes, the possibility of movement of these slopes is evaluated by comparing forces resisting failure to those causing failure.

The scope of this safety topic evaluation is to review the condition of existing slopes, including geo-technical properties, ground water table, etc.

and, using current review criteria as a basis, to evaluate adequacy of these slopes.

II.. CURRENT REVIEW CRITERIA The current review criteria for this specific safety topic are:

1.

NAVFAC DM-7 2.

SRP 2.5.5 3.

Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 III.

RELATED SAFETY TOPICS AND INTERFACES None IV.

EVALUATION From the information provided by the licensee (References 1 and 2), the following findings are identified:

1.

The licensee has identified two onsite slopes, whose failures may be of safety concern.

2.

The subsurface conditions beneath the first slope, located about 200 feet northwest of the Turbine Building, can be assumed to be the same as those shown on Boring l.

3, The subsurface conditions beneath the second

slope, located east of the Screen

House, can be assumed to be the same as those shown on Boring 3.

4, The licensee has assumed that the silty clay layer has a friction angle of 32 degrees and concluded that these two slopes are suffi-ciently stable, However, the licensee has not provided an adequate basis to support its assumption and conclusion.

5.

These two slopes are located in silty clay soils with reportedly low shear strengths:

about 2 psi for silty clay shown on Boring 1

and about 1 psi for silty clay shown on Boring 3.

The evaluation of stability of these two slopes should be based on the tested shear strength of the two boring samples.

V.

CONCLUSION Based on the evaluation discussed above',

the staff cannot conclude that the onsite slopes are stable and recommends; (1) additional site investigation in vicinity of safety related slopes and an analysis of slope stability based upon in-situ soil properties or (2) a justifi-cation that slope instability or failure would not adversely affect the ability to safely shutdown the plant.

REFERENCES l.

Letter from J. Naier, RGSE to D. Crutchfield, NRC dated June 30, 1981.

2.

Letter from J. Maier, RGSE to D. Crutchfield, NRC dated January 15, 1982.

SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC II-4.F R.

E.

GINNA TOPIC:

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

INTRODUCTION In order to assure that safety related structures, systems and components are adequately protected against excessive settlement of the foundations, an evaluation should be made on the settlement and differential settlement of the foundations.

The scope of this safety topic evaluation is to review the information submitted by the licensee including existing settlement

data, geotechnical soil properties at the site, ground water table, etc.

and, using current review criteria as a basis to evaluate the effect of existing settlement, if any, on safety related structures and the possibi-lity of future settlement on the, safety related structures.

II.

CURRENT REVIEW CRITERIA The current review criteria for this specific safety topic are:

1.

SRP 2.5.4 2.

Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 3.

NAVFAC DM-7 III.

RELATED SAFETY~TOPICS AND INTERFACES None IV.

EVALUATION V.

From the information provided by the licensee (References 1

and 2), the following findings are identified:

1.

The containment, the auxiliary, and the intermediate buildings are founded on the bedrock of the gueenstone Formation.

2, The control and diesel generator buildings are founded on lean concrete placed over the bedrock.

3.

The buried service water pipeline are founded on granular fill compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum density at optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with modified AASHO procedure.

CONCLUSION Based on the evaluation discussed

above, the staff concluded that the settlement of foundations and buried equipment is not a safety concern at the Ginna plant.

REFERENCES 1.

Letter from J. Maier, RG&E to D. Crutchfield, NRC dated June 30, 1981.

2.

Letter from J. Haier, RGSE to D. Crutchfield, NRC dated January 15, 1982.

~

~

A