ML17275B004

Forwards Geosciences Branch Request for Addl Info Re Foundation Design for Facility.Response Is Required by Jul 1981 to Maintain Schedule for Preparation of SER by Mar 1982

ML17275B004
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	04/08/1981
From:	Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Ferguson R WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
References
NUDOCS 8104200541
Download: ML17275B004 (7)

Text

APR 8 le Docket No.:

50-397 Washington Public Supply System ATTN:

Mr. R. L. Ferguson Managing Director 3000 George Washington Way

Richland, Washington 99352

Dear Mr. Ferguson:

Q DISTRIBUTION'Docket-Fi-1 e~

LBP1 Rdg DEisenhut BJYoungblood DLynoh MRushbrook RTedesco RVollmer TMurley DRoss RHartfield, MPA VNoonan OELD OIE (3)

DGupta bcc:

TERA NRC/PDR L/PDR NSIC TIC ACRS (16)

Subject:

,Request for Additional Information Regarding the WNP-2 Foundation Design In the course of our review of your application for an operating license for the WNP-,2 facility, we have identified a need for additional information regarding your foundation design.

We have also established two regulatory staff positions

( RSP) regarding the geotechnical engineering aspects of your facility.

This request and our positions represents our second round of questions on this subject and are contained fn the enclosure to this letter.

We request that you respond to our request-for additional information by July of. this year so that we can maintain our present schedule for issuing our SER fn March 1982.

You should note that Item 362.13 fn the enclosure is equally applicable to both the liNP-2 and, WNP 184 facilities inasmuch as Appendix 2.5G of the WNP-2 FSAR is taken dfre'ctly from the WNP 1&4 PSAR.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact M. D. Lynch at 301/492-8413 or L. Rfb at 301/492-8174.

Sincerely,

~gggQ ggtlR %

L T&0900 Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated SX 04SO 05~>

cc:

See next page OFFICE) sURNAMEp MDLynch/ys

,t, "4//81"".L..:b.YPZ::

4/5 /81 BJY u

blood 4

/81

~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~

RL edesco

~ ~

M

%A

~

0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

4/~/81

~ ~

~

~ ~

~ ~ ~

S

~": ".

"4'<a

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /'o p

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

x ~C/

NRC FORM 3I8 IIO/80I NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 4 USGPOl I980 329 824It

I a ~, tp]'

J k

II

,C 4r i

1 C

I I/

)t rt

ter.

R.

L. Ferguson Managing Director Washington Public Power Supply System P.

0.

Box 968 3000 George Washington Way

Richland, Washington 99352 ccs:

Hicholhs Reynolds, Esq.

Debevoise 8 Liberman 1'200 Seventeenth

Street, N.

W.

Washington, D.

C.

20036 Richard Q. Quigley, Esq.

Washington Public Power Supply System P.

0.

Box 968

Richland, Washington 99352 Nicholas Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, Washington 98504 Hr. 0.

K. Earle Licensing Engineer PE 0.

Box 968

Richland, Washington 99352 Nr. Albert D. Toth Resident Inspector/MPPSS-2 NPS clo U.

S; Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.

0.

Box 69 Richland, Washington 99352

GEOSCIENCES BRANCH 362.0 Geotechnical Engineerin Section 362.10 (RSP)

(App. 2.5H) 362. 11 (App. 2.5H) 362.12 (RSP)

(2.5.4) 362. 13 (App. 2.5G)

The measured settlement data given in Appendix 2.5H of the FSAR is provided only up to June 1978.

Accordingly, provide the most recent settlement data plotted as a function of time, for all seismic Category I structures where settlements are being monitored.

Tabulate the values of the maximum measured differential settlements and compare this measured data with the estimated settlements you assumed in the analysis of these structures and their appurtenances (e.g.,

the piping systems which connect to these structures).

Evaluate the impact of any differences between the measured and estimated differential settlements on the design and construction of these structures and appurtenances.

In this regard, we require that you monitor the settlement of all the safety-related structures and appurtenances for at least five years after the issuance of the operating license.

Further, we require you to pe'riodically evaluate the impact of any observed settlements on the design limits of seismic Category I structures.

Indicate how much settlement of the safety-related structures has occurred since these structures were connected to the safety-related utilities (i.e., piping systems).

Evaluate the effect of the historical and the estimated future settlements of the safety-related structures on the safety-related utility connections.

In Section 2.5.4.14 of the FSAR, you indicate that the top 25 feet of the 45 foot thick fill placed underneath the seismic Category I

condensate storage tanks was not monitored according to your specifications.

Specifically, for 19 out of 34 tests, the maximum density was not determined for each sample.

Accordingly, we require you to load test the condensate storage tank foundation and submit the results to us.

This test should be conducted by filling the tanks with water and monitoring the settlement of this tank until a satisfactor ily small rate of settlement is reached (e.g., a-settlement rate about 0.010 inches per month).

The purpose of this test is to provide assurance that the compaction of the fill was indeed performed properly.

In Appendix 2.5G to the FSAR, you provide the coefficients of earth pressure at rest and active to be used in analyzing static and dynamic loading conditions.

However, we find that these coefficients are low for compacted backfills.

Accordingly, provide justification for the values of the earth pressure coefficients you selected.

Provi de a plot of the maximum calculated earth pressur e on buried vertical walls versus depth for each safety-related structure.

4

~

e I

362.14 (5.1.1)

(DAR)

Our position on the dynamic soil properties to be used in your analysis of the-soil-structure interaction due to loads resulting-from the actuation of the SRV's and due to pool dynamic loads following a postulated LOCA is that these soil properties should be consistent with the strains induced in the soil due to these loads.

Accordingly, provide justification, including appropriate references, for,,the use of the soil properties data curve of Hardin and Black for a shear strain equal to.0001 percent in your SRV/LOCA analyses.

Explain in detail your procedure for determining dynamic strains imposed on the soil due to these loads.

Describe how these soil properties are modified to consider appropriate load combinations (e.g.,

seismic plus pool dynamic loads) and the resulting soil strains.

Ape 0 g~