ML18227C543
| ML18227C543 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1966 |
| From: | Nichols D US Dept of Interior, Geological Survey (USGS) |
| To: | Case E US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| References | |
| Download: ML18227C543 (6) | |
Text
EN1 Os F
. w IA 0
UNITED STA DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURYEY WASHINGTON 25. D. C, i
-=~
IMRE&IY REFER 0:
I'/,7 e QII++
August 29'966 IIr. &son G. Case> Assistant Director pivision of'eactor J.%censing
'O. S ~ Atonic Energy Conmission II915't., alma Avenue Beth<s~s ffaryXanQ.
20@/
T iw Ct 3esr Hri Ca e.
Tranced.%ted. hermCth is a -'preXizIinary', Bra& report concerning the i
aspects of the geology af /he Turkey Point site that may have a
'bearing on your'ra1uation'f'uitaMlity.
Sincerely yours~
Donald. R. Hichols Acting Assistant Chief Geologist for Engineering acology Enclosure
I ta>>V,
)I II It Vt>>>>
f V
V f n
t V
)I
)
V
~gugyg ping 9Z cP~
Florida Power and. Light Comply I'urkey Point IIuclcar Generating Unit'so. 3 and. IIo. 4 by II~ M. Coultcr The logs of borings presented. in Ui S ~ Atomic Energy Commission Rockets
)0-2p0 an6 50-2)1 Supple!nent IIo. 2, indicate tnat thc deposits underlying the proposed. plant comprise a heterogeneous assemblage of limestone an3.
calcareous sand..
The deposits range from relatively hard.
and. well<<cemented.
to weak, soft and. uncementeQ..
Xntcrconnected. solution cavities and. voids are abundant and. randomly QistributeQ thro~~~'!out the sampled. section. It is unlikely that laboratory tc t" of compressive stxength performed. on selected.
core samples from a sequence of matexials of thi type wi11 aRcquately characterize the average bearing capacity oi'hese deposits throughout tne entire foundation area.
XnQividual load. tests i'or proper foundation design of each concrete mat or spreaQ. i'ooting may be required..
Assuming wave action of the magni ude which may be anticipateQ accompanying a hurricane i'lood. tide of 14'm.s.l.
and. ma!wmum wind velocities of the or<lex of 3.90 m.p.h. consideration should. bc given to the following contingencies:
1.
Deposition of wave carried sediment and. Qeoris in the intake channel ancL at the mouth of the intake structure which may seriously restrict the total intake capacity.
2.
Unless aclequate wave resistant facings are proviQeQ. on the revetment slopes surrounding the plant~ rapid erosion which could. imperil those portions of thc plan footings foundecl on compacted limeroclc fill may take place.
I'*
I
~
~
c 1 ~
1 h'r
\\/
rh
3 ~
There is no apparent wave protection provided for thc fuel storage tanks on the no?Ah si6e of tne installation.
01avc llama e to these structures could. result in a general conflagration in the immediate environs of the plant or mixing of fuel oil with cooling water at the intake s'ucture.
,4
\\'
~
~
r I
4 I +
, ~II r
I I
~ I
~ 4 NI
~
~
4 4'y}
N.(f I,~
~
I I
II 4
~ f I
II,y<<
I 1
~ r
~ 7r I,'4 r
~
I ~
j'4 (44 f g
<<'I>
V"
,I ~
I I!
I ~
<<I
'I 44