ML19206A117
| ML19206A117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/25/1974 |
| From: | Washburn B US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19206A116 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904180061 | |
| Download: ML19206A117 (5) | |
Text
.
- y UNITED STATES
' N Il %
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
. M',% a a
f / d.
~'
WASH INGTON. D.C.
20545 s4, trms o Docket No. 50-320 APPLICANT:
Metrcpolitan Ediscn Ccrpany (Met-Ed)
FACILITI:
'Ihree Mile Island Nuclear Staticn, Unit 2, (z!I-2)
CPEPATD;G LICE;SE SAFETI FD7IEN SITE VISIT - SEISMCICGI, GECICCI AND FCChT.ATICU E;Gre.:.E;G, JLLY 18, 1974 A representative cf the Iicensing, Site Analysis Branch, Fcundaticn Engineering, inspected safety related seismic geologic and fcunda-tien engi.eering features of de Tnree Mile Island site en July 18, 19.74, for a pcrtien of the sa#ety revica and evaluaticn of de applicatic". for an cperating license for SII-2.
A list of participants is attached (Attac' ent 1.).
me vi si r i nc mec<, inenace,nn ne vs. e.,,%.. gtgr,,, g2,.eme,
the dike and ripran in the area arc = d the service wa'a - i-+ *a structure, the excavation w".ere the air intake structure was beinc poured, and selected bcring cores.
9.e ac
~
the infc=ation require ents in the FSAR,'plicants' resncnse todated April 2b,19 current requirenents fcr additicnal detailed informaticn were discussed. Questicns arising frcn the irs ^icn were also discussed. Notes en the discussions are ih Attachzent 2.
'Ihe applicants' representatives indicated that they wculd subrit the additicnal infccation required to glete their previcus respcnses as noted in Attachmnt 2.
If necessary, femal questicns resulting frcm the site visit and respenses to the accve discussicn will be suhritted to the ar..olicants.
~,
,. ( ['/ h -
,~
B. Washburn, Project Manager Light Water Feactors Eranch 2-2 Directorate of Licensing Attaciments :
AS sta*Jd 4$'ud 4 il a i9041800(>/
A++achment 1.
Docket No. 50-320 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2, (TMI-2)
SEISMOLCGY, GEOLOGY AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING SITE VISIT-July 18, 1974 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS J. Villaume Met-Ed J. Vann GPUSC J. Wright GPUSC W. Santamour GAI M. Kauffman GAI (F&M)
E. Debbas Burns & Roe (Part time)
A. Zallnick Burns & Roe (Part time)
L. Heller AEC:L
- 3. Washburn AEC:L 4r114
ttachment 2 Docket No. 50-320 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2, (TXI-2)
SEISMOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING SITE VISIT-July 18, 1974 DISCUSSION NOTES QUESTICN STATUS OF RESPONSE AND COMMENTS 13-20 Fertains to foundation safe bearing loads.
Unconfined compression test results submitted were for a " perfect" piece of rock.
We need test results for a real sample, i.e., wi.th fractures, slippage planes, dipping planes, etc.
Slipping mechanism will give less bearing capacity than the " ideal" (180 KIPS).
The concern is to relate the safe bearing loads to the actual rock structure.
Related questions are 13-31, 37, and 54 13-23 We need legible subsurface profiles.
_errains to a' rail 2ble be2 ring cap 20ity.
70 w
need a simple mechanistic analysis.
Related to question 13-20.
13-32, Pertain to settlements.
Applicants are prepared 33, to take tha necessary settlement measurements
& 34 during the hydro testing and will respond around the end of 1974
. Applies only to Category I structures not founded on bedrock.
13-38 This question is related to 13-20 above.
Draft of applicants' analysis was discussed.
Sub-mittal of this analysis should be responsive to the question.
13-39 This question has two parts.
The first pertains to the in situ material involved in that it
~
places lateral pressure on the backfill during flooding and earthquake.
(Amendment 16 did not respond to our intent however, the respense in Amendment 18 to Question 13-52 answere the intent of this part of 1J-39.
The next FSAR amendment should reference the Amendment 18 response to 13-52 as a part of the response to 13-39,)
43 115
- Attachment 2 Docket No. 50-320 THREE MII.E ISLAND NUCI. EAR STATICN, UNIT 2, (TMI-2)
. SEISMOLOGY, GEOLOGY AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING -------
QUESTION STATUS OP RESPONSE AND CO.'JYENTS 13-39 The second part of this question concerns the (continued) safeguards provided for Category I water supply system and conduits passing through the soil.
We need to know how far the building moves and the provisions for such movements.
13-43 Pertains to stability of the dike.
We need the detail of the assumptions utilized in the analysis and the reasons therefor.
13-44 Pertains to the stability of the riprap slopes adjacent to the service water intake structure.
Our needs are the same as in 13-43 above.
13-45 Pertains to support of the dike and riprap.
Our needs are the same as in 13-43 Resnnnsa
~
ohvuld addre== olvue o uc'ulil ly nell co ao the actual strength of dike material.
Original question was not clear to the applicant.
13-54 Pertains to foundation model and analyses of bearing capacity of unweathered rock.
Proposed response to 13-20 will answer this.
- - Applicants' representatives indicated that additional responses would be submitted.
The' applicants' responses to Questions 13-20 thru 13-55, other than as indicated above, were adequate.
4ri16
3-
~
Docket No. 50-320 THREE MIT.E ISI.AND NUCI. EAR ST.u!ON, UNIT 2, (TMI-2)
SEISM 010GY, GEOLOGY AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING -------
DISCUSSION NOTES (continued)
Possible sagging and evidence of erosion in the dike between the two service water intake structures were noted during the inspection.
We need assurance that this portion of the dike will not slip, under conditions such as SSE or FMP, and create a blockage of the service water intake.
Several questions were generated by the inspection of the air intake structure excavation and construction.
The applicants' representatives were asked for the reasons for the re-bars sticking out of the floor, reasons for re-bars mounted in various places in the bedrock near the top of the intake structure wall, and the reason for the jet wells into the rock in various places in the excavation.
The applicants' representatives indicated that the contractor started to install re-bar at the top of the wall to tie the wall forns but stopped this installation and went to re-ha r in the finnr to brace the wall forns.
The repre-eencaulved indluaced Lhau lhe re-Laisin Lhe Ledivck -ete not to prevent rock slippage.
They also indicated that the
. jet wells were for water renoval to keep the area dry and that these were not installed because of any rock slipping problen.
The cEseriations :-ade during this visit have been discussed with FO (F. Dreher and S. Folscm).
e
%a