ML19211A584
| ML19211A584 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000471 |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1979 |
| From: | Bivins W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912200156 | |
| Download: ML19211A584 (3) | |
Text
-'
..,S 7-e" %c
- \\ j'b s' u. *
[(g
,fg UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 p#
DocketNo.5b-471 0 4 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas A. Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 3, DOR THRU:
L. G. Hulman, Chief
' t Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, DS FROM:
William S. Bivins, Leader Hydrologic Engineering Section, HMB, DSE
SUBJECT:
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS - PILGRIM 1 BREAKWATER Enclosed are additional hydrologic engineering questions needed to complete our review of the subject breakwater. The questions are necessitated by inadequate responses to our previous requests. This review was performed by T. L. Johnson.
~ ~
MM William S.
ivin, Leader Hydrologic Engineering Section Hydrology-Meteorology Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
Enclosure:
As Stated cc: w/ enclosure D. Muller W. Gammill W. Kreger L. Hulman W. Bivins T.
ohnson
$" ""}
!b53 lb9 RS 1RC PDR LPDR
? 9122 00 / 57c k
- _.,. aw --
- w HYDROLOGIC Ef!GIflEERIfiG COMMENTS AND QUESTIO!!S PILGRIM UNIT 1 BRUdWATER You have not documented that the breakwater experienced design water leYels and design wave cono tions. Based on a review of your responses to our previous questions, the integrity of the breakwater remains questionable.
In your response to Question (f), you state that a study showed that it was possible to redesign the breakwater to provide adequate shore protection.
You further state that Mr. R. O. Eaton provided considerable judgment and experience in the redesign.
It is not clear what design bases were used to modify the breakwater c.onfiguration.
The model studies showed (p. 16) that flatter lee slopes were more stable, yet the breakwater was actually constructed with lee slopes of I on 113-practically the steepest slope used in breakwater construction. Additionally, you state (p. 23) that stone placement would be better in the prototype than in the model. In all probability, the exact opposite is true.
It appears that, from your responses to Question (e), the necessary quality control on the armor stone (weight, slope, and placement - interlocking with long axis normal to slope) may have been lacking.
Accordingly, provide the following documentation to substantiate the capability of the breakwater to protect safety related facilities.
1633 170 a.
Provide additional information on the wave and water level conditions ~
experienced at the site during the February 1978 and February 1979 storms.
Compare these conditions to those for which the breakwater was designed.
We note that limited information is presented in papers by Fitzgerald and Giese in "The Blizzard of 1979 - Its Effects on the Coastal Environments of Southeastern New England," Boston State College. Portions of this information may be useful in confirming your computed wave data.
If
s not available in published reports, wave information at the plant site should be obtained from available wave hindcasting mathematical
- models, b.
Provide your design bases for changing the configuration of the break-water after the model tests. How did you determine that the redesigned section was as stable as those tested? Describe the engineering judg-ment that went into the redesign.
c.
How do you justify the use of lee slopes of 1 and 113. with some portions of the slope even steeper, knowing that the models tests indicated correlation between stability and flatness of the slopes.
d.
Discuss how repairs were made to the damaged areas of the breakwater to insure that they are structurally equal or superior to the adjacent undamaged structure. Discuss the quality control used insofar as place-ment and size of the stones are concerned.
1633 171
%