ML19220A349
| ML19220A349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1974 |
| From: | Kniel K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Arnold R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904170448 | |
| Download: ML19220A349 (6) | |
Text
.
w Ww
.R 2 5 " '
f
-.0,,>-
,. ~.....
t s-
.btrecoli tan Idi son Cc.nany
.-,.1.
.a...
2.,..
L.,. r, o..
s m, i..., o - _31. w..
c.
u., X a
.u
'.2ading, ?:nnsylvania 10C.13
.u....-.,.,.
. l 2..L....
is de indica:ad in our letter of.;;;ril 13, 1974, acc.:pting your Fir.al Saf aty ~.r.alysis.42acrt (F5M) for the Three ';il; Islaci
.aclear Station L' nit 2 (T'!I-2), w2 have idantifiel 3:ecific deficiencies in tha FSAR.
.Jditional informaticr. is required in the rc.,.3 fcr cur review in the areas of seisrolcgy, :aclogy, anu fcundation engineering.
The 3:ccific infor ation rar;uired in tne FCAR is listed in tna
'ncl o s u re.
In order to maintain our proposed revieu schedula, ua will need conciate and adequata responses to the enciaseu rsc ue s t a v v,un a l e,,,,
i m.,,,
P3aase intorn n, w1tn..in / u,?ys z.f ter racSict of thi; latter, of your confir atica of this subr.'.ittal u3 2 vr v.a u.1.3 a,.,
j 0,
..ti l l a%_ u s I w.
o o-
+-
e
- e...
w.
ou.
I'lE300 Contact us if yOU have 3ny questions Oss0Ciated With in0 in fol".la ti Cn ra':GestGd.
Sincerely,
.sa r,i
.V.10,a,
,.h l e 7-c 4,.
i f.',. v i..:a w,, %.. m,..
r,,,
aw r,,. w.,
m uu 2.
3j p.,+,,.3*.a. n.
- i. 4.,v.
y,. a-4in.
e s
Encl 0sure:
.<,.11 t1 on a i In to r-'a 1 on,.eq u1 recen ts e
lhr2e ?ile Island.luclear Station L'ni; ^
ccs:
See page 2 790417 0 t/ L/ 8
,s
..x i
i l
l '..! R 9 _'., L !
l
'I L
I
, '.iR ? _>
,,, c m i.
.. ~
3Mashburn:as'
<Katel l
l O,n,-- a o. j i
- 6
,0.~.
' l/. /72 2'./i/74 l
I f
3.,.
f orm A EC. )i s t Rev. >-13 e sf C.\\t 02 w o
e.2
.e
...e s i
-aoae.
- 2_
CCs:
Ccorge F. Trowbricge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbrid;;e 910 17th Street,... W.
'Jashing:0n, D.
C.
2000c GPU Service Corporation iG~I5 :
Mr.
R.
'ieward Project Manager
'60 Cherry dill Road Parsippany, ;;ev Jersey 07054 CP'J 5ervice Corporation
.\\TT.; :
Mr. T. ". C ri= mins, J r.
Safety and Licensing '.danager 260 Cherry 1i111 Koad
?arsippany, New Jersey 07034 DISTRIBUTIOh:
- v.,
um,
_3. -
'i.U!c o re -
J' dan drie -
AKenneke-
"Eisenhut.-
RKle cke r -
M C frv R0 (3) -
- 3. Washburn/
M. Service TR Branches KKniel JStol: #
J?ancarella -
ACRS (16) #
I h
l 8
x:,,
.4, l
l 8
s IU***"I f
l S a 's +. I I
l i
^
. 3rm MC ll t, Rev
.f. 4.% : MCM,12 4 )
383 043 so g o.e s.:
52 3 Js4
UNITED STATES
& N. '
d 4 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION l 'I J $*
wAssiscTes. o.c. zes4s d'
April 25, 1974 Docket No. 50-320 Metropolitan Edison Company ATTN:
Mr. R. C. Arnold Vice President P. O. Box 542 Reading. Pennsylvania 19603 Gentlemen:
As we indicated in our letter of April 18, 1974, accepting your Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 (TMI-2), we have identified specific deficiencies in the FSAR.
Additional information is required in.the FSAR for our review in the areas of seismology, geology, and foundation engineering.
The specific information required in the FSAR is listed in tne enclosure.
In order to maintain our proposed review schedule, we will need complete and adequate responses to the enclosed request by June 18, 1974 Please inforn us, within 7 days after receipt of this letter, of your ccnfirmz. tion of this submittal date or of the date you will be able to meet.
Please contact us if you have any cuestions associated with the information requested.
Sincerely r
0 d
Karl Kniel, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch 2-2 Directortta of Licensing
Enclosure:
Additional Information Requirements Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 ccs:
See page 2 0' 'l' '!9
-2 ces:
George F. Trewbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trewbridge 910 17th Street, N. h.
Washingten, D. C.
20006 GPU Service Corporatien ATT:
!r.
R. W.
Heward Project !!anager 260 Cherry Hill Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 GPU Service Corporation AT~N:
Mr. T. M. Critnins, Jr.
Safety and Licensing Manager 260 Cherry Hill Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
- 15. ? ' ' ' ! {J
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE;UIREVENTS THREE MILE ISLAND NUC LEAR STATION. UNIT 2 COC KET NO,
50-320 2.5 1 Basic ceolecie and seismic qala On page 2.5-4:
13-20/2.5.1 Describe or reference the tests and analyses that established the safe bearing loads for the jointed, steeply dipping shale foundations.
13-21/2.5.1 Describe the rock units encountered in hole R3-7.
13-22/2.5.1 Include all boring logs in the FSAR.
13-23/2.5.1 Provide legible Test Boring Plan and subsurface Profiles (Figures 2A-1 and 2A-2 in the PSAR).
13-24/2.5.1 Discuss the origin and significance of slickensides and the occurrence of calcite along slickensides (see borings DH-120, R3-1(3X), RB-2(NX), RS-4(3X),
etc.).
13-25/2 5 1 Discuss the load bearing significance of organic material and decomposed shale (clay) in a seam at 47 to 48 ft depth in boring DH-120 13-26/2.5 1 Discuss age of the healed old fau'+ apparent at 94 to 96 ft depth in boring RB-1(NAj.
13-27/2.5.1 Discuss and interpret the cause for loss of drill water in holes RS-4(NX) and RB-1(NX).
13-28/2e 5.1 Show the 100 percent saturation curve for the backfill material on Figure 2.5-7.
On page 2.5-6:
13-29/2.5.1 Document and reference the soil tests that were conducted to establish the bearing capacity values stated.
1J-30/2.5.1 Discuss, document, and estimate the settlement of footings under static and earthe,uake conditions.
1)-31/2.5 1 Provide sufficient teet data or plate bearing test information to show that the assumed bearing capacity of 30 KSF was available on the shale foundation for Category I structures.
A,' 7 ' '!'i
~
g ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS THREE MILE ISI2ND NUCLIAR STATION. UNIT 2 DCCKET NO.
50-120 13-32/2.5.1 Provide plots of the settlement of Category I structures versus increasing dead loads during cons truc tion.
13-33/2.5.1 Compare estimated settlements and measured settle-ments of Category I structures.
13-34/2.5.1 Explain differences in estimated and measured settlements.
13-35/2.5.1 Provide evidence to support tha statement that there are no unrelieved residual stresses in the bedrock.
13-36/2.5.1 cn page 2.5-8 The sandstone core samples selected for strength and property tests from boring RB-1(3X) do not appear to be representative of the shale founda-tion supporting the Category I structures.
The tested samples are of extraordinary quality.
Please discuss.
13-37/2.5.1 Re-evaluate the factors of safety expressed in this section.
Describe methods of analysis employed, assumptions made, and document foun-dation test data.
Include analyses of foundation failure along planes of weakness and clay seams interbedded in the shale foundation.
13-38/2.5.1 Explain, in detail, the method used to evaluate the effects of the SSE and 1/2 SSE on foundations for Category I structures.
13-39/2.5.1 Discuss lateral earth pressures on buried struc-tures, the consequences of liquefaction of allu-vial soils adjacent to structures, and the safe-guards provided for the Category I water supply system and conduits.
2.5.4 Stability of Subsurface Materials 13-40/2.5.4 Page 2.5-13 states that all safety structures are founded on bedrock, yet Table 2.5-1 indicates that zy f :' q 2
3-DITIONAL INFORMATION RE@lHEMENTS' THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 DOC KET NO, (0-120 Category I storage tanks are founded on Compacted Backfill.
Please resolve.
13-41/2.5.4 Show that the compacted backfill (95 percent of Standard Proctor) will not liquify under the effects of the SSE.
13-42/2.5.4 Present or reference mechanical analysis and relative density data for the compacted backfill.
Determine and present the relative density of the backfill material.
2.5.5 sloce stability On page 2.5-14:
13-43/2.5.5 Provide and reference stacility analyses for the dikes.
13-44/2.5.5 Provide static and seismic stability analyses for the rip-rapped slopes adjacent to the river intake structures.
13-45/2.5.5 Document and reference soil strengths available to support the dike and rip rap.
3.7.2 Seismic System Analysis On page 3.7-6:
13-46/3.7.2 Show by conservative pseudo-static methods, that seismic torsional effects will not influence the design of Category I structures with respect to differential displacement between structures and buried conduits.
13-47/3.7.2 Describe the methodology and assumptions made to calculate overturning moments.
13-48/3.7.2 State the resulting factor of safety for over-turning of all Category I structures.
d ' f '1 3
4-khh lhh ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRDtENTS THREE QLE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-320 3.8.1 Concrete Containment 13-49/3.8.1 With respect to the information on pages 3.0-1 and 3.8-8, discuss provisions for differential movements between the containment structure and buried conduits to prevent rupture of the buried conduits.
3.8.4 Other Categorv I Structures On page 3.8-47:
13-50/3.8.4 Present the bases for the lateral earth pressure values given in paragraph f.
13-51/3.8.4 Discuss the influence of the SSE on the lateral earth pressures.
13-52/3.8.4 Discuss the lateral earth pressure developed as buried structures respond to the SSE.
3.8.5 Foundation and Concrete Supports 13-53/3.8.5 Concerning the presentation on page 3.8-50, discuss the validity of subgrade reaction coefficients determined from unconfined tests of intact rock specimens for foundation shales found at the site.
On page 3.8-52:
13-54/3.8.5 Describe the analyses and foundation model used to ascertain the ultimate bearing capacity of the unweathered rock.
13-55/3.8.5 Give the factor of safety against overturning and discuss the method used to compute the factor of safety.
d'f , /1