ML19220C377
| ML19220C377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1974 |
| From: | Gammill W US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| To: | Kniel K US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904300496 | |
| Download: ML19220C377 (14) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.. '*.F.. Av 7 sarl iniel, Chief, L4Rs, 3 ranch 2-2, AC CC P T A;4 CZ RE V I E'J OF IJRCE XILL I S L A.: D C-2, FSA; FLAJT NAMZ-Three Mila Island Juclear Station - "ai: 2 LICONSI:iG STAGL; OL DOCKET :40: 50-320 RISPGUS13LS LRAJCd: LWR 2-2, B. 'Ja s h b u rn - L"X REQUIST2D CC"?LIIICh DATE: March 5, 1974 RZ7I2W SIATUS: Acceptance Review Complete (SAb) The subject FSAR is considered to have sufficient content for initiating f o rmal review, based on the Standard Fernat Guide. RevieG comments in the form of draft initial questiere are enclosed for the areas of geclogy, hydrolor-and meteorology. Draft review comments starting on 3/5/74, as co:npletea vere provided to the Project Manacer to assist in expediting review results. William P. Gammill, Chief Site Analysis 3 ranch Directorate of Licensian Zuclosure: As stated cc: See attached paga. ,' [ . N "^ 7804300'l% m N \\ \\
en - -<~,a re 10 10 / 3 Karl saiel cc. v/c enclosura A. Gicabusso 4. Mcdonald J. Pansarella ec-v/anclosure S. Hanauer J. dendria R. Boyd V. Moore E. Denton SS 3Cs A. Kenneke 3. 'J a s h'c u rn, LPM L. 'iuls an E. Markee L. lie lle r J. Osipond DISTRIBUTION: Docket File # L-Rdg L-SAS L-AD/SS p -) ' t. . br L:SA Q /.i L: ," i L:S 3 L:SAB I, : EA3 ,F i,. .y amea v +J ) s l o o n'd : b a s LH'U Sdn EMa 4' LHell464// '4 P G a E vi l l 4.. 3/12/74 3// 4 /75 3//3 /74 3 / /.3 / 7 4 om e e *,. _. _.. _ _... 3 / / 9... 7 4 ~ .6.... Form MC.313 i Rev. 9.$ 3 s MCM 0240
- o C +a na * *.+ s-a s a o.a e.
= SITE ANALYSIS 3 RANCH - FOUNDAEION ENGINEERING, GEOLOGY & SEISMOLOGY ACCE?TANCE RE V I E '.i (FSAR) - THREE MILE ISLAND - LNIT 2 REVIEWED SY - L. W.
- Heller, J.
W. Skrove and J. C. Stepp 2.5.1 3asic Geologic and Seismic Data - 7 0 ". Complete on page 2.5-4. a. Describe or reference the tests and analyses that es t ab lish e d the safe bearing loads for the jointed, steeply dipping shale foundations, b. Identify hole nu=ber and describe the rock units encountered in the 128 ft deep hole. c. Include boring logs in the FSAR. d. Provide legible Test Boring Plan and S ub s urf ace Profiles (Figure 2A-1 and 2A-2). e, Discuss the origin and significance of slickensides and P. h e occurrence of calcite alcag slickensides (see borings DH-120, R3-1(3X), RS-2(NX), R3-4(3X), etc.) f. Discuss the load bearing significance of organic na erial and decomposed shale (clay) in a sean at 47 to a3 ft dep;h in boring DH-120. = g. Disc ut s age of the healed old fault apparent at 94 to 96 't depth in b a r: R3-1(N C). i l. J 'J '
. h. Discuss and interpre: the cause for loss of drill water in hole RS-4 (' X). J Show the 100 percent saturation curve for the backfill caterial on Figure 2.5-7. On page 2.5-6. a. Document and reference th e soil tests that were conducted to establich the bearing capacity values stated. b. Discuss, document, and estinate the settle =ent of footings under static and earthquake conditions. c. Provide sufficient test data or plate bearing test information Oc show that the assunec bearing capacity of 30 KSF was available on the shale foundation for Category I structures. Provide plots of the settlenent of Ca t e g o ry 1 structures v'rsus increasing dead loads during construction. e. Compare estinated settlements and ceasured settlements of Category I structures. Explain diffarences in estinated and neasured settlenents, [N k ') L J 'J s
. g. Provide evidence to support the statement that there are adrock. no unrelieved residual stresses in the '.ii t h respect to page 2.5-3, the sand tone core samples selected for strength and proper
- tests from boring R3-1(SX) do act appear to be representa ve of the shale fouadation supporting the Category I structures.
Tb. tasced s a t,. '. e s are of extraordinary quality. Please :!is c u s s. I On page 2.5-8. a. Re-evaluate the factors of safety expressed in this section. Describe methods of analysis employed, assumptions nade, and document foundation test data. Include analyses of foundatton failure along planes of weakness and clay seams interbedded in the shale foundation. b. Explain, in detail, the method used to evaluate the effects of the SSE and 1/2 SSE on foundations for C,a t e g o ry I structures. i c. Discuss lateral earth pressures on buried structures, the consequences of liquefaction of alluvial soils adjacent to structures, and the safeguards provided for the Category I vater supply systen and conduits. G3 ( 7 / i.
- .. r JV M
2.5.4 Stability of Subsurface 'Grerials - 70% Complete ,a. Page 2.5-13 states that all safety structures are founded on bedrock, yet Table 2.5-1 indicates that Category I storage tanks are founded on Co=pacted 3ackfill. Please resolve. b. Show that the ec=pacted backfill (95 percent of S tanda: d P roc to r) will r.ot liquefy under e effects of the SSE. c. Present or reference mech <nical analysis and relative density data for the compacted backfill. Determine and present the relative density of the backfill =aterial. 2.5.5 Sloce Stabili:v - 30% Co=plete '4 i t h respect to page 2.5-14. a. Provide and reference stability analyses for the dikes. b. Provide static and seismic stability analyres for the rip-rapped slopes adj acen t to the river intake structures-c. Document and reference soil strengths available to support the dike and rip rap. ea ~' ^ 7 ~) {, J '] i 3.7.2 Se snic Susten Analysis Uith respect to page 3.7-6. a. Show by conservative pseudo-static cetnods, that scismic torsional effects will not influence the design of Category I structures with respect to differential displacement between structures and buried ccnduits, b. Describe the methodology and assumptions made to calculate overturning =orents, c. State the resulting factor of safety for overturning of all Category I structures. 3.6.1 Concrete Containment With respect to pages 3.8-1 and 3.3-6, discuss provisions for differential =ovements between the containment structure and buried conduits to prevent rupture of the buried conduits. 3.8.4 Other Category I Structures Nith respect to page 3.3-47. a. Present the bases ter the lateral earth pressure /alues given in paragraph f. ~ b. Discuss the influence of the 93E on the lateral earth pressures. ,t ,i s. ,ijv jL. c. Discuss the lateral earth pressure developed as buried structures respond to the SSE. 3.3.5 Foundation and Concrete Sucports Concerning t! e presentation on page 3.8-50, discuss the validity of subgrade reaction coefficients determin2d from unconfined tests of intact rock specimens for foundation shales found at th* site, b'i t h respect to page 3.8-52. a. Describe the analyses and foundation noael c.sd to ascertain the ultimate bearing capac.ty of the unweathered rock. b. Give the factor of safety againe overturning and discuss the cathod used to compute the factor of safety. m ~; L g i W
3!TE ANALYSIS 3 RANCH - HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING ACCEPTANCE REVIEW - THREE MILE ISLAND U-2 (FSAR) REVIERED BY - L. C. Hulnan 2.4.1 Hvdrologic Descriotion - 90: Complete Provide a map of the island which shows plant facilities, including the levee. 2.a.2
- loods - 907. Complete Provide the Agnes flood levels recorded in the site area, and compare same to your " design flood" and levee profiles.
2.4.3 Probable M a :- Flood (PMF) on Streans & Rivers - 90" Co=plete Compare PMF water level estimates with Agnes water levels. Explain the last sentence of section 2.4.2.6. 2.4.9 Channel Diversions - 0% Complete Discuss the potential for seis=ic or flood diversion of the river at the site. 2.4.10 Floodinz ?rotection Recuirements - 30% Co=plete Describe all flood protection provisions. Provide riprap gradation curves, and discuss its du r ab ili ty and maintenance. Will the acce s s bridge withstand a PMF? 2.4.11 Low Uater Considerations - 60* Complete Prcvide an instantaneous low flow frecuency curve, and an analysis which indicates the icwest flow and water le cel 2: which s! ;tiown can be maintained. ?rcride your esticate o'
- Se lowest flow and level you believe p as sible.
Minimum flows of record in sections 2.4.11 and 2.4.11.3 conflict, p v, i 8 V /. v \\
. *Taat provisions are provided to prevent trash frca blocking safety-related pumps at all postulated river conditions? General all other 2.4 secticas are considered to be co plete enou;;h to require no pre.lininary cc= cents. 4 t } {. J. }
.,....., a o s. A., C.,:. - .11. v.10, c r. n, ...s _. -. - _vv.
- H 3.. r 7
.f I L r T. c f_ A. ' D LM..* Iy 7 a... r D.....',a? ".s ?.",t. r "..
- r. S n..
ip t s R :' 1 -*. I D SY - R.
- i.. '2rnasievi:: an; C.
?. Turi
3.1 Re-ton
1 Climatolen - Complete '.3.1 Local ':e t a c re ic gy - 9 0 T. C nple:e Prctide infornation as to whether the wind speed ialues lis:ed in T ab le 2.3-4 (pages 2.3-21 through 2.3-2, in the FSA2) are the upper, lower or nid-point values for the particular 'tind speed category represent 2d. Since Figures 2.3-14 through 2.3-21 in the FSAR =ay not be the same size in the reproduction as in the original 3000' nay not drawing, the legend "Horis. Scale 1" apply to these Figures in their present format. Provide a horizontal scale for these Figures similar to the elevation scale. Figure 2.3-22 lacks a distance scale. In place ef Figure 2.3-22, provide a larger scale topograph_c cap, s h a't i n g site boundaries, plant structures and the location of the meteorological touers. The map should include a distance scale and indicate the direction of true north. 2.3.3 on-Site '!c t e o ro lo gical Measuremerta Proer2n - 507.' Conple: 2 Eng la: r. G;1de 1.23 indicates that the l o;; e r t e np a r a t.t r e and vind sensers on ' me:eorolo;1:al .er should 12 ii 7 OI i i L ll. ~
_ 2 _ ~ ground 'rhile the loca:c_ 2: :he 10 meter ( 30-f )
- 3ve onsite touers have the lotes: tind sensors located at the 103-f: levels and the lowes: tenpera:ure sensors at the 25-ft level.
Provide ei:her a nreposed plan to realige th e instrument array c afiguration to conform to the reconnendations of Regula:ory Guide
- 1. 2 3 o r a j us tifica:icn for the present configuration which deviates from that reco== ended in this Regulatory Guide.
proposed plan to conitor wind speed Provide e.ther a and diret tion and temperature difference between two levels on the tower in the control room as re con =en de d 3ustification for not in Rezulatorv Guide 1.23 or a having such ceteorological parameter nonitoring capabill:y in the control room. State accuracy of instruments in T ab le 2.3-2, 2.3.4 Shor: Tere (Accident) Diffusion Estimates - 907; Complete Justif; asing a wind speed of 1.0 mph for cal:3. State t h i e l, eind speed ca:egorics in Table 2.3-1 include h w e.+3 4 2 3.5 '_ o n ; Tern ~ ?outine' Ciffa Con Estin :es - 97~ Cc=plete ..,..s ../ o v s.. i...> a- .e, - ,5 .m-a +.: r3 n.,.., u, I ~j i. .a
4 radial se:: Ors to a distance of 50 niles in table forn. 3.3 Uind i Tornade Loadin3 3.3.1 Wind Loadinz - 9 3 '. Complete Show vertical velocity profile. 3.3.2 Tornado Loading - 901 Complete State the maximun rate of pressure drop that can be
- ithstood by the Category I structures.
11.3 Caseous Uaste System 11.3.6 Release Pointe - Complete 11.3.7 Dilution racters - Complete 11.6 Offsite Radiation Menitorin? Pro 7:a= ?rovide j us tification for not havin; environmental monitoring stations within the river valley north and south of the plant in view of the fa : that wind flou =ay be channelled along the river valley's anis. 13 0 Accident Analvses Provide a table listin; :P 2 X/Q valu2s used in the c a l c u l.: t i o n s in this chapter = e O 't 4 '/
1 -4 2 -,,. z..:.. a <,.. > x :>, n a .~... ? ovide a ces: rip; ion of :he prop:3ed e o s t - c,: a r a : L o n a l 2 .,;e. v.4.., ..t < -. e - -.._ -,o.,.u.c,2.,1 ..m.-..<..,4..., p.,,., o 12:ation, instrumentation, data disposition, and provisions for control roc = :onitorin; cf meteorological -,,,,C-C.-.O e o.. ,J..ww e e 9 4 e w h \\ =}}