ML19273B737
| ML19273B737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000502 |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1979 |
| From: | WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19273B732 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906120200 | |
| Download: ML19273B737 (117) | |
Text
. 4 BEFORE THE UllITED STATES flVCLEAR REGULATORY C0!11ISSION In the 11atter of WISCONSIit ELECTRIC POWER C0;tPANY, Docket No.
WISC0;1 SIN POWER AsiD LIGHT C0;PANY, and STN 50-502 WISCONSIii PUBLIC SER'iICE CORPORATIOli AMENDMENT 23_
HAVEN SITE ADDENDUM Wisconsin Electric Power Company, on its own behalf and on behalf of Wisconsin Power and Light Company and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (all hereinafter collectively rcferred to as " Applicants"). hereby amends the Site Addendum to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), filed as part of: the Application for Licenses in this docket. This amendment consists of Applicants' responses to the Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission's requests for additional infor-mation as forwarded by .'4, . Olan D. Parr's letters dated February 6 and 16,1979 and March 20, 1979. These responses ware previously submitted to the NRC for early review in a question-answer fomat with Applicants' letters dated April 2, 1979 and May 10, 1979 The changes raentioned herein are contained on the replacement pages enclosed herewith and made part hereof, which pages are to be inserted in the Haven Nuclear Plant PSAR Site Addendum in accordance with the accompanying instructions.
Dated the 31st day of May,1979.
Respectfully subnitted, WISC0tlSIN ELECTRIC POWER C0!PANY By
/
23k9 790612oeco
P STATE OF WISC0tiSIll HILWAUKEE COUNTY SQL BURSTEIN, being first duly sworn, on oath says that he has read the foregoing statement and knows the contents thereof, that the sane is true to the best of his knowledge and belief, and that this verification is made by affiant for the reason that Wisconsin Electric Power Company is a corporation, and he is an officer of such corporation, to-wit, Executive Vice President of such corporation, and is duly authorized to nake this verification for and on its behalf.
O b Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of flay,1979.
rum >rMt% ??! ewe . c Notary Public', State of Wisconsin _
liy Comission Expires 19. ly /f30- p34g
}f4
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS Correction pages to the Haven Site Addendum (Volumes 1-6) are identified by " Amendment 23, 6/79."
Change bars (vertical bars in the ma2. gin of corrected text and tables) indicate the location of additions, deletions, and changes originating with this amendment. Change bars from previous amendments have been dropped from corrected pages. New questions do not have change bars but are identified by
" Amendment 23, 6/79"; new or corrected figures do not have change bars, but are identified by " Amendment 23" under the title block.
Entries herein beginning with T or F designate tables and figures, respectively. All other entries are page numbers.
Remove Old Insert New Location VOLUME 1 WE Letter to Harold Before WE Letter Denton for Amendment to Harold Denton 23/ blank for Amendment 22 USNRC Attachment -
Amendment 23, Haven Site Addendum / blank Sol Burstein Affidavit /
blank MEP-1/MEP-2 MEP-1/MEP-2 Before Volume 1 Title Page GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS v/vi v/vi Before Foreword Tab CHAPTER 2 EP.2-1 thru EP.2-3/ EP.2-1 thru EP.2-3/ After Chapter 2 blank blank Tab 2349 175 I-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 Remove Old Insert New Location VOLUME 2 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS v/vi v/vi Atter_volame 2 Title Page SECTION 2.5 2.5-i thru 2.5-vi 2.5-1 thru 2.5-vi After 2.5 Tab 2.5-ix/2.5-x 2.5-ix/2.5-x 2.5-75 thru 2.5-86 2.5-75 thru 2.5-86c/
blank 2.5-93 thru 2.5-98 2.5-93 thru 2.5-98b 2.5-113/2.5-114 2.5-113/2.5-114 T2.5.4-18/T2.5.4-19 After T2.5.4-17 F2.5.4-33 F2.5.4-33 F2.5.4-34 thru F2.5.4-34 thru F2.5.4-41 delete F2.5.4-41 sheet F2.5.5.-5 F2.5.5-5 F2.5.5-7 F2.5.5-7 VOLUME 3 O
GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS v/vi v/vi After Volume 3 Title Page CHAPTER 8 EP.8-1/ blank EP.8-1/ blank After Chapter 8 8.2-1 thru 8.2-3/ 8.7 ) thru 8.2-3/ Tab blank bla .
CHAPTER 13 EP.13-1/ blank EP.13-1/ blank After Chapter 13 13-i/ blank 13-i/ blank Tab 13.3-5/13.3-6 13.3-5/13.3-6 2349 176 O
I-2
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 Remove Old Insert New Location VOLUME 4 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS v/vi v/vi After volume 4 Title Page VOLUME 5 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS v/vi v/vi After Volume 5 Title Page VOLUME 6 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS v/vi v/vi After volume 6 Title Page NRC QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES EP.Q-1/EP.Q-2 EP.Q-1/EP.Q-2 After NRC Questions and Responses Tab Q-vii/Q-viii After Q-vi Tab 130.0 - Before Tab 222.0 Structural Engineering Branch Q130.31-1/Q130.31-2 After Tab 130.0 thru Q130.33-1/ blank Q312.12-1/ blank After Tab 312.0, Q312.13-1/ blank Q312.8-1/ blank Q321.3-1/ blank After Tab 321.0, thru Q321.8-1/ Q321.2-1/ blank blank Tab 362.0- Before Tab 372.0-Geosciences Branch Meteorology Q362.1-1/ blank After Tab 362.0 thru Q362.14-8 Q372.6-1/Q372.6-2 After Tab 372.0, TQ372.6-1/ blank Q372.5-1/ blank 2349 177 I-3
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 Remove Old Insert New Location F0372.6-1 thru FQ372.6-5 Q432.2-1/ blank thru After Tab 432.0, Q432.9-1/ blank Q432.1-1/ blank 2349 178 9
O I-4
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 HAVEN SITE ADDENDUM MASTER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES The Lists of Ef fective Pages for the Site Addendum are compiled for each chapter and appendix in Volumes 1 through 5 and the NRC Questions and Responses in Volume 6.
The Master List of Effective Pages presents the dates of issue for each amendment, and the revision number of the Foreword, the General Table of Contents (found at the front of each volume), and each List of Effective Pages (found immediately after the respective chapter tab).
Issue Date Issue Date Issue Date Amendment 15 12/16/77 Amendment 18 9/22/78 Amendment 21 3/79 Amendment 16 3/24/78 Amendment 19 11/78 Amendment 22 4/79 Amendment 17 5/26/78 Amendment 20 2/79 Amendment 23 6/79 Foreword Chapter 15 1 21 EP.15-1 20 General Table of Contents Chapter 18 i and 11 21 EP.18-1 22 111 thru v 22 vi 23 Sinole - Unit Supplement Lists of Effective Pages EP.S-1 22 Chapter 1 Appendix 2A EP.1-1 20 EP.2A-1 21 Chapter 2 Appendix 2B EP.2-1 20 EP.2B-1 19 EP.2-2 and EP.2-3 23 Appendix 2C Chapter 3 EP.2C-1 21 EP.3-1 19 Appendix 2D Chapter 8 EP.2D-1 21 EP.8-1 23 Appendix 2E Chapter 9 EP.2E-1 21 EP.9-1 21 Appendix 2F Chapter 10 EP.2F-1 19 EP.10-1 20 Appendix 2G Chapter 11 EP.2G-1 19 EP.11-1 19 Appendix 2H Chapter 13 EP.2H-1 21 EP.13-1 23 2L349 179 MEP-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 MASTER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (CONT'D)
Appendix 2I EP.2I-1 19 Appendix 2J EP.2J-1 21 Appendix 2K EP.2K-1 21 Appendix 2L EP.2L-1 19 Appendix 2M EP.2M-1 22 Appendix 2N EP.2N-1 21 Appendix 20 EP.20-1 21 Appendix 2P EP.2P-1 21 Appendix 20 EP.2Q-1 21 Appendix 2R EP.2R-1 21 Appendix 2S EP.2S-1 21 Appendix 2T EP.2T-1 21 ,
Appendix 2U EP.2U-1 21 NRC Ouestions and Responses EP.Q-1 and EP.Q-2 23 6
MEP-2
NDP PSAR Amendment 22 HAVEN 4/79 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT
- D)
Section Title Volume 2M REPORT, GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY UNDER V LAKE MICHIGAN 2N DORING LOGS, HAVEN SITE V 20 SEISMIC REFLECTION SURVEY, HAVEN, WISCONSIN V 2P F1GINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT, LAKE MICHIGAN, AREA I V 2Q ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT, LAKE MICHIGAN, AREA II V 2R NESTON GEOPHYSICAL REVIEW OF ENGINEERING
.EOPHYSICAL REPORT-LAKE MICHIGAN-AREA I BY FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES V 2S EVALUATION OF GEOPHYSICAL DATA, LAKE MICHIGAN AREA V 2T REGIONAL BASEMENT GEOLOGY OF LAKE MICHIGAN V 20 INVESTIGATION OF HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS FOR THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, HAVEN, WISCONSIN, SITE VI NRC QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES VI NRC LETTER 1/9/76 IAR310 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS VI IAR324 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING VI IIAR310 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS VI IIAR321 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING VI IIAR322 METEOROLOGY VI IIAR323 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY VI
, 2349 ,81
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENPS (CONT *D)
Section Title Volume IIAR324 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING VI IIAR420 INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PIANNING VI l 130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH VI 222.0 POWER SYSTEMS BRANCH VI 312.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS BRANCH VI 321.0 HYDROLOGY VI 360.0 GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY VI 361.0 GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY VI l 362.0 GEOSCIENCES BRANCH VI 372.0 METEOROLOGY VI 432.0 EMERGENCY PLANNING BRANCH VI 2349 182 O
vi
WUP PSAR Amendment 20 HAVEN 2/79 HAVEN SITE ADDENDUM LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES CHAPTER 2 Page, Table (T) , or Revision Page, Table (T) , or Revision Fiqure (F) Number Fiqure (F) Number Section 2.0 Section 2.2 2.0-1 19 2.2-1 thru 2.2-111 20 2.0-11 15 2.2-1 thru 2.2-25 20 2.0-1 19 T2.2.1-1 thru 3 20 T2-1 (1 of 4) and (2 of 4) 15 T2.2.2-1 (6 sheets) 15 T2-1 (3 of 4) 18 T2.2.2-2 20 T2-1 (4 of 4) 15 T2.2.3-1 20 T2.2.3-2 (4 sheets) 20 Section 2.1 T2.2.3-3 thru 12 20 F2.2.1-1 15 2.1-1 thru iv 19 F2.2.1-2 16 2.1-1 18 F2.2.1-3 and 4 15 2.1-2 and 2a 19 F2.2.1-5 thru 7 20 2.1-3 thru 6 16 F2.2.3-1 thru 5 20 2.1-7 19 2.1-8 thru 16 16 T2.1.2-1 15 Section 2.3 T2.1.2-2 (2 sheets) 19 T2.1.3-1 16 2.3-1/ blank 18 T2.1.3-1A thru 1F 16 2.3-111 and iv 18 T2.1.3-2 thru 4 16 2.3-iv (a) 16 T2.1.3-5 and 6 18 2.3-v thru xviii 15 T2.1.3-7 16 2.3-xix 19 T2.1.3-8 (2 sheets) 16 2.3-xx and xxi 16 T2.1.3-9 and 10 16 2.3-xxii 18 T2.1.3-11 (2 sheets) 16 2.3-xxiii 19 T2.1.3-12 (1 of 5) and 2.3-1 16 (2 of 5) 16 2.3-2 18 T2.1.3-12 (3 of 5) 19 2.3-3 16 T2.1.3-12 (4 of 5) and 2.3-4 18 (5 of 5) 16 2.3-5 thru 16 16 T2.1.3-13 16 2.3-17 thru 18 18 T2.1.4-1 (3 sheets) 15 2.3-19 thru 23 16 T2.1.4-2 (4 sheets) 15 2.3-24 thru 24c 19 T2.1.4-3 thru 5 15 2.3-25 thru 28a 19 T2.1.4-6 and 7 16 2.3-29 thru 34 18 F2.1.1-1 15 2.3-35 and 36 19 F2.1.2-1 18 T2.3.1-1 15 F2.1.2-2 19 T2.3.1-2 18 F2.1.2-3 18 T2.3.1-3 and 4 15 F2.1.2-4 19 T2.3.2-1 15 F2.1.3-1 thru 16 16 T2.3.2-1A 16 F2.1.3-17 and 18 18 T2.3.2-2 15 F2.1.3-19 15 T2.3.2-3 thru 14 18 F2.1.3-20 thru 22 16 T2.3.2-15 and 16 16 F2.1. 4 -1 15 T2.3.2-17 and 18 15 T2.3.2-18A thru 18G 16 T2.3.2-19 (2 sheets) 15 T2.3.2-20 thru 292 15 T2.3.2-293 18 T2.3.2.294 thru 322 15 T2.3.2-323 18 T2.3.3-1 thru 4 15 T2.3.3-5 (2 sheets) IS T2.3.3-6 15 EP.2-1 234h lh)
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 EAVEN SITE ADDENDUM LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (CO r D)
CHAPTER 2 Page, Table (T), or Revision Page, Table (T) , or Revision Fiqure (F) Ntunber Fiqure (F) Number T2.3.3-7 19 F2.4.5-1 15 T2.3.4-1 18 F2.4.5-2 (Delete Sheet) 19 T2.3.4-2 18 F2.4.13-1 thru 5 15 T2.3.5-1 18 F2.4.13-6 and 7 18 T2.3.5-2 thru 14 16 F2.4.13-8 15 T2.3.5-15 thru 18 18 F2.4.13-9 18 F2.3.2-1 thru 15 15 F2.4.13-10 thru 15 15 F2.3.2-16 thru 23 16 F2.4.13-16 18 F2.3.2-24 thru 37 15 F2.3.2-38 thru 40 16 Section 2.5 F2.3.3-1 and 2 19 F2.3.4-1 18 2.5-1 21 2.5-11 and iii 23 Section 2.4 2.5-iv 19 2.5-v 23 2.4-1 thru vii 20 2.5-vi thru viii 20 2.4-1 thru 17 16 2.5-ix 23 2.4-18 20 2.5-x 20 2.4-18a and 18b 20 2.5-1 18 2.4-19 19 2.5-2 thru 4a 21 2.4-20 and 21 20 2.5-5 thru 21 18 2.4-22 19 2.5-22 and 22a 19 2.4-23 thru 26 16 2.5-23 thru 26a 20 2.4-27 thru 32 18 2.5-27 thru 30 18 2.4-32a and 32b 21 2.5-31 and 32 20 2.4-33 18 2.5-33 thru 43 18 2.4-34 thru 38 20 2.5-44 thru 46a 21 2.4-39 16 2.5-47 thru 50 18 T2.4.1-1 16 2.5-51 21 T2.4.1-2 15 2.5.52 18 T2.4.1-3 16 2.5-53 21 T2.4.1-4 and 5 15 2.5-54 and 55 18 T2.4.2-1 and 2 16 2.5-56 and 56a 21 T2.4.3-1 20 2.5-57 thru 60b 19 T2.4.3-2 (2 sheets) 16 2.5-61 thru 63 18 T2.4.3-3 (2 sheets) 16 2.5-64 19 T2.4.3-4 16 2.5-65 thru 74 21 T2.4.3-5 15 2.5-75 thru 86c 23 T2.4.4-1 15 2.5-87 thru 92 18 T2.4.5-1 15 2.5-93 thru 98b 23 T2.4.7-1 15 2.5-114 23 T2.4.13-1 (29 sheets) 18 2.5-115 18 T2.4.13-2 15 T2.5.1-1 (2 sheets) 16 T2.4.13 (2 sheets) 15 T2.5.1-2 (3 sheets) 16 T2. 4 .13-4 (5 sheets) 18 T2.5.1-2A and 2B 16 T2.4.13-5 (2 sheets) 18 T2.5.1-3 (6 sheets) 19 T2.4.13-6 (2 sheets) 18 T2.5.2-1 (3 sheets) 16 F2.4.1-1 16 T2.5.2-2 (4 sheets) 16 F2.4.1-2 thru 12 15 T2.5.2-3 (2 sheets) 15 F2.4.2-1 16 T2.5.4-1 18 F2.4.2-2 15 T2.5.4-2 (2 sheets) 18 F2.4.3-1 15 T2.5.4-3 (33 sheets) 18 F2.4.3-2 16 T2.5.4-4 (5 sheets) 21 F2.4.3-2 (C1) thru (C12) 16 T2.5.4-5 thru 7 18 F2.4.3-3 thru 6 16 T2.5.4-8 (2 sheets) 18 F2.4.4-1 15 T2.5.4-9 thru 16 18 EP.2-2
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 HAVEN SITE ADDENDUM LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (CONT *D)
CHAPTER 2 Page, Table (T) , or Revision Fiqure (F) Number T2.5.4-17 21 T2.5.4-18 and 19 23 F2.5.1-1 and 2 16 F2.5.1-3 (Delete Sheet) 16 F2.5.1-3A 15 F2.5.1-4 and 5 18 F2.5.1-6 and 7 16 F2.5.1-7A 21 F2.5.1-8 and 9 (Delete Sheets) 16 F2.5.1-9A 16 F2.5.1-9B 18 F2.5.1-9C 16 F2.5.1-9D thru 9G 20 F2.5.1-10 and 11 21 F2.5.1-12 (Delete Sheet) 19 F2.5.1-12A and 12B 18 F2.5.1-13 and 14 18 F2.5.1-15 19 F2.5.1-16 thru 22 18 F2.5.1-23 thru 25 (Delete Sheet) 18 F2.5.1-26 and 27 18 F2.5.1-28 19 F2.5.2-1 thru 4 16 F2.5.2-5 21 F2.5.2-6 19 F2.5.4-1 thru 6 18 F2.5.4-7 thru 9 20 F2.5.4-10 18 F2.5.4-11 and 12 21 F.2.5.4-13 thru 32 18 F2.5.4-33 thru 41 23 F2.5.5-1 thru 2.5.5-4 18 F2.5.5-5 23 F2.5.5-6 20 1OC F2.5.5-7 23 97 O cJ / IOJ F2.5.5-8 thru 10 20 F2.5.5-11 15 EP.2-3
WUP PSAR Amendment 22 HAVEN 4/79 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT *D)
Section Title Volume 2M REPORT, GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY UNDER V LAKE MICHIGAN 2N DORING LOGS, HAVEN SITE V 20 SEISMIC REFLECTION GURVEY, HAVEN, WISCONSIN V 2P ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT, LAKE MICHIGAN, AREA I V 2Q ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT, LAKE MICHIGAN, AREA II V 2R WESTON GEOPHYSICAL REVIEW OF ENGINEEPlNG GEOPHYSICAL REPORT-LAKE MICHIGAN-AREA I BY FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES V 2S EVALUATION OF GEOPHYSICAL DATA, LAKE MICHIGAN AREA V 2T REGIONAL BASEMENT GEOLOGY OF LAKE MICHIGAN V 20 INVESTIGATION OF HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS FOR THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, HAVEN, WISCONSIN, SITE VI NRC QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES VI NRC LETTER 1/9/76 IAR310 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS VI IAR324 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING VI IIAR310 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS VI IIAk321 HYDROIOGIC ENGINEERING VI IIAR322 METEOROLOGY VI IIAR323 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY VI 2349 186
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT
- D)
Section Title Volume IIAR324 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING VI IIAR420 INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PIANNING VI l 130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH VI 222.0 POWER SYSTEMS BRANCH VI 312.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS BRANCH VI 321.0 HYDROLOGY VI 360.0 GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY VI 361.0 GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY VI l 362.0 GEOSCIENCES BRANCH VI 372.0 METEOROLOGY VI 432.0 EMERGENCY PLANNING BRANCH VI 2349 187 O
vi
WUP PSAR Amend.2ent 21 BAVEN 3/79 SECTION 2.5 GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.5.1 Basic Geologic and Seismic Information 2.5-3 2.5.1.1 Regional Geology 2.5-4 2.5.1.1.1 Regional Physiography 2.5-4 2.5.1.1.2 Regional Stratigraphy 2.5-5 2.5.1.1.3 Regional Structural Geology 2.5-14 2.5.1.1.4 Regional Geologic History 2.5-39 2.5.1.1.5 Gravity and Aeromagnetic Fields 2.5-44 2.5.1.2 Site Geology 2.5-45 2.5.1.2.1 Site Physiography 2.5-46 2.5.1.2.2 Site Stratigraphy and Lithology 2.5-46a 2.5.1.2.3 Site Structural Geology 2.5-52 2.5.1.2.4 Site Geologic History 2.5-54 2.5.1.2.5 Engineering Significance of Geologic Features Underlying the Site 2.5-56 2.5.1.2.6 Site Groundwater Conditions 2.5-58a 2.5.2 Vibratory Ground Motion 2.5-58a 2.5.2.1 Seismicity 2.5-58a 2.5.2.2 Geologic Structures and Tectonic Activity 2.5-60a 2.5.2.3 Correlation of Epicenters with Geologic 2.5-60b Structures or Tectonic Provinces 2.5.2.4 Maximm Earthquake Potential 2.5-63 2.5.2.5 Seismic Wave Transmission Characteristics 2.5-64 of the Site 2.5.2.6 Safe Shutdown Earthquake 2.5-65 2.5-i
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT?D)
Section Title Page 2.5.2.7 Operating Basis Earthquake 2.5-66 2.5.3 Surface Faulting 2.5-67 2.5.3.1 Geologic Conditions of the Site 2.5-67 2,5.3.2 Evidence of Fault Offset 2.5-67 2.:93.3 Earthquakes Associated with Capable Faults 2.5-67 2.5.1.4 Investigation of Capable Faults 2.5-67 2.5.3.5 Correlation of Epicenters with Capable Faults 2.5-68 2.5.3.6 Description of Capable Faults 2.5-68 2.5.3.7 Zone Requiring Detailed Faulting Investigation 2.5-68 2.5.3.8 Results of Faulting Investigation 2.5-68 2.5.4 Stability of Subsurface Materials and 2.5-68 Foundations 2.5.4.1 Geologic Features 2.5-68 2.5.4.2 Properties of Subsurface Materials 2.5-69 2.5.4.2.1 Overburden 2.5-69 2.5.4.2.2 Rock 2.5-70 2.5.4.3 Exploration 2.5-71 2.5.4.3.1 Exploratory Borings 2.5-71 2.5.4.3.2 Geophysical Surveys 2.5-72 2.5.4.3.3 Pump Test Program 2.5-72 2.5.4.4 Geophysical Data 2.5-72 2.5.4.5 Excavation and Backfill 2.5-74 2.5.4.5.1 Excavations 2.5-74 2.5.4.5.2 Backfill 2.5-75 l 2.5.4.6 Groundwater Conditions 2.5-78 2.5-1i 2349 lbh
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 E SLE OF CONTENTS (CONT *D1 Section Title Page 2.5.4.6.1 Existing Groundwater Conditions 2.5-78 2.5.4.6.2 Hydrogeologic Parameters 2.5-79 2.5.4.6.3 Contitruction Dewatering 2.5-79 2.5.4.6.4 Groundwater Drainage System 2.5-79 2.5.4.7 Response of Soil and Rock to Dynamic Loading 2.5-80 2.5.4.8 Liquefaction Potential and Dynamic Subsidence 2.5-80 2.5.4.8.1 Liquefaction Potential 2.5-80 2.5.4.8.2 Dynamic Subsidence 2.5-83 2.5.4.9 Earthquake Design Basis 2.5-85 2.5.4.10 Static Stability 2.5-86 2.5.4.10.1 Bearing Capacity 2.5-86 2.5.4.10.2 Heave and Settlement 2.5-87 2.5.4.10.3 Lateral Earth Pressures 2.5-91 2.5.w.11 Design Criteria 2.5-94 l 2.5.4.12 Techniques to Improve Subsurface Conditions 2.5-94 2.5.4.13 Surface and Subsurface Instrumentation 2.5-94 2.5.4.14 Construction Notes 2.5-95 2.5.5 Slope Stability 2.5-96 2.1.5.1 Slope Characteristics 2.5-96 2.5.5.2 Design Criteria 2.5-97 2.5.5.3 Logs of Borings 2.5-98 2.5.5.4 Compacted Fill 2.5-98 2.5.6 Embankments and Dams 2.5-98a 2349 190 2.5-111
WUP PSAR Amendment 19 HAVEN 11/78 SECTION 2.5 LIST OF L.BLES Table Title 2.5.1-1 Summary of Regional Folds 2.5.1-2 Summary of Regional Faults 2.5.1-2A Radiometric Age Dates of Fault Gouge Material 2.5.1-2B Mineralogical Composition of Fault Gouge Samples 2.5.1-3 Linears from ERTS Photographs 2.5.2-1 Regional Earthquakes (200 Mile Radius of Site) 2.5.2-2 Distant Earthquakes 2.5.2-3 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931 2.5.4-1 Summary Table - Unit Weights - Unconfined Compression Tests - Rock 2.5.4-2 Summary of Percolation Test Data 2.5.4-3 Sunmary of Pressure Test Data 2.5.4-4 Piezometer Data 2.5.4-5 SHAKE Model for Analysis of Liquefaction Potential of Compacted Fill for the Free Field 2.5.4-6 SHAKE Model for Analysis of Liquefaction Potential of the Compacted Fill beneath the Control Building 2.5.4-7 SHAKE Model for Analysis of Liquefaction Potential of Compacted Fill beneath the Diesel Generator Building 2.5.4-8 SHAKE Model for Analysis of Liquefaction Potential of Compacted Fill beneath the Fuel Building 2.5.4-9 SHAKE Model for Analysis of Liquefaction Potential of Compacted Fill beneath the Fuel Oil Pumphouse 2.5.4-10 SHAKE Model for Analysis of Liquefaction Potential of Compacted Fill beneath Main Steam Valve House No. 1 2.d.4-11 Minimum Factor of Safety against Liquefaction 2.5-iv 2349 191
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 SECTION 2.5 (CONT *DL LIST OF TABLES (CONTep)
Table Title 2.5.4-12 Clay Mineralogy of Shorewood and Manitowoc Tills in Eastern Wisconsin 2.5.4-13 Rock Properties 2.5.4-14 Summary of Geophysical Data 2.5.4-15 Input Motions for Analysis of Liquefaction Potential and Dynamic Subsidence 2.5.4-16 Summary of Earthquake Induced Settlements on SE.13mic Category I Structures 2.5.4-17 Aquifer Characteristics 2.5.4-18 Bearing Capacity - Category I Structures 2.5.4-19 Seismic Earth Pressure Coefficients 2349 192
, 2.5-v ,
WUP PSAR Amendment 20 HAVEN 2/79 SECTION 2.5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title 2.5.1-1 Regional Physiographic Map 2.5.1-2 Regional Surficial Geology 2.5.1-3 Deleted with Amendment 16 2.5.1-3A Geologic Time Scale for Pleistocene Epoch 2.5.1-4 Regional Stratigraphic Column 2.5.1-5 Regional Surface Bedrock Geology 2.5.1-6 Regional Cross Section - East-West 2.5.1-7 Regional Cross Section - North-South 2.5.1-7A Geologic Cross Section - Central Lake Michigan C-C 2.5.1-8 Deleted with Amendment 16 2.5.1-9 Deleted with Amendmeac 16 2.5.1-9A Regional Fold Map 2.5.1-9B Regional Fault Map 2.5.1-9C Faulting within 50 Miles 2.5.1-9D Structure Contours Top of the Maquoketa 2.5.1-9E Structure Contours Top of the St. Peter 2.5.1-9F Structure Contours - Top of the St. Peter Sandstone 2.5.1-9G Structure Contours - Top of the Trempealeau Group 2.5.1-10 Regional Bouguer Gravity Map 2.5.1-11 Residual Total Magnetic Anomaly Map 2.5.1-12 Deleted with Amendment 18 2 . 5 .1-12 A Boring Location Plan 2.5.1-12B Boring Location Plan 2.5.1-13 Site Geologic Cross Section North-South A-A 2.5-vi 2349 l
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 SECTION 1.5 (CONTop) LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title 2.5.4-25 Comparison of Shear Stresses below Main Steam Valve House No. 1 2.5.4-26 Static and Dynamic Lateral Earth Pressures 2.5.4-27 Lateral Static Earth Pressures Due to Compacted Fills against Unyielding Walls 2.5.4-28 Passive Earth Pressure Coefficients for Vertical Wall 2.5.4-29 Pressure Test Results-Permeability vs Elevation 2.5.4-30 Plant Foundation Elevation and Load Data 2.5.4-31 Summary of Static Settlement-Seismic Category I Structures 2.5.4-32 Volumetric Strain vs Cycle Ratio 2.5.4-33 Range of Grain Size Distribution for Structural Fill 2.5.4-34 Maximum Accelerations - Free Field 2.5.4-35 Maximum Accelerations - Control Building 2.5.4-36 Maximum Accelerations - Diesel Generator Building 2.5.4-37 Maximum Accelerations - Fuel Building 2.5.4-38 Maximum Accelerations - Fuel Oil Pumphouse 2.5.4-39 Maximum Accelerations - Main Steam Valve House No.1 2.5.4-40 Shear Stresses in Free Field 2.5.4-41 Settlement Monitoring Point Location Plan 2.5.5-1 Location Plan - Permanent Slopes, Subsurface Profiles 2.5.5-2 Permanent Slope - Subsurface Profile A-A 2.5.5-3 Permanent Slope - Subsurf ace Profile B-B 2.5.5-4 Permanent Slope - Subsurface Profile C-C 2.5-ix
WUP PSAR Amendment 20 HAVEN 2/79 SECTION 2.5 (CONT op} h LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title 2.5.5-5 Permanent Slope - Geometry and Soil Properties - Long Term Stability Case 2.5.5-6 Permanent Shoreline Slope - Geometry and Soil Properties - Long Term Drained Stability Case 2.5.5-7 Permanent Slope - Geometry and Soil Properties - Seismic Loading Case 2.5.5-8 Permanent Shoreline Slope - Geometry and Soil Properties - Seismic Loading Case 2.5.5-9 Shoreline Modifications - Location Plan 2.5.5-10 Shoreline Modifications - Sections 2.5.5-11 Shoreline Erosion 1941-1973 0 2349 195 O 2.5-x
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 The weak or weathered zones and the extent to which they will be removed will be determined from visual inspection and/br striking with a geologic hammer by an engineering geologist who will be present onsite during the exposure and excavation of the rock surfaces. Timely notification will be provided to the NRC Staff prior to treatment with or placement of concrete on finally prepared rack foundation surfaces beneath Category I structures. The third major excavation will be for the service water intake structures and pipelines. This excavation will be primarily in soil, although a short portion of the pipeline trench will require some rock excavation. A sheet pile cofferdam will enclose the excavation from the service water pumphouse to an area approximately 300 ft east. The remainder of the excavation will be an open cut trench approximately 4,000 ft long, typically 11 ft deep and 32 ft wide. Side slopes will be excavated as vertically as possible; however, they are not expected to be flatter than 1.5:1 horizontal to vertical. The trench will be backfilled as dae pipe is advanced. Excavations for the intake structures will be to bedrock. Fig. 2.5.4-18 shows elevation section views of the excavation for Intake Structure A and for the pipe trench. Divers will inspect underwater excavations for the service water system intake structures and pipelines. 2.5.4.5.2 Backfill Gravelly sands transported from an offsite borrow source will be used for structural fill. The borrow source was investigated with exploratory borings. Results of these subsurface investigations indicate that adequate quantities of suitable fill material are available at this source. Samples were recovered and laboratory investigations were undertaken to determine the static and dynamic properties of the proposed structural fill. Based on the results of this effort, the borrow materials designated as Conposite B and a mixture of Composite B and Composite C were selected for use as structural fill. These materials will form a dense, well graded fill when mixed. Detailed discussions of the borrow investigation and the properties of the structural fill are presented in Appendix 2B. The gradation range of the Composite B and Composite C soils as tested are shown on Fig. 2B-7 and 2B-8, respectively (Appendix 2B). The specified gradation range for structural fill will be as shown on Fig. 2.5.4-33 and it will have a uniformity coefficient of 6 or greater. Some processing of the material at the borrow source may be necessary to remove the particles greater than 3 inches in diameter. It is estimated that approximately 1 million cubic yards of fill material will be removed from the borrow area. The topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled for later reclamation of the borrow 2.5-75
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 area. Fine sands and other soils unsuitable for structural fill will also be stoc!til 4 but may be used for random, nonstructural fill. It is anticipa+ ed that front-end loaders will be used to remove the material from the b rrow source, working the full f ace of the excavation to insure mixing of the Composite B and Composite C soils. The material will be transported to the site and used immediately, or will be stockpiled for future use. The area of the borrow source from which the structural fill will be removed is shown on Figure 2B-2 (Appendix 2B) . After the backfill requirement is fulfilled, the borrow area will be reclaimed and the surf ace conditions will be blended with the surrounding topography. The structural fill is to be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASE D-2049. Lift thickness, compaction equipment, and minimum number of passes will also be specified. At this density, the factor of safety againct liquefaction was found to be adeqtate to preclude liquefaction of the material around or ber:eath Category I structures founded on compacted ctructural fill (Section 2.5.4.8.1) . Earthquake-induced dynamic settlements of Category I structures tounded on structural fill were found to be small (Section 2.5.4.8.2) , and the maximum static total settlement was also found to be small (Section 2.5.4.10) . Both dynamic and static settlements are within acceptable limits. Hence, the structural fill compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined from ASTM D-2049 is satisfactory from both the standpoint of liquefaction potential and the consideration of settlements. A testing and inspection program will be implemented during stockpiling and placement of the structural fill at the site to ensure compliance with gradation and density requirements. Testing of the structural fill in the stockpile and in place will be performed in accordance with the testing standards outlined below. The tests to be utilized are as follows:
- 1. Test for sieve or screen analysis of fine and coarse aggregates, ASTM C-136;
- 2. Test for relative density of cohesionless soils, AS m D-2049 (maximum density only); and
- 3. Test for density of soil in place by the sand-cone method, ASTM D-1556, or Test for density of soil in place by the rubber balloon method, ASTM D-2167, or 23t,9 197 2.5-76
WUP PSAR Amendraent 23 HAVEN 6/79 Tcst for density of soil and soil aggregate in place by nuclear methods (shallow depth) , ASTM D-2922. The minimum frequency of testing for safety-related fill material will be as follows: Test Prequency Inplace density At least one test for each 1,000 cu yd of safety-related fill material placed. Frequency of testing will be increased in confined areas or where compaction is questionable. Maximum Dry Density At least one test for each 2,000 cu yd of the first 50,000 cu yd stock-piled. One for each inplace density performed. Sieve Analysis At least one test on inplace material l for each 3,000 cu yd of safety-related material placed. In addition to the testing program, the fill placement procedures (e.g. , surf ace preparation, litt thickness, number of passes) will be monitored on a surveillance basis to ensure that the fill is installed in accordance with the specifications. ASTM C-136 will be used rather than ASTM D-422 for sieve analysis of the structural fill since ASTM D-422, Particle-Size Analysis of Soils, is applicable to a soil having such a high percentage of material passing the No. 200 sieve that both sieve and hydrometer analyses are needed to define its grain size distribution. The method requires that the test specimen be divided by the No. 10 sieve and that the fraction passing the No. 10 sieve be subjected to a hydrometer analysis before being ovendried and sieved. The structural fill for the Haven site will contain a maximum ot 10 percent fines. Since the precise grain size distribution ct the material passing the No. 200 sieve is unimportant for such a material, only a sieve analysis is required for gradation control of the structural fill. Therefore, ASTM D-422 is not an appropriate test for the structural fill, or for clean, granular soils in general. This fault in ASTM D-422 is widely acknowledged, and ASTM Section D-18.03.01, Particle Size and Specific Gravity of Soils, is currently developing a new standard to specifically address the sieve analysis of soils; eventually, ASTM D-422 will cover only the hydrometer analysis. Until this new standard is approved and issued, ASTM C-136, Sieve or Screen Analysis of . Fine and coarse Aggregatec, is a satisfactory method for the sieve analysis of relatively clean sand or gravel.
. 2349 i98 2.5-77
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 Gravel fill will be placed underwater around the service water piping and adjacent to the intake structures as shown on Fig. 2.5.4-18. Layers of rock armor will be placed above the gravel fill in the surf zone to protect against hydrodynamic erosion, and wave induced liquefaction. 2.5.4.6 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater conditions at the Haven site have been investigated by in situ testing and monitoring. Construction and post construction conditions have also been evaluated. 2.5.4.6.1 Existing Groundwater Conditions The regional and site groundwater conditions are presented in detail in Section 2.4.13. The groundwater levels at the site were determined by monitoring the 31 piezameters located as shown on Fig . 2.5.4 -10. Details ot the piezometer installations, as well as a plot of water elevations, are provided on Fig. 2.5.4-11 through 2.5.4-16. Water elevations are also given in Table 2.5.4-4. There are three distinct water table or potentiometric surfaces that exist in the site area. The first is a water table condition which exists in the upper glacial till, at approximately El. 610. The second groundwater level exists within the basal glacial deposits and the upper portion of the bedrock at approximately El. 585. At approximately El. 360, in a Vug Zone of the dolomite bedrock, a groundwater level of approximately El. 640 exists. The natural pattern of upper groundwater movement appears to be downward through the upper glacial tills to the interconnected basal glacial deposits - upper bedrock, and from there horizontal, eventually discharging into Lake Michigan. The groundwater flow from the deep Vug Zone is probably toward Lake Michigan, witt some upward migration occurring from that unit to the overlying series of rocks. The maximum seasonal change of groundwater level is approximately 6 ft. Water was encountered at depths less than 10 ft below the ground surface in most of the borings. However, most of this is considered locally perched water. The extreme groundwater level used for design conditions of safety-related structures and for liquefaction analyses of the compacted fill has been' conservatively assumed at El. 610, plant grade. A series of pressure tests was performed in 15 selected borings, from El. 333 to El. 551. The pressure test data and the calculated permeabilities are summarized in Table 2.5.4-3. The relationship between permeability and elevation is shown on Fig. 2.5.4-29. Percolation tests were also performed in Borings l'.4 and 144 to determine the permeability of the soil, using bcth 2349 i99 2.5-78
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 constant head and falling head tests. The results of these in situ permeability measurements are presented in Table 2.5.4-2. Pumping tests were performed at the site by Layne-Northwest, under the direction of Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Test wells drilled in the Shale Laminae Zone and Vug Zone dolomite were pumped at rates ranging from 10-32 gpm and 400-800 gpm, respectively. The details of the pumping tests and the analysis of the data from the tests are provided in Appendix 2U. 2.5.4.6.2 Hydrogeologic Parameters Comparison of drill logs, packer test results, and pump test analyses resulted in the identification of three hydrogeologic zones within the upper portion of the Niagara dolomite. These are, from top to bottom, the Shale Laminae Zone, the Middle Dolomite Zone, and the Vug Zone. These zones correspond approximately with the B, C, and D zones described in Section 2.5.1.2.2. The distinctions between the B, C, and D zones are based on lithology, whereas the Shale Laminae Zone r Middle Dolomite Zone, and Vug Zone are differentiated by their hydrogeologic characteristics. The Shale Laminae Zone comprises the upper 20-80 ft (El. 500-550 msl) of the site bedrock immediately underlying the soil overburden. The Middle Dolomite Zone underlies the Shale Laminae tone and, from a hydrogeologic standpoint, is approximately 40 ft thick (El . 4 60-500 mal) . The Middle Dolomite Zone acts as an aquitard between the Shale Laminae Zone and the Vug Zone. The Vug Zone is the principal bedrock aquifer underlying the site. Within the Vug Zone, two very thin highly permeable zones, Vug Zones A and B, produce significant amounts of water under artesian head when tapped by drilling. During drilling for the pump tests, the Vug Zone was encountered between El. 360 and 460 mal. Vug Zone A was found between El. 350-365 msl and Vug Zone B between El. 425-440 mal, based on site borings. A summary of the aquifer characteristics determined from the analysis of the pumping tests (Appendix 2U) is presented in Table 2.5.4-17. 2.5.4.6.3 Construction Dewatering An analysis of construction dewatering has been completed for a single-unit plant only. Refer to Section S2.5.4.6.3 of the Single-Unit Supplement for the discussion of construction dewatering. l 2.5.4.6.4 _ Groundwater Drainage System An analysis of the groundwater drainage system has been completed for a single-unit plant only. Refer to Section S2.5.4.6.4 of the Single-Unit Supplement for the discussion of the groundwater drainage system. l 2.5-79 2349 200
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 2.5.4.7 Response of Soll and Rock to Dynamic Loading All Seismic Category I structures will be founded directly on bedrock, on an intermediate concrete structure extending from bedrock, on soil cement extending from the rock surf ace, or on compacted structural fill extending trom bedrock. The liquefaction potential of the compacted structural fill is discussed in Section 2.5.4.8. The properties of the bedrock are discussed in Section 2.5.4.3. The static and dynamic properties of the compacted structural fill are provided in Section 2.5.4.5 and Appendix 2B. The stability of the permanent excavation slopes and the shoreline slopes under static and dynamic loading is discussed in Section 2.5.5. The soil-structure interaction for all Seismic Category I structures founded on soil or soil backfill is evaluated by use of the finite element program PLAXLY 4 as discussed in Section 3.7.2.5 and Appendix 3A of the PSAR. The site investigations did not detect any evidence that prior earthquakes have atfected the subsurface materials at the site (Section 2.5.1.2.5) . 2.5.4.8 Liquefaction Potential and Dynamic Subsidence The compacted structural fill which will be placed beneath and around some of the Seismic Category I structures at the Haven site has been evaluated for its liquefaction potential and the amount of subsidence or settlement anticipated during the occurrence of an SSE event. 2.5.4.8.1 Liquefaction Potential Analysis of the liquefaction potential of the compacted structural fill was performed according to the method presented by Seed and Idriss(***) and reiterated by Seed.(***) The method involves the evaluation of the following:
- 1. The cyclic shear stresses induced at different levels in soil by the earthquake shaking; and
- 2. The cyclic shear stress required to cause the soil to liquefy or undergo a given amount of cyclic strain.
The liquefaction potential was then evaluated by comparing the cyclic shear stresses induced by the earthquake shaking with the cyclic shear stress required to cause liquefaction. Acceleration time histories from five earthquakes were evaluated as input motion: 2349 201 2.5-80
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79
- 1. El Centro, California, 1940 NS component.
- 2. San Fernando, California, 1971 Castaic Old Ridge Route, N210E component.
- 3. San Fernando, California, 1971 Ventura Boulevard, N110E component.
- 4. El Centro, California,-1934 EW component.
- 5. Parkfield, California, 1966 N050W component.
The justification for the selection of these earthquakes is pro-vided in Section 2.5.4.9. Pertinent information concerning these earthquakes is presented in Table 2.5.4-15. The actual earthquake records were scaled to a ground surface acceleration of 0.2g to approximate the SSE level of shaking. For the analysis of the liquefaction potential of the free field case, the motion was input at the ground surface. For the analysis of the liquefaction potential of the compacted fill beneath soil-founded Seismic Category I structures, the motion was input at the surface in the free field and deconvoluted to rock to obtain an acceleration-time history at the rock surface. This motion was then input at the rock surface beneath the structures. Earthquake-induced peak shear stresses were calculated using the computer program SHAKE (*63 which analyzes the response of the soil associated with the vertical propagation of shear waves through a horizontally layered, linear-viscoelastic material. The average shear stresses in the soil were taken as o5 percent of the peak shear stress as recommended by Seed and Idriss.(***) An average of the responses of the five input earthquakes was used for the analysis.
~ ~~m5 dei ~iis'ed15r fXe' ~sE6Tisis ot~TEs~~Iiiiuetaction The s'oi1 potential of the free field case consisted of 60 tt of compacted fill divided into 12 equal, 5 ft thick layers. For the analysis of the liquefaction potential of the compacted fill beneath the seismic Category I structures, the depth of fill around the structures was taken as 55 ft. The soil was assumed to be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density measured by ASTM D-2049. The soil models used for the free field case and for the Seismic Category I structures are presented in Tables 2.5.4-5 through 2.5.4-10. The groundwater table was assumed at plant grade, El. 610. Bedrock was assumed to be a semi-infinite layer; its properties are discussed in Section 2.5.4.2. The 2349 202 2.5-81
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 static and dynamic properties of the compacted structural fill material are discussed in Section 2.5.4.5 and Appendix 2L. The relationships between shear modulus and damping versus strain for the compacted structural fill are presented in Appendix 2L Fig. 2L-4 and 2L-5, respectively. The variation of the shear modulus at small strains, G, with effective confining pressure, is presented on Fig. 2L-3. For the purpose of analysis, embedded portions of structures were treated as nearly rigid layers, having a shear wave velocity of 2,000 fps. The unit weight of these equivalent soil layers was determined by dividing the contact pressure of the foundation by the depth of embedment. Fig. 2.5.4-30 provides a summary of foundation elevations and contact pressures. The values of G were adjusted to account for the net change in effective stress below each structure. The values of G and total unit weight at the mid-height of each layer used as input into the computer program, SHAKE, are provided in Tables 2.5.4-5 through 2.5.4-10. The cyclic shear stress required to cause liquefaction was evaluated by cyclic triaxial tests presented in Appendix 2L. Liquetaction was defined as the occurrence of 2.5 percent double amplitude strain. The design earthquake was assumed to induce 10 equivalent cycles of uniform motion, in accordance with Seed, et al.'192) The stress ratio required to cause 2.5 percent double amplitude strain in 10 cycles for compacted structural fill, as measured by cyclic triaxial tests, is shown on Fig. 2.5.4-19. For each layer, the shear stress required to cause 2.5 percent double amplitude strain in 10 cycles is computed from the results of cyclic triaxial tests by the formula given by Seed and Peacock.(193) _ _ fo -o 3 cy T lig
. =C i 0 g3) r V 2- c where: _ _
T 11q = shear stress defined above, dy = vertical effective stress at center of layer,
= cyclic deviator stress, (a 1
- o 3)\-cy c = isotropic, effective consolidation pressure f \ for cyclic triaxial tests, Qo* -o)Y
= cyclic stress ratio required to cause 2.5 per-2 _c cent double amplitude strain in 10 cycles (Fig. 2. 5.4-19) , and C = 0.57 correction factor relating the stress con-ditions in the cylic triaxial test to the stress conditions in the field (***).
, 2.5-82 2349 203
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 Figures 2.5.4-34 through 2.5.4-39 give the maximum acceleration levels computed by SHAKE for each of the adopted five eartlquake time histories for the free field case and beneath Seismic Category I atructures on compacted structural fill. A comparison of the average shear stresses induced by the earthquake jhaking, as computed by SHAKE, with the shear stresses required to cause 2.5 percent double amplitude strain in 10 cycles is given on Fig. 2.5.4-20 through 2.5.4-28 for the free field case and beneath Seismic Category I structures on compacted structural fill. Figure 2.5.4-40 gives the peak induced cyclic shear stresses resulting from each of the individual time histories for the free field case. The factor of safety against liquefaction is defined as: FS = 7 eq (2) where: FS = factor of safety against liquefaction, T = shear stress required to cause 2.5 percent y19 double amplitude strain in 10 cycles for each layer, and T = average shear stress induced in each layer eq by the earthquake shaking. The factor of safety was computed for each layer for the free field case and beneath Seismic Category I structures. The lowest factor of safety for each case analyzed is given in Table 2.5.4-11. The minimum factor of safety of 2.9, which occurred for the free field case, is adequate to preclude the liquefaction of compacted structural fill below and around Seismic Category I structures. 2.5.4.8.2 Dynamic Subsidence The dynamic subsidence or settlement potential of the saturated - rznspceted-c.t:rectur a 1-f i4:1-a t- t he -H ymnait a wa<t._evalua ted __.haned _ _ _ __.___ on the concepts and data presented by Lee and Albaisa.(M ) The dynamic settlement of saturated sand results from volumetric strain following the dissipation of excess pore pressures developed during cyclic loading. The magnitude of this volumetric strain is a function of several variables, including the peak pore pressure ratio developed during cyclic loading, the grain size distribution, and relative density of the soil. The peak pore pressure ratio is the ratio of the peak excess pore pressure generated during cyclic loading, AU, to the effective confining pressure, F. }}4g 4 2.5-83
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 Lee and Albaisa(n) found from cyclic triaxial tests that the peak excess pore pressure ratio is primarily a function of the cycle ratio, Nc /Ng, which is the ratio of the number of significant or applied cycles of loading to the number of cycles required to cause initial liquefaction. A value of 10 was used for N c for the site SSE (Section 2.5.4.9) . N p, for various cyclic stress ratios was determined from Fig. 2L-14 (Appendix 2L) where the nunber of cycles required to reach a double amplitude strain of 2.5 percent was conservatively chosen as the criterion to define liquefaction. Once the cyclic stress ratio was determined, the range of volumetric strains for a given layer was determined from Fig. 2.5.4-32, which is derived from Lee and Albaisain) for a soil, due to its gradation and lower relative density, that is more susceptible to higher volumetric strains than the cohesionless fill used at the site. Since this analysis applies to the center of large level mats, permanent shear displacements are not considered and the settlement is assumed one-dimensional; i.e., the vertical strain, c y , equals the volumetric strain, c ygy. The steps in the settlement analysis are outlined as follows:
- 1. The applied cyclic shear stress ratio is computed for each layer, as follows:
(T ^ ) Stress Ratio =l I (3) where: k _v / field T = earthquake induced shear stress determined avg by SHAKE (96) (Section 2.5.4.8.1) , and dy = vertical effective stress at the mid-height of the layer being analyzed, including stress increase due to loading from adjacent structures.
- 2. The applied cyclic shear stress ratio was divided by a correction factor, C , which corrects cyclic triaxial r
results for the multidirectional shaking and -
~~overcorisolidution (or dWeYY1crent oT eEFA p~r~e's~suie
~~ - - -- at rest, Ko ) of the inplace soil.(190)
~T Thus, ^W F
-o n
-v field = i 3 cy triax Cr
_ 2 c - I") 2349 205 2.5-84
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 where: 3 3 = cyclic deviator stress in cy cyclic triaxial test i 3 cy triax = cyclic stress ratio from 2 - triaxial tests c L Cr = 0.57
- 3. The number of cycles required to cause 31guef action, N g ,
is determined from Fig. 2L-14.
- 4. The ratio Nc/Ng was computed.
- 5. Fig. 2.5.4-32 was used to obtain the volumetric strain c yoi. The volumetric strain determined for a particular layer was multiplied by the layer thickness to determine the settlement of an individual layer, and the surr. of these settlements for all layers beneath the structure was taken as the total settlement due to earthquake vibration.
For each computation, the maximum curve of Fig. 2.5.4-32 was conservatively used. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 2.5.4-16. 2.5.4.9 Earthquake Design Basis The seismicity within the Central Stable Region, of which the Haven site is a part, is discussed in Section 2.5.2. The maximum intensity earthquake expected to occur near the site is intensity VII (Section 2.5.2.4) . The peak horizontal ground acceleration for the SSE was determined in Section 2.5.2.6 to be 0.2g,~ ~ _ c_grresponding_ -to -an - intensity ___approximately -midway ~~ b tween intensity VII and __ ____ intensity VIII. The horizontal ground acceleration for the operating basis earthquake (OBE) has been selected as 0.06g (Section 2.5.4.7) . The design response spectra for the SSE and the OBE are presented in Section 3.7.1. The important aspects of any earthquake record with regard to the dynamic response of a given soil deposit are the frequency content and the intensity and duration of strong shaking. The input motions selected for analysis of liquefaction potential and dynamic subsidence (Section 2.5.4.8) are listed in Table 2.5.4-15. They were chosen to be compatible with conditions at the site and to provide proper frequency content. 2.5-85 2349 206
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/73 The acceleration-time histories of the records were scaled t^ the SSE level of shaking of 0.2g to compute the earthquake inuuced shear stresses in the ground. To account for the duration of strong shaking and to facilitate the comparison of stresses induced in the ground by the irregular acceleration-time histories of the earthquakes with the stresses required to induce liqueraction as determined by cyclic triaxial tests, 10 equivalent uniform cycles were used to represent the irregular acceleration time histories of the earthquakes. The value chosen is larger than the mean value representative of long duration shaking associated with an intensity VII-VIII event suggested by Seed, et al. casa) 2.5.4. 10 Static Stability Foundation analyses related to the stability of Seismic Category I structures at the Haven site under static loading conditions included evaluation of bearing capacity, estimation of total and differential settlement, and development of design lateral earth pressure parameters. 2.5.4.10.1 Bearing Capacity Fig. 2.5.4-30 shows the location of all Seismic Category I structures (except for the service water intake structures which are located offshore in Lake Michigan) and adjacent structures. It also provides the foundation elevations, type, size, bearing material, and total contact pressures. Settlements are based on contact pressure determined fran preliminary building layouts and equipment weights. Final information will be provided in the FSAR. Foundations on Rock The allowable bearing pressure for foundations on rock is based on conservatively selected properties derived from a
~ ~
consideration of the quality of the rock in situ as indicated _by- . the rock quality designation (RQD) of core -recovered 7 and the
.resulta_. ofE -unconfined ~ ~~cbuipa~ession tests of intact specimens.
Values of Young's moduli, shear moduli, and allowable bearing pressure of rock are presented in Section 2.5.4.2. Foundations on Soil In the design of individual footings, the allowable bearing pressure is based on consideration of both an adequate factor of safety against bearing capacity failure of the supporting soil and of limiting settlements under the imposed loading. The design of mat foundations is generally determined by a consideration of maximum tolerable settlements. 2.5-86 2349 207
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 The ultimate bearing capacity of the supporting soil is a function of the soil properties, the size and shape of footing, the depth of embedment, the inclination of the applied load, and the depth of the water table. The allowable bearing pressure, based on bearing capacity, is the ultimate bearing capacity divided by an appropriate safety factor. The ultimate static bearing capacities were computed using the method described by Bowles:( ea> 9 ult = cNcccccc s d i 9D +
"qqgqqqs d i g b F' w (5)
+ 1/2 yBN s d i g b F where: YYYYYYw qult = ultimate bearing capacity c = cohesion of soil (laboratory data) 9 = effective surcharge = YD D = depth of embedment l Y = unit weight of soil B = least lateral dimension of footing F' ,F = water table location correction s c, s, s hape factors ~ '
q Y , _ _ . . d,d,d = depth of embedment-factors c q y ,_____-
. ._ . i g e- i q,-ig~~e~1o~ad inclination factors 9' c 9q' 9y = ground factors b, b,b = base factors "c' q, N Y = bearing capacity factors For the case of structures founded on compacted structural fill, with the groundwater table at the surface, the above equation becomes:
qu lt =Y b sd + 1/2 y qqq b "y Ysd where: Yb = buoyant unit weight of soil The dynanic bearing capacities of structures founded on compacted structural fillcao*) were computed using a pseudostatic approach 2.5-86a
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 presented by Okamota with constant horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients of 0.2 and 0.13, respectively. The method uses the bearing capacity equations for the static case with a reduction in the bearirg . pacity factors, Ny and Ng, to account for the additional seismic forces. The equation used to evaluate the dynamic bearing capacities was as follows: 9 ult =Y b DN g
+S Y Y
9' ult = dynamic ultimate bearing capacity Yb = buoyant unit weight of soil (water table at plant grade) N ' ,N '
= seismic bearing capacity factors D = depth to base of foundation
^
B = width of foundation S = shape factor = (0.5-0.1 hf - s L _.lengtii'of foundation
~ ' .
~'A' friction angle of 35 deg was used to evaluate dynamic bearing capacities since the seismic bearing capacity factors were given only for friction angles up to 35 deg. Static and dynamic factors of safety against general bearing capacity failure are provided in Table 2.5.4-18. As anticipated, the factors of safety far exceed the minimum design requirements of Section 2.5.4.11. This table also includes the design parameters used in the above equations to evaluate the static and dynamic bearing capacity. The foundation of the main steam and feedwater piping tunnel located on in situ glacial till has not been designed at this time. As this is not a safety-related tunnel, its foundation design is not discussed. For individual footings on compacted structural fill, the allowable bearing pressure for a given maximum allowable total settlement is calculated by elastic theory using a Boussinesq type solution, as given in Lysmer and Duncan.csas) Using elastic theory, surface settlement is computed as the summation of strains within the elastic body due to a load at the W surface as: 4' 09 2.5-86b
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 IIAVEN 6/79 n A Az (6) p=[Z c ydz = { qiE f o i=1 where: p a settlement at surface Aq1 = to load at surfaceintensity of soil pressure at center of layer due Az = thickness of layer i E Young's Modulus (Section 2.5.4.10.3 discusses its g = determination) n = number of layers Z = depth over which strains are to be summed, divided into n layers c y = strain at point The Agi are given in Lysmer and Duncantaes) for various shapes of loaded areas as: Ag =I q i w surf where: Aq.1 I = intluence factor = qsurf. qsurf = intensity of applied load Therefore, an expression for surface settlement can be written as: I k' 9 surf w 0 (8) P E. 1 0*i *9 surf E1 *i i=1 i=1 2349 210 2.5-86c
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 mobilization of the shear strength of the soil along the failure plane implied by the theory. Lateral earth pressures due to horizontal and vertical ground accelerations were computed according to the analysis developed by Monabe-Okabe and described by Seed and Whitman.csos) For a uniformly distributed surcharge applied over an assumed unlimited area, the increase in lateral pressure is constant with depth and equal to the following (Fig. 2.5.4 -26) : 9 (21) where: o = lateral pressure due to surcharge K = appropriate lateral earth pressure coefficient q = uniform surcharge pressure The following design parameters will be used at the Haven site for structures founded on or within compacted structural fill. The lateral earth pressure coefficients are provided for the case of a vertical wall and a horizontal backfill which is the typical case at the Haven site. Ef fects of wall friction are included. A factor of safety has not been applied to the lateral earth pressure coefficients. Total unit weight y = 154 pcf Buoyant unit weight yt = Friction angle h = 91.6 pcf 38 deg Coefficient of friction for tan 6 = 0.4 structural fill compacted against concrete Coefficient of lateral earth K = 0.5 pressure at rest Coefficient of horizontal (active) K" = 0.22 earth pressure Coefficient ot horizontal K = 9.6 (passive) earth pressure 9 Seismic coefficients Horizontal ah = 0.2 Vertical ay = 0.13 2.5-93
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 Seismic earth pressure AKAE, AK PE coefficients - refer to Table 2.5.4-19 2.5.4.11 Design Criteria State-of-the-art methods and design criteria were used for the foundation stability analyses for Seismic Category I structures. The minimum design factors of safety are as follows: Bearing Capacity 3.0 for all loading conditions Slope Stability 1.5 for all permanent loading conditions; 1.2 for SSE loading conditions and for construction slopes l Hydrostatic Uplif t 1.1 for maximum water levels or earthquake induced pore pressures Sliding 1.5 for all permanent loading con- [ ditions: 1.1 for SSE loading con-ditions A discussion of load combinations used to check against sliding or overturning due to earthquakes, winds, and tornadoes is l presented in Sections 3.8.1.3 end 3.8.3.3. 2.5.4.12 Techniques to Improve Subsurface Conditions In situ soils at the locations of all Seismic Category I structures will be removed to bedrock. The structures will be founded directly on bedrock, on an intermediate concrete structure extending from bedrock, on soil cement extending from bedrock, or on compacted structural fill extending from bedrock. Programs to be used to evaluate the adequacy of rock surfaces and treatments to be used for improvement of rock surfaces are discussed in Section 2.5.4.5. 2.5.4.13 Surface and Subsurface Instrumentation A system of instrumentation will be established to monitor the perfornance of the site and plant structures during and following construction. Instrumentation will be provided to monitor the following:
- 1. Areal heave or subsidence due to excavation to plant grade and/or dewatering,
- 2. Heave and settlement due to excavation, construction of structures, and placement of backfill, and 2.5-94 2349 212
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79
- 3. Horizontal and vertical movement of the soils behind the retaining wall.
Areal subsidence or rebound outside of the major excavation (Fig. 2.5.4-16) is associated with excavation to plant grade and/or changes in groundwater level. Although the magnitude of movement is not expected to be significant, instrumentation will be installed to provide verification. Primary and secondary benchmarks will be installed outside the main excavation area. The primary benchmarks will be installed in bedrock. The elevation of the secondary benchmark will be surveyed during excavation, construction of structures, and placement of backfill. To monitor the performance of the foundation soils during construction, vertical movements will be measured at various points of the Seismic Category I structures. Figure 2.5.4-41 provides the approximate locations of settlement monitoring points, which will be installed to monitor the settlement of structures during construction. The initial settlement monitoring points will probably consist of metal plates with a length of vertical rod (telltale) permanently mounted above it. A guard casing will be located around the telltale, but will not be attached to the plate. These points will be located at the level of the bottom of the mat, and within the mat. The monuments will be installed prior to mat placement. The elevation of the plate will be monitored by optical survey methods. Af ter completion of foundations, and as structure walls are built, the settlement monitoring points will be transferred to metal plates embedded in horizontal concrete surfaces or metal pins embedded in vertical concrete surfaces. Settlement monitoring points will be surveyed on a weekly basis during concrete placement for a structure and probably on a monthly basis thereafter until all major static loads have been applied and a condition of equilibrium has been identified. Measurements of settlyment monitoring points will be presented in the FSAR in tabular and graphical form. Additionally, markers will be placed in bedrock prior to excavation and optically surveyed in order to verify the prediction of negligible heave of the bedrock due to the removal of the overburden within the main excavation area. 2.5.4.14 Construction Notes Significant construction problems and changes in design details or construction procedure that become necessary during construction will be discussed in the FSAR. 2349 213 2.5-95
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 2.5.5 Slope Stability Slope stability analyses were conducted on typical sections of the permanent slopes and the permanent shoreline slope. The results of these studies are presented in the following sections. 2.5.5.1 Slope Cnaracteristics The locations of the permanent slopes and the permanent shoreline slope are shown on Fig. 2.5.5-1. Subsurface profiles of the in situ materials, developed fiqm the boring logs (Appendix 2A) , are shown on Fig. 2.5.5-2 through 2.5.5-4. The exploration program is discussed in detail in Section 2.5.4.3. A detailed discussion of the site stratigraphy is presented in Section 2.5.1.2. An extensive laboratory investigation program was conducted by the Geotechnical laboratory of Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation to evaluate the index and engineering properties of the in situ soils at the Haven site. The report of this investigation program is contained in Appendix 2G. Groundwater levels at the site vary and are dependent upon the elevation at which the piezameter's tip is set. Within the overburden, piezometers indicate water levels between El. 585 and 610. At the interface between dolomite and the overburden and within the upper, weathered zone of the dolomite, piezometers indicate water levels between El. 585 and 590. Piezometer 16, installed just above the top of rock, shows a water level of approximately El. 612. Since other piezometers similarly installed indicate lower water levels, it appears that piezometers 16 and 18 may be giving faulty readings that are somewhat high, perhaps due to improper sealing of the piezometer tip. As discussed above, a groundwater level above El. 610 probably does not exist in the site area. However, the stability analyses for the permanent plant slopes were performed assuming an upslope water table at El. 615 and a downslope water table at plant grade (El. 610). The pe rmanent shoreline slope stability was evaluated assuming an upslope water table at plant grade El. 610 and a downslope water table at El. 580, the normal water level for Lake Michigan. All permanent slopes in the immediate plant area will be maintained at a slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3:1) or flatter. Seepage through the overburden material should be minimal. A ditch will be provided at the toe of the slope to carry surface runotf from the slope and any groundwater seepage which might occur through the slope. The toe ditch will increase the safety factor for the shallow circles by lowering the phreatic surface at the slope surface. 2349 214 2.5-96
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 2.5.5.2 Design Criteria A circular arc method of slices, the simplified Bishop method, was used to evaluate the stability of slopes using the computer program Lease II.(32) Both the long-term drained stability case and the case of seismic Joadings due to earthquakes were analyzed. The program allows for the effect of earthquake loading by the addition of pseudostatic inertial forces equal to horizontal and vertical seismic coef ficients times the weight of a given slice. The slope geometry and soil properties used in the long-term drained stability analysis for the permanent slope and the permanent shoreline slope are shown on Fig. 2.5.5-5 and 2.5.5-6, respectively. For the seismic loading case, the slope geometry and soil properties are shown on Fig. 2.5.5-7 and 2.5.5-8. Subsurface Profile A-A (Fig. 2 . 5. 5-2) indicates that the glacial till consists of two layers: an upper layer of approximately 10-15 feet consisting of a mixture of silty sand, sandy silt, clayey silt, and clayey sand, and the underlying silty clay / sandy clay that comprises most of the glacial till. For the purposes of stability analyses, the upper layer does not contribute significantly to the overall stability of the slope. Therefore, the silty clay / sandy clay was assumed to extend to the surface as shown on Fig. 2.5.5-5. The slopes and underlying soils are not susceptible to liquefaction, due to their cohesive nature. The thin sand lenses found in the glacial till, shown on Fi g . 2.5.5-2 through 2.5.5-4, are, due to the heterogeneous nature of the till, not considered continuous; consequently, they are not considered in the slope geometry. The soil properties used were developed from the laboratory test results described in Appendix 2G. In evaluating the effective stress parameters for the long-term drained stability case, the value of cohesion, C, was taken as zero. The value of effective friction angle, 9, for the glacial till and the glacial lake deposits was taken as 28 deg. For the seismic stability case, the undrained strength, s , of the glacial lake deposits was evaluated, using the SHNNSEP (Stress History and Normalized Soil Engineering Parameters) approach presented by Ladd and Foote.(**7) The undrained strength was taken from Fig. 2G-62 (Appendix 2G) and the stress history (OCR) was taken frcm Fig. 2G-9. The SHANSEP approach for determining undrained strengths was also used for the glacial till. Several conventional consolidated undrained (CIU) triaxial tests were also performed for comparison. As shown on Fig. 2G-71, they gave consistently lower results than the SHANSEP tests. A plot of undrained shear strength, s p , versus effective consolidation pressure, &c , is shown on Fig. 2G-72 for the conventional CIU tests. Also shown, for comparison, are the results of unconsolidated-undrained (UU) triaxial tests on the glacial till. The data show that the 2.5-97 2349 215
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 undrained strengths measured by the CIU tests are generally lower than those measured by the UU tests. This is explained by the fact that during saturation and consolidation, the CIU test specimens swelled and the water content increased significantly; the water content increase ranged from 2 to 6 percent. The conventional CIU tests provide the lower-bound value for the undrained strength of the glacial till clays. Consequently, the conventional CIU test results were used to conservatively evaluate the undrained strength of the glacial till for the seismic loading case, an event which was postu3ated to occur sometime after the completion of the slope. It has been found that the undrained strengths of overconsolidated clays decrease with time due to a reduction in confining pressure caused by excavation and an increase in water content caused by swelling in adverse weather conditions. The behavior of the conventional CIU tests simulates this effect and conservatively estimates the undrained strength for the long-term conditions. The minimum factor of safety for the long-term drained slope stability case for the permanent shoreline slope was 1.7. For the permanent slope, the minimum factor of satety was 1.4, which is less than the minimum required in Section 2.5.4.11, but in this case this requirement is not applicable. The toe of the slope is at least 600 ft from a safety-related structure. The calculated minimum safety factor of 1.4 is for a shallow or surface type failure, which in no way affects plant safety, and is considered adequate. All deeper circles which pass nearer the plant have safety factors well in excess of 1.5. The seismic case was studied by using seismic coefficients to apply forces in the horizontal direction away from the slope and in the vertical direction, both up and down. The combinations yielding the lowest factor of safety are shown on Fig. 2.5.5-7 and 2.5.5-8. The minimum factor of safety for (Le permanent excavation slope was 2.1 and for the permanent shoreline slope it was 1.2. 2.5.S.3 Logs of Borings The logs of exploratory borings used to develop the soil profiles shown on Fig. 2.5.5-2 through 2.5.5-4 are contained in Appendix 2A. The exploration program at the Haven site is discussed in detail in Section 2.5.4.3. 2.5.5.4 Compacted Fill l As discussed in Section 2.5.1. 2.1 and shown on Fig. 2. 5.5-11, some erosion of the present shoreline has occurred in the recent past. To prevent f urther erosion, permanent shoreline protection will be provided as shown on Fig. 2.5.5-9 and 2.5.5-10. The shoreline protection was designed in accordance with procedures outlined by the Army Corps of Engineers.(120) 2.5-98 b
WUP PSAR AmencJnent 23 HAVEN 6/79 2.5.6 Fmbankments and Dams No earth, rock, or earth and rock fill embankments will be constructed for plant flood protection or for impounding cooling water for plant cperation. REFERENCES
- 1. Agnew, A.F., 1963, Geology of the Platteville Quadrangle, Wisconsin: USGS Bull. 1123-E.
- 2. Akers, H., 1964, Unusual Surficial Deposits in the Driftless Areas of Wisconsin: Ph.D thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 169 pp.
- 3. Ald7;1ch, L.J.; David, G.L.; and James, H.L., 1965, Ages of Mineral from Metamorphic and Igeneous Rocks near Iron Mountain, Michigan: Jour. Petrology, V. 6, pp. 445-472.
- 4. Allingham, J.W., 1963, Geology of the Dodgeville and Mineral Point Quadrangles, Wisconsin: USGS Bull. 1123-D.
- 5. Atherton, E., 1971, Tectonic Development of the Eastern Interior Region of the United States. In: Background Materials for Symposium on Future Petroleum Potential of NPC Region 9 (Illinois Basin, Cincinnati Arch and Northern Part of Mississippi Embayment), Illinois Petroleum 96, Illinois State Geol. Survey, pp. 29-43.
- 6. Austin, G.S., 1972, Paleozoic Lithostratigraphy of South-eastern Minnesota. In: Geology of Minnesota.
Minn. Geol. Survey, pp. 459-484.
- 7. Banks, P.O. and Van Schmus, W.R., 1972, Chronology of Precambrian Rocks of Iron and Dickinson Counties, Michigan, Part II (abs .) : 18th Ann. Inst. on Lake Superior Geology, Houghton, Mich., May Paper 23.
- 8. Banks, P.O., and Van Schmus, W.R., 1971, Chronology of Pre,-cambrian Rocks of Iron and Dickinson Counties, Michigan, (abs . ) : 17th Ann. Inst. on Lake Superior Geology. Duluth, Minn., May pp. 9-10.
- 9. Bayley, R.W. and Muchlberger, W.R., 1968, uasement Rock Map of the United States: USGS.
- 10. Black, 1960, "Driftless Area" of Wisconsin Was Glaciated: Geol. Soc. America Bull., V. 71, pt. 2, p.
1827. (abst. )
- 11. Bleuer, N.K., 1970, Glacial Stratigraphy of South-Central Wisconsin: Wisconsin Geol. and Natural Hist.
Survey, Info. Cir. 15, Guidebook for Geol. Society of 2.5-98a }}4g '/ j /
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 American, Field Trip in Pleistocene Geology of Southern Wisconsin, pp. J-1 through J-35.
- 12. Borman, R.C., 1971, Preliminary Map Showing Thickness nf Glacial Deposits in Wisconsin: U.S. Geol. Survey and Wisconsin Geol. and Natural Survey, Cooperative Project.
- 13. Briggs, L.I., 1968, Geology of Subsurface Waste Disposal in Michigan Basin: in Subsurface Disposal in Geologic Basins -
A Study of Reservoir Strata, AAPG. Memoir 10, pp. 128-153.
- 14. Bristol, H.M., and Bushbach, T.C., 1971, Stratigraphic Setting of the Eastern Int. Reg. of the U.S. in 2349 218 O
O 2.5-98b
WUP PSAR Amendment 18 HAVEN 9/22/78 184. Brooker, E.h., and Ireland, H.O., Feb. 1965, Earth Pressure at Rest Related to Stress History, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol II, No. 1. 185. Caquot, A. and Kerisel, J., 1949, Traite de Mechnique Des Solls, Gauther-Villars, Paris. 186. Hendron, A.J., 1963, The Behavior of Sand in One Dimensional Compression, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana. 187. Jubenville, D.M., April 1976, Settle-II, A Computer Program to Calculate Settlements, Geotechnical Engineering Software Activity, University of Colorado Computing Center, Boulder. 188. Lysmer, J.L. and Duncan, J.M., 1972, Stress and Detlections in Foundations and Pavements, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of California, berkeley. 189. Seed, H. B., 1976, Evaluation of Soil Liquetaction Erfects on Ievel Ground during Earthquakes, Liqueraction Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE. 190. Seed, H. B.; Arrango, I.; and Chan, C.K., 1975, Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Potential during Earthquakes, Report No. EERC 7E-28, College of Engineering, University of California, berkeley. 191. Seed, H.D. and Idriss, 1.M., Sept. 1971, Simplitied Procedures for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential, JMSFD, V97. ASCE. 192. Seed, H.B.; Idriss, I.M.; Makdisi, F.; and Bauerjee, N., 1975, Representation of Irregular Stress Time Histories by Equivalent Uniform Stress Series in Liquefaction Analyses, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Ept. 27 0 . EERC-75-29, University of California, Berkeley. 193. St 1, H.B. and Peacock, W.H., 1971, Test Procedures for M ee =urements of Soil Liquefaction Characteristics, JS&'D, V97, No. SM8, ASCE. 194. Seed, H.B.; Ugas, C.; and Lysmer, J., Feb. 1976, Site Dependent Spectra for Earthquake Pesistant Design, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 66, No. 1. 195. Swiger, W.F., 1974, Evaluation of Soll Module, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers Conference Analysis and Design in Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 92. 2349 2l9 2.5-113
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 196. Winterkorn, H.F. and Fang, H.V., 1975, Foundation Engineering Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. 197. Ladd, C.C. and Foote, R., 1973, New Design Procedure for Stability of Soft Clay, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Civil Engineering , Cambridge, Mass. 198. Gupta, I.N. and Nuttli, O.W., 1976, Spatial Attenuation of Intensities for Central U.S. Earthquakes, Seismological Society Am. Bull., v. 66, pp 743-751. 199. Docekal, J., 1970, Earthquakes of the Stable Interior, with Emphasis on the Mid-Continent, v. 2, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. 200. Wickham, J.T., Gross, D.L., Lineback, J.A., and Thomas, R.S., 1978, Late Quaternary Sediments of Lake Michigan, Illinois State Geological Survey, Environmental Geology Notes, No. 84 201. Hough, J.L., 1958, Geology of the Great Lakes, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois. 202. Martin, L.W., 1965, The Physical Geography of Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 203. Saunders, D.F. and Hicks, D.E., 1976, Regional Geomorphic Lineaments on Satellite Imagery - Their Origin and Applications, Preprint of Paper Presented at the 2nd International Conference on the New Basement Tectonics, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, July 1976. 204. Hinze, W.J. and Merritt, D.W., 1969, Basement Rocks of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan: Guidebook to the Michigan Basin, Michigan Basin Geological Society, pp 28-59. 205. Hinze, W.J.; O*Hara, N.W.; Trow, J.W.; and Secor, G.B., 1966, Aeromagnetic Studies of Eastern Lake Superior: American Geophysical Union, Geophy. Mon. 10, pp 95-110. 206. Okamota, S., 1973, Introduction to Earthquake Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 241-247. 2349 220 g 2.5-114
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 TABLE 2.5.4-18 e BEARING CAPACITY - CATEGORY I STRUCTURES ** Static Bearing Dynamic Bearing capacity *** Capacit v* * *
- Approximate Approx . Approx. Depth Bearing Bearing Dimensions of Founding Static Shape Factor Factor Capacity Capacity Contact Area Depth Load ** Sq S Y
dq dy quit Factor of q' ult Factor of Structure (ft) (ft) (ksf) (ksi) Safety (ksf} Safety Control Building 104 x 110.5 2.5 3.1 1.74 0.62 1.01 1.0 186.6 63.4 25.4 8.6 Diesel Generator 72 x 75 2.5 1.9 1.75 0.62 1.01 1.0 134.7 79.2 18.2 10.4 Building fuel Oil pumphouse 41 x 53 1.5 1.0 1.60 0.69 1.01 1.0 83.6 92.9 10.8 11.9 Main Steam Valve 34 x 68 23 3.6 1.39 0.80 1.16 1.0 235.7 109.1 28.4 13.2 House Fuel Building 62 x 113 3.5 2.5 1,43 0.78 1.01 1.0 149.4 65.5 18.2 8.0 88 x 113 20 5.5 1.61 0.69 1.05 1.0 307.5 72.4 37.8 8.9 NOTES:
- Soil Properties - Total unit weight Yt= 154 pcf Buoyant unit weight Yb = 91.6 pcf Friction angle $ = 38 deg for Static Case
$ = 35 deg for Dynamic case ** Water table taken at plant grade; static load does not include ef fect of buoyancy ***gult
- Tb DNq Sq dq+ 1/2Yb BN y ySy d o e s ogeult
- YbDNg* + (0.5-0.1 B/L) By Nye Where: Where:
quit = static bearing capacity quit = dynamic bearing capacity buoyant unit weight of soil vb = buoyant unit weight of soil Yb= = depth of foundation D D = depth of foundation N B = width of foundation B = width of foundation u L = length of foundation L = length of foundation 4 Ny = 56.2 Ng '= 9.5 N = 48.9 Ny'= 6.0 S =1+ (B/L) tan 9 Sy=1-0.4 B/L N d =1 + 2 tan 9(1-sin 9) a D/B N dy=1.0 1 of 1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 TABLE 2.5.4-19 SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS Horizontal Vertical Seismic Seismic Coefficient Coefficient AK oK ( ah ) (av ) AE* PE*
+0.13 0.10 0.24
+0.2
-0.13 0.14 3.22
+0.13 -0.11 -3.23
-0.2
-0.13 -0.06 -0.34 Sign Convention:
+h Produces horizontal seismic force toward the wall
+a produces a vertical seismic force up Combined Static and Dynamic Earth Pressure Coefficients:
Active case: KAE = Kg + aKAE Passive case: KPE
- KP+ OKPE At-rest case:** KOE = KO+ AK AE NOTES:
- Includes wall friction
** Rigid walls and insignificant structure movement 2349 222 0
1 of 1
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS GRAPH OF GRANULAR MATERIALS
$1ZE OF OPENING IN INCHES ML5HES PER INCH, US STD SERIES GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS
, mf~f - A
, n a 1 A 2, 2 2 R R % R -g ogm R .9 m
9 n 9 9 n 8 8
= ~
8
~
8
~
?
O , , 100
,o x
't i 10 '
' 90 x
'L L \
20 \s \x _ _ _ _ _ _ 80
- ~~
30 \ q 70h g 1 i
\
x _ _ m y
~ ~ M yM x y
=
. As \ m m gw -g x g g g _ _ _ _ _ _ z S o x x _ _ v ' \ _ - - p F N z - \, \ s, ,- NZ W u w s u s g 70 i
\x \ '
t 30 g i X 80 3
\x 20
\ N '
90 \x 10 O 100 g u s s g g a s COARSE M EDIUM CO A RSE MEDIUM FfME GRAVEL SAND N w
$ HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT FIGURE 2.5.4 -33 RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION N FOR STRUCTURAL FILL N WISCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT
" PRELIMINARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AMENDMENT 23
O 10 7 20
- f i H
30 Y 8 40 e r f L , s 50 .l: l I i < a 60 . 0.06 0.08 _.0 10 0.12 _0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 MAXIMUM ACCELERATION ( g) LEGEND: e EL CENTRO 1940NS 5 EL CENTRO 1934 EW e CASTAIC 1971 N21 E
+ VENTUR A 1971 N ll'E e PARKFiELD 1971 NOS W PL ANT GRADE: EL 610' HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT FIGURE 2.5.4-34 MAXIMUM ACCELER ATIONS-FREE FIELD WISCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT PRELIMINARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AMENDMENT 23
O FOUNDATION CEPTH: 2.5 FT - / / m b g20 - ' g a , o i i (' <t30 l 'I' <
/
il I
. 1 e
)/
/ i S
o
' \
% \ %
60 0 06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 MAXIMUM ACCELERATION (g) LEGEND:
# EL CENTRO 1940NS e EL CENTRO 1934 EW A CASTAIC 1971 N21 E
$ VENTURA1971Nll E e PARKF: ELD 1971 N050W PLANT GR ADE: EL 610' HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT FIGURE 2.5.4- 35 M AXIMUM ACCELER ATIONS-CONTROL BUILDING WISCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT PRELIMINARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AMENDMENT 23
O FOUNDATI N DEPTH: 2.5 FT 10 -
/
}
20 , i
,/
O r ]30
- a. ,
g , Ig > y 3 m 40 ( \ -
.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 MAXIMUM ACCELERATION (g)
LEGEND: e EL CENTRO 1940NS a EL CENTRO 1934 EW A C ASTAIC 1971 N210 E
+ VENTURA 1971 N !! E
$ PARKFIELD 1971 N050W ,
PLANT GRADE: EL 610' I ( h HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT FIGURE 2.5.4 - 36 MAXIMUM ACCELERATIONS-DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING WISCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT PRELIMINARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AMENDHENT 23
O O O
I i 0 10 h w FOUNDATION DEPTH:20FT s ^ w 20 - A - - n W
=
]o. 30
* / '
Q .0 - A ! E I u e <, O 006 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.i6 0.18 0.20 0.2 2 MAXIMUM ACCELERATION (g) LEGE e E 2349 227 PL (
I I l O FOUNDATION DEPTH: 3.5 FT 10 3
, / /
i' 0 Z I g 30 Ip b ci W 40 ) y 50 3
\ ,
i > 60 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 MAXIMUM ACCELERATION (g) D: L CENTRO 1940NS L CENTRO 1934 EW ASTAIC 1971 N21*E kh ENTURA 1971 N ll*E ARKFIELD 1971 N05*W NT GRADE: EL 610' HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT FIGURE 2.5.4-37 MAXIMUM ACCELERATIONS-FUEL BUILDING WISCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT PRELIMINARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AMENDMENT 23 , i I 6
FOUNDATION DEPTH: 1.5 FT N 10
/
/
t j b20 o Y f' <t 5 1 > <t 30 4% Y 8 9 d "* (r " ( 2 E A A' 50 =
\ X 60 0.06 0.08 0.10 012 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 MAXIMUM ACCELERATION (g)
L EG E N D *. e EL CENTRO 1940NS a EL CENTRO l934 EW A CASTAIC 1971 N210E 4 VENTURA 1971 N 11 E O PARKFlELD 1971 N 05 W PL ANT GRADE: EL 610' 2349 229 HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT FIGURE 2.5.4 - 38 MAXIMUM ACCELERATIONS-FUEL OIL PUMPHOUSE wlSCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT PRELIMINARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AMENDMENT 23
O O O -
O 10 5 FOUNDATION DEPTH: 23 FT E 20 k30 i (D 40 g- i
. N E q S
o N.'s l\ 60 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 MAXIMUM ACCELERATION ( g) LEGEND: e EL CENTRO 1940 NS a EL CENTRO 1934 EW
& CASTAIC 1971 N210E
$ VENTUR A 1971 N 11 E e FARKFIELD 1971 NOS W PL ANT GRADE: EL 610' 2349 230 H AVEN NUCLEAR PLANT FIGUR E 2.5.4- 39 MAX' MUM ACCELERATIONS-MAIN STEAM VALVE HOUSE NO.I WISCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT PRELIMINARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AMENDMENT 23
O 10
- y20 N
$ I o ~
e k 30 --
\\ '
d a td m 40 3 z , o n. O ' 1 1 50 I
< L dh 60 0 10 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 SHEAR STRESS (psf)
LEGEND: e EL CENTRO 1940NS e EL CENTRO 1934 E'V a CASTAIC 1971 N21 E
+ VENTURA 1971 N 11 E
$ PARKFIELO 1971 NOS W PLANT GRADE: EL 610' SHEAR STRESSES SHOWN ARE AVERAGE SHEAR STRESSES FOR THE LAYER TAKEN AS 65 /o OF THE PEAK SHEAR STRESS.
2349 231 dAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT FIGURE 2.5.4 -40 SHEAR STRESSES IN FREE FIELD WISCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT PRELIMIN ARY SAFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT AMENDMENT 23
1; i *k 1 LJ
/
D E a
+ . .
I e LEGEND y a SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCT URE S B d g SETTLEMENT MONITORING POINT NOTE O 200 400 LOC ATION OF SETTLEMENT ' ' ' ' MONITORING PO!NTS TENTATIVE 2349 232 HAVEN NUCLE AR PLANT FIG U RE 2.5.4 -41 SETTLEMENT MONITORING POINT LOCATION PLAN WISCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT PRELIMINARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AMENOMENT 23
3 AGE
?J__EJ A\ O.,mae NO. OF PAGES REASON- 2349 733 O PAGE ILLEGIBLE:
C HARD COPY FILED AT: PDR CF OTHER
/ /
O BETTER COPY REQUESTED ON
% PAGE TOO LARGE TO FILM:
@HARD COPY FILED AT: PDR OTHER h
O FILMED ON APERTURE CARD NO. hhUdd/k
JOCUV E\1 3 AGE, aJ _ _ _ A\O.wwe NO. OF PAGES REASON: 9b O PAGE ILLEGlBLE: C HARD COPY FILED AT: PDR OTHER
/ /
C BETTER COPY REQUESTED ON 3 PAGE TOO LARGE TO FILM:
'3 HARD COPY FILED AT: PDR OTHER __
O FILMED ON APERTURE CARD NO. kbh/db/k3~d/
WUP PSAR Amendment 22 HAVEN 4/79 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT eD) Section Title Volume 2M REPORT, GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY UNDER V LAKE MICHIGAN 2N DORING LOGS, HAVEN SITE V 20 SEISMIC REFLECTION SURVEY, HAVEN, WISCONSIN V 2P ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT, LAKE MICHIGAN, AREA I V 2Q ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT, IAKE MICHIGAN, AREA II V 2R WESTON GEOPHYSICAL REVIEW OF ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT-LAKE MICHIGAN-AREA I BY FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES V 2S EVALUATION OF GEOPHYSICAL DATA, LAKE MICHIGAN AREA V 2T REGIONAL BASEMENT GEOLOGY OF LAKE MICHIGAN V 20 INVESTIGATION OF HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS FOR THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, HAVEN, WISCONSIN, SITE VI NRC QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES VI NRC LETTER 1/9/76 IAR310 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS 2349 235 VI IAR324 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING VI IIAR310 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS VI IIAk321 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING VI IIAR322 METEOROLOGY VI IIAR323 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY VI V
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT eD) Section Title Volume IIAR324 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING VI IIAR420 INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PLANNING VI l 130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH VI 222.0 POWER SYSTEMS BRANCH VI 312.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS BRANCH VI 321.0 HYDROLOGY VI 360.0 GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY VI 361.0 GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY VI l 362.0 GEOSCIENCES BRANCH VI 372.0 METEOROLOGY VI 432.0 EMERGENCY PIANNING BRANCH VI 2349 236 O vi
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 HAVEN SITE ADDENDUM LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES CHAPTER 8 Page, Table (T) , or Revision Piqure (F) Number 8-i/ blank 19 8-iii/ blank 19 8.2-1 thru 8.2-3 23 F8.2-1 15 F8.2-2 16 F8.2-3 (Delete sheet) 16 F8.2-4 and 8.2-5 19 2349 237 EP.8-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 EAVEN 6/79 8.2 OFFSITE POWER SYSTEMS 8.2.1 Description Electric energy generated at 22 kV is stepped up to 345 kV by the main transformers and delivered through 345 kV, 25,000 MVA, 2,000 ampere circuit breakers to the 345 kV switching station located approximately 900 ft west of the turbine building. The switching station is connected to the interconnected transmission network of the Wisconsin Utilities. The network prior to the installation of the Haven Nuclear Plant is shown on Fig. 8.2-1 of this Site Addendum. , 8.2.1.1 Transmission Network A rainimum of four 345 kV transmission lines will leave the Haven Nuclear Plant on at least two separate rights-or-way. It is possible that a third right-of-way will be added to improve the separation of lines such that a single failure could not reduce the available rights-of-way to less than two. It is also possible that a fifth 345 kV transmission line may be added to improve system stability during severe contingencies. A final determination of the various transmission line. terminations and actual line routing has not been made. System stability studies are currently underway to assess the alternatives. When a decision is reached, the number of rights-of-way and the number, terminations, and routing of the 345 kV transmission lines will be included in a tuture amendment. Three transmission lines do not cross any rugged terrain, nor are there any significant river crossings which would. require special construction. At least two of the lines from Haven will cross an existing 345 kV line from Edgewater to the South Fond du Lac substation. In all cases, the lines from Haven will cross above the existing line. The transmission lines will tie into the existing interconnected transmission network. They are designed for loading conditions that will meet or exceed the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code and the Wisconsin Electrical Code. Aeolian vibration is controlled by vibration dampers where necessary. Pott:ntial outage problems caused by conductor contact due to galloping conductors are minimized by proper conductor spacing. Shield wires are provided to protect the transmission lines frca electrical interruption due to lightning. 8.2.1.2 Switchyard and Connections to the Onsite Distribution System The Haven Nuclear Plant switchyard uses a breaker arrangement as shown on Fig. 8.2-2. Each generating unit can be connected to one or both of two 345 kV bus sections. Two 345 to 69 kV auxiliary transformers are connected to 345 kV bus sections which 2349 238 8.2-1
WDP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 are not adjacent. These transformers supply power to the 69 kV ring bus for startup, shutdown, and emergency equipment. Fig. 8.2-4 shows the physical layout of the switchyard including the 345 kV and the 69 kV sections of that switchyard. Fig. 8.2-5 shows the electrical connections between the-69 kV switchyard and the plant. Separate ductlines and manholes are used for the 69 kV feeder circuits. An additional ductline with separate or partitioned manholes are provided for the 4,160 V circuits from each reserve station service transformer to the control building and for routing of 480 V power cables and control cables between the plant and the switchyard. Circuits are routed through these ductlines and manholes to minimize, to the extent practical, the simultaneous failure of both offsite power connections to the units. A gas turbine generator may be installed and connected to the 69 kV bus. This unit would be used as a backup supply to plant auxiliary loads for system peaking and standby reserve. l Alarms, control,andindicationwouldbeprovidedsothatthegas turbine generator could be started, synchronized, loaded, and tripped locally and from the control room. The onsite distribution system for each unit is supplied by two independent 69 kV underground lines connected to non-adjacent sections of the 69 KV ring bus as shown on Fig. 8.2-2 and on Fig. 8.2-1 of the PSAR. 8.2.1.3 Compliance with Design Criteria and Standards The 345 kV transmission lines from the Haven Nuclear Plant will occupy at least two separate rights-of-way. The transmission lines, switchyards, and onsite distribution system have sufficient independence, redundancy, and testability to perform their safety functions in compliance with General Design Criterion (GDC) 17. Since two sources of offsite power are always available, the Haven Nuclear Plant exceeds the criteria of IEEE Std. 308-1974 and complies with Regulatory Guide 1.32 regarding the availability of offsite power. The 345 kV and lower voltage systems are designed so that they can be inspected, maintained, and tested on a routine basis and, as such, comply with GDC 18. 8.2.2 Analysis Steady-state load flows and transient stability analyses show that the Wisconsin Utilities generation and transmircion system could withstand severe contingencies without resulting in an uncontrolled widespread tripping of lines and/or generators. Such contingencies include the outage of a double circuit transmission line, an entire substation, or an entire power plant. This means that sequential loss of two units at the Haven Nuclear Plant would not adversely affect the transmission system and that the power to replace the lost generation could be supplied by Nisconsin Utilities internal reserve and its interconnected transmission system. The 345 kV transmission 2349 239 8.2-2
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 lines to the plant would continue to be energized from the transmission system. System design for stability and circuit isolation will prevent the sudden loss of one unit from causing the second unit to trip. The transient stability studies for Haven were performed using the Wisconsin Electric Transient Stability Program. This program includes models for the transmission system and for the generating units sup01ying the system. The generator models include information such as turbine and generator inertia, generator impedance, exciter response time, and governer response. Since stability is maintained as long as generation does not fall out of step or lose synchronism, the Wisconsin Electric Transient Stability Program looks at generator rotor angle as a very sensitive indicator of stability. Grid voltage and frequency do not deviate sufficiently from normal values to be as good an indicator of stability as rotor angle. The stability studies were run using a load level of 45 percent of peak because stability generally decreases as load level decreases and 45 percent is estimated as the lowest load level at which the nuclear units in the Wisconsin Upper Michigan System would be run at full entout. The loss of a unit generator was tested by modeling the unit at Haven and then tripping that unit. The rotor swings of the electrically-nearby Point Beach and Kewaunee generators were monitored and a maximum swing of approximately 16 degrees was observed with a maximum frequency deviation of less than 10.21 Hz. Computer studies regarding loss of the largest system load have not been made. ho single load served is so large that load rejection problems would be anticipated. Loss of the most limiting transmission line was studied assuming the worst case with two Haven units at full output. Stability was tested by modeling a bolted three phase fault at the Haven 345 kV bus to simulate a close-in three phase line fault. All nachines were stable for a fault of the Haven-Cedarsank 345 kV line with a stuck breaker at the Haven terminal and a backup clearing time of 7 cycles. An equivalent backup clearing time of 7 cycles or less can be obtained using independent pole tripping or series breakers. Wisconsin Electric currently has 497 miles of 345 kV transmission line in service. The first 345 kV line went into service in 1965. Since that time, the average rate of transmission line trips due to lightning, wind, ice, and foreign contact has been less than 1.5 per 100 miles of line per year. The transmission lines associated with the Haven Nuclear Plant will be designed and built to the same design criteria as the existing lines. 2349 240 8.2-3
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 HAVEN SITE ADDENDUM LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES CHAPTER 13 Page, Table (T) , or Revision Fiqure (F) Number 13-i/ blank 23 13-iii/ blank 19 13.3-1 19 13.3-2 thru 4 18 13.3-5 and 13.3-6 23 F13.3-1 thru 4 18 2349 241 EP.13-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 CHAPTER 13 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 13.3 EMERGENCY PLANNING 13.3-1 13.3.1 Introduction 13.3-1 13.3.2 Emergency Organization 13.3-1 13.3.3 c with Agencies Contac's 13.3-1 13.3.4 Emergency Measures to be Taken 13.3-1 13.3.5 Onsite Emergency Treatment Facilities 13.3-6 13.3.6 Offsite Emergency Treatment Facilities 13.3-6 13.3.7 Training Program for Emergency Plan Personnel 13.3-6 13.3.8 Evacuation and Re-entry Features of the Plant 13.3-6 2349 242 13-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 vehicular interference is anticipated. The single exception to the latter is the Kohler Company parking lot; 20 minutes are estimated for exiting the lot. In the case of the school, 20 minutes are estimated for loading the buses. For all other cases, an additional 5 minutes is estimated for entering and getting vehicles underway. Based on these assumptions, the following evacuation times are obtained: NW Ouadrant 1/3 population north on County LS: 15 minutes 2/3 population north on State Highway 141: 30 minutes Entire quadrant: 30 minutes SW Ouadrant 1/3 s pulation south on County LS: 15 minutes 2/3 population south on State Highway 141: 30 minutes Entire quadrant: 30 minutes If the entire LPZ is to be evacuated, total evacuation time is limited by the longest time required for any single quadrant. Thus, the estimate for a complete evacuation is about 30 minutes. Figure 13.3-2 provides the thyroid dose curves of 5, 25, 150, and 300 rem. Figures 13.3-3 and 13.3-4 provide the gamma and beta whole body dose curves for 1, 5, and 25 rem. Figures 13.3-2 through 13.3-4 are for the north sector, which is the meteorological sector with the highest CHI /Q, and they provide a conservative basis for the LPZ evacuation plan. Each curve represents the elapsed time to reach the specified dose level as a function of distance from the release point and is extended to an elapsed time of 24 hours. The time-dose-distance plots presented on Figures 13.3-2 through 13.3-4 were developed from the cases described in Regulatory Guide 1.70, Rev. 2. The calculated doses are based on the same isotopic releases as the most severe design basis accident (LOCA) discussed in the PSAR. The assumptions used are t.he same as those given in Chapter 15, e.xcept for the following:
- 1. Radiatiu.7 doses were calculated as a function of time for the first 24 hours of release.
- 2. Decay in transit and plume front transit times were calculated with a worst sector annual average wind speed of 0.98 meters /sec (from 12 months of onsite data) .
2349 243 13.3-5
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79
- 3. The CHI /Qs (0 to 8 hr, 8 to 24 hr) used for calculating doses over the O to 24 hour period were determined by applying the logarithmic variation with time presented in NRC Regulatory Standard Review Plan Section 2.3.4 dated November 1974 to the 12 months of onsite meteorological data (refer to the discussion of the technique presented in Section 2.3.4).
13.3.5 Onsite Emergency Treatment Facilities This section is non-site related and is described in the PSAR. 13.3.6 Offsite Emergency Treatment Facilities Arrangements will be made with the Sheboygan Memorial Hospital for treatment of personnel in normal hospital facilities. Since the possibility exists that an injury and its treatment may be complicated by radioactive contamination, steps will be taken to provide a fully equipped, isolatable, and controlled access treatment room at the hospital for use in treatment and decontamination of injured personnel. h a room will acrmally be available for use as an additional emergency room for hospital use but will be made available for contaminated injuries on an "as required" basis. Location of the room will be such that entry can be made without using normal hospital entrances to avoid the potential for any spread of contamination. The Sheboygan Memorial Hospital facilities do not include provisions for extended treatment of serious burns or radiation injuries. For such treatment, contact has been made with University Hospital, Madison (1). Extended treatment at this facility would be used following initial treatment at the Sheboygan Memorial facilities. 13.3.7 Training Program for Emergency Plan Personnel Initial training and periodic retraining in appropriate areas will be provided for all offsite personnel and agencies involved in emergency planning. This training is discussed further in the PSAR. 13.3.8 Evacuation and Re-entry Features of the Plant This section is not. sit.e related and is discussed in the PSAR. References
- 1. Letter from University Hospital, Madison, to Wisconsin Electric, dated August 21, 1974.
2)kh 13.3-6
NUP PSAR Amendment 22 HAVEN 4/79 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT *D) Section Title Volume 2M REPORT, GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY UNDER V LAKE MICHIGAN 2N DORING LOGS, HAVEN SITE V 20 SEISMIC REFLECTION SURVEY, HAVEN, WISCONSIN V 2P ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT, LAKE MICHIGAN, AREA I V 2Q ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT, LAKE MICHIGAN, AREA II V 2R WESTON GEOPHYSICAL REVIEW OF ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT-LAKE MICHIGAN-AREA I BY FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES V 2S EVALUATION OF GEOPHYSICAL DATA, LAKE MICHIGAN AREA V 2T REGIONAL BASEMENT GEOLOGY OF LAKE MICHIGAN V 20 INVESTIGATION OF HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS FOR THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, HAVEN, WISCONSIN, SITE VI NRC QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES VI NRC LE' ITER 1/9/76 IAR310 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS VI IAR324 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING VI IIAR310 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS VI IIAR321 HYDROIDGIC ENGINEERING VI IIAR322 METEOROLOGY VI IIAR323 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOIDGY VI v 2349 245
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT *D) Section Title Volume IIAR324 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING VI IIAR420 INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PIANNING VI l 130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH VI 222.0 POWER SYSTEMS BRANCH VI 312.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS BRANCH VI 321.0 HYDROLOGY VI 360.0 GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY VI 361.0 GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY VI l 362.0 GEOSCIENCES BRANCH VI 372.0 METEOROLOGY VI 432.0 EMERGENCY PLANNING BRANCH VI 2349 246 O Vi
NUP PSAR Amendment 22 HAVEN 4/79 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTop) Section Title Volume 2M REPORT, GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY UNDER V IAKE MICHIGAN 2H DORING LOGS, HAVEN SITE V 20 SEISMIC REFLECTION SURVEY, HAVEN, WISCONSIN V 2P ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT, LAKE MICHIGAN, AREA I V 2Q ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT, LAKE MICHIGAN, AREA 11 V 2R WESTON GEOPHYSICAL REVIEW OF ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT-LAKE MICHIGAN-AREA I BY FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES V 2S EVALUATION OF GEOPHYSICAL DATA, LAKE MICHIGAN AREA V 2T REGIONAL BASEMENT GEOLOGY OF LAKE MICHIGAN V 20 INVESTIGATION OF HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS FOR THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, HAVEN, WISCONSIN, SITE VI NRC QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES VI NRC LETTER 1/9/76 IAR310 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS VI IAR324 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING VI IIAR310 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS VI IIAk321 HYDROIDGIC ENGINEERING VI IIAR322 METEOROLOGY VI IIAR323 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY VI v 2349 247
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT *D) Section Title Volume IIAR324 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING VI IIAR420 INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PIANNING VI l 130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH VI 222.0 POWER SYSTEMS BRANCH VI 312.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS BRANCH VI 321.0 HYDROLOGY VI 360.0 GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY VI 361.0 GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY VI l 362.0 GEOSCIENCES BRANCH VI 372.0 METEOROLOGY VI 432.0 EMERGENCY PLANNING BRANCH VI 2349 248 O
. vi
WUP PSAR Amendment 22 HAVEN 4/79 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT
- D)
Section Title Volume 2M REPORT, GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY UNDER V IAKE MICHIGAN 2N BORING LOGS, HAVEN SITE' V 20 SEISMIC REFLECTION SURVEY, HAVEN, WISCONSIN V 2P ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT, LAKE MICHIGAN, AREA I V 2Q ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT, LAKE MICHIGAN, AREA II V 2R WESTON GEOPHYSICAL REVIEW OF ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICAL REPORT-LAKE MICHIGAN-AREA I BY FAIRFIELD INDUSTRIES V 2S EVALUATION OF GEOPHYSICAL DATA, LAKE MICHIGAN AREA V 2T REGIONAL BASEMENT GEOLOGY OF LAKE MICHIGAN V 20 INVESTIGATION OF HYDROGEOIDGIC CONDITIONS FOR THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, HAVEN, WISCONSIN, SITE VI NRC QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES VI NRC LETTER 1/9/76 IAR310 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS VI IAR324 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING VI IIAR310 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS VI IIAk321 HYDROIDGIC ENGINEERING VI IIAR322 METEOROLOGY VI IIAR323 GEOLOGY AND SEISMOLOGY VI v 2349 249
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT
- D)
Section Title Volume IIAR324 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING VI IIAR420 INDUSTRIAL SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PIJNNING VI l 130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRMCH VI 222.0 POWER SYSTEMS BRANCH VI 312.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS BRANCH VI 321.0 HYDROLOGY VI 360.0 GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY VI 361.0 GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY VI l 362.0 GEOSCIENCES BRANCH VI 372.0 METEOROLOGY VI 432.0 EMERGENCY PIANNING BRANCH VI 2349 250 O vi
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 HAVEN SITE ADDENDUM LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES NRC OUESTIONS AND RESPONSES Page, Table (T) , or Revision Page, Table (T) , or Revision Fiqure (F) Number Fiqure (F) Number Q-i 17, II AR322.25-1 15 Q-il and 111 18 II AR322.26-1 15 Q-iv and v 19 II AR322.27-1 16 Q-vi 21 II AR323.1-1 16 Q-vil and Q-vili 23 II AR323.2-1 16 II AR323.3-1 18 NRC Letter 1/9/76 71 AR323.4-1 18 11 AR324.1-1 15 I AR310.1-1 and 2 15 II AR324.2-1 18 I AR310.2-1 16 II AR420.1-1 15 I AR310.3-1 15 I Ak310.4-1 15 Q130.31-1 and 2 23 I AR324.1-1 18 Q130.32-1 23 I AR324.2-1 18 Q130.33-1 23 I Ak324.3-1 18 0222.4-1 19 I AR324.4-1 18 Q222.5-1 19 I AR324.5-1 18 Q312.3-1 and 2 19 I AR324.b-1 18 Q312.4-1 19 I AR324.7-1 IB Q312.5-1 19 I AR324.8-1 18 Q312.6-1 20 I AR324.9-1 18 Q312.7-1 19 II AR310.5-1 16 Q312.8-1 20 II AR321.1-1 16 Q312.12-1 23 II AR321.2-1 16 Q312.13-1 23 II AR321.3-1 16 Q321.1-1 19 II AR321.4-1 15 Q321.2-1 19 F II Ak321.4-1 15 0321.3-1 23 II AR321.5-1 18 Q321. 4- 1 23 T Q321.5-1 and 2 Q321.5-1 23 (Delete Sheet) 18 Q321.6-1 23 II AR321.6-1 15 Q321.7-1 23 II AR321.7-1 15 Q321.8-1 23 II AR322.1-1 15 Q360.1-1 19 II AR322.2-1 16 Q360.2-1 19 II AR322.3-1 15 Q360.3-1 19 II Ak322.4-1 15 Q360.4-1 19 II AR322.5-1 15 Q360.5-1 19 II AR322.6-1 15 Q360.6-1 and 2 19 II AR322.7-1 18 F360.6-1 19 II AR322.8-1 15 Brazee Attenuation II AR322.9-1 15 Relationship (20 pages) 19 II AR322.10-1 15 Howell & Schultz II AR322.11-1 15 Attenuation helationsh2p II AR322.12-1 16 (21 pages) 19 II AR322.13-1 15 Nuttli Attenuation II AR322.1R-1 15 Relationship (42 pages) 19 II AR322.15-1 18 Q360.7-1 21 II AR322.11-1 15 Q360.8-1 21 II AR322.17-1 15 Q?60.9-1 21 II Ak322.18-1 15 Q360.10-1 21 II AR322.19-1 15 Q360.11-1 20 II Ak322.20-1 15 Q360.12-1 21 II AR322.21-1 15 Q360.13-1 20 II AR322.22-1 15 Q360.14-1 21 II AR322.23-1 15 Q360.15-1 21 II AR322.24-1 15 Q360.16-1 21 EP.Q-1
WUP PSAR Anaendment 23 HAVEN b/79 HAVEN SITE ADDENDUM LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (COfff'D) NRC OUESTIONS AND RESPONSES Page, Table (T) , or Revision Fiqure (F) Number Q360.17-1 21 .e Q360.18-1 21 Q361.1-1 and 2 19 Q361.2-1 19 Q361.3-1 19 Q361.4-1 19 Q361.5-1 19 Q361.6-1 19 Q361.7-1 19 Q361,8-1 thru 3 19 9361.9-1 19 Q361.10-1 20 Q361.11-1 21 Q361.12-1 19 Q362.1-1 23 Q362.2-1 23 Q362.3-1 23 Q362.4-1 23 Q362.5-1 23 Q362.6-1 23 Q362.7-1 23 Q362.8-1 23 Q362.9-1 23 Q362.10-1 23 Q362.11-1 23 Q362.12-1 23 Q3b2.13-1 23 Q362.14-1 thru 8 23 Q372.1-1 and 2 19 Q372.2-1 19 Q372.3-1 19 Q372.4-1 thru 3 19 Q372.5-1 19 Q372.6-1 and 2 23 TQ372.6-1 23 FQ372.6-1 thru 5 23 Q432.1-1 1, Q432.2-1 23 ,J79 L
~< a 252 Q432.3-1 23 Q432.4-1 23 Q432.5-1 23 Q432.6-1 23 Q432.7-1 23 Q432.8-1 23 Q432.9-1 23 0
EP.Q-2
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 Question No. Subiect Pace NRC Letter Deted 2/6/79 Haven Site Addendum (SA) Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 321.0 HYDROLOGY / METEOROLOGY 321.3 Flood Protection Onsite Q321.3-1 321.4 Design Basis Groundwater Levels Q321.4-1 321.5 Ice, Effects Q321.5-1 321.6 Ultimate Heat Sink Modifications Q321.6-1 362.0 GEOSCIENCES 362.1 Seepage Control Q362.1-1 362.2 Removal of Weak or Weathered Rock Q362.2-1 362.3 Inspection Notification Q362.3-1 362.4 Piping Details Q362.4-1 362.5 Structural Fill Q362.5-1 362.6 Compaction Criteria for Struc-tural Fill Q362.6-1 362.7 1978 Pumping Tests Q362.7-1 362.8 Structure Foundations - Soil Cement Q362.8-1 362.9 Earthquake Time Histories Q362.9-1 362.10 Induced Cyclic Shear Stress Q362.10-1 362.11 Structure Foundation - Soil Q362.11-1 362.12 Lateral Earth Pressures Q362.12-1 362.13 Settlement Monuments Q362.13-1 362.14 Proposed Filter Cloth Q362.14-1 372.0 HYDROLOGY / METEOROLOGY 372.6 Design Wind Speed Q372.6-1 2349 253 Q-vil
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 Question No. Subiect Page 432.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS 432.2 Agencies Contacted Q432.2-1 432.3 Jurisdictional Relationships Q432.3-1 432.4 Early Warning Facilities Q432.4-1 432.5 Preliminary Evacuation Plans Q432.5-1 432.6 Protectivd Actions - Radio-logical Q432.6-1 432.7 Availability of Resources Q432.7-1 432.8 Time-Dose-Distance Plots Q432.8-1 432.9 Source of Local Weather Forecasting Q432.9-1 NRC Letter Dated 2/16/79 Haven Site Addendum (SA) Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 130.31 Construction Techniques Q130.31-1 130.32 Containment Base Mat Q130.32-1 130.33 Concrete Strength Q130.33-1 321.0 HYDROLOGY / METEOROLOGY 321.7 Design Basis Low Water Level Q321.7-1 321.8 Water Levels Q321.8-1 NRC Letter Dated 3/20/79 Haven Site Addendum (SA) Preliminary Safety Analysis Report 312.12 Lease Agreements Q312.12-1 312.13 Low Population Zone Distance Q312.13-1 hb Q-viii
2349 255 WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 OUESTION 130.31 (3.8.5) In Section 3.8.5.1 and on Figure 3.8.1 of the Haven Site Addendum, it is indicated that the Auxiliary Building will be rock founded by using one of the following construction techniques: (1) Shear walls extending from rock to the base mat of the Auxiliary Building with intermediate soil fill between the shear walls, or (2) Mass concrete placed on the rock surface and extending to the base mat,of the Auxiliary Building, or (3) Soil cement placed on the rock surface and extending to the base mat of the Auxiliary Building. It is also indicated that the area between the Reactor containment wall and the limits of excavation is back filled with compacted granular material to the foundation elevation of the Fuel Building, the No. 1 Main Steam Valve House and to finish grade in other areas. In consideration of the various construction techniques which are to be employed in the Haven Project, it is requested that the following information be provided: (1) If soil fill, whether compacted granular material or any other material is used, what is the function or requirement of such soil fill? Indicate if the lateral pressure exerted on the containment wall is considered in the design of the containment structure. (2) If mass concrete is used, is such concrete considered as structural concrete and what are the requirements and quality control of such concrete? (3) If soil cement is used, what are the requirements and quality control of such a foundation material? (4) In making the seismic analysis for the structures involved, what range of material properties is considered?
RESPONSE
At the outset of the production engineering for the auxiliary building, an evaluation will be carried out for the three construction techniques described. Factors such as the inherent structural efficiency, construction feasibility, and cost of each method will be evaluated. The appropriate material properties will be utilized for each method during this evaluation. Based on the results of this evaluation, one method will be selected. Q130.31-1 2349 '?S6
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 Production analysis and design will then proceed for the selected method. Referring to Items 1 through 4 in Question 130.31, responses are provided as follows:
- 1. Question 130.31 discusses two fill areas, the first within the shear walls under the auxiliary building, and the second between the reactor containment and the limits of its excavation.
Granular fill is provided between the shear walls under the auxiliary buildipg to fill the large void areas between the shear walls and to provide access during construction. Structural fill will be provided around the reactor containment and is described in Section 2.5.4.5.2 of the Site Addendum. The purpose of this structural fill is to support such structures as the fuel building and the main steam valve house No. 1, and to provide access around the containment and its contiguous structures. The lateral soil pressure exerted on the containment wall is considered in the design of the structure.
- 2. If mass concrete is selected for the intermediate foundation of the auxiliary building, it will be considered as structural concrete. The ultimate compressive strength (f *c) for this mass concrete will be determined at that time. The selected fac will be 1,000 psi or greater. The concrete will be mixed, delivered, and placed in accordance with the engineer's specifications for Category I concrete.
- 3. This question is answered in response to Site Addendum Question 362.8.
- 4. For all seismic analyses associated with the selected auxiliary building foundation method, the appropriate material properties will be utilized. Thus, it will not be necessary to use a range of material properties for any seismic analysis of the auxiliary building intermediate foundation.
2349 257 O Q130.31-2
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 130.32 (3. 8 . 5) It is noted, that the containment base mat is site dependent. The WUP PSAR design of the containment base mat has a thickness of 10 ft. and for the Haven site, it has a thickness of 15 ft. With such a difference in the thickness of the foundation mat, there should be some effect on the degree of restraint at the junction of the cylinder and the mat. Describe how this change effects your design approach. Also, indicate how the loads included in all the load categories listed in Sections 3.8.1.3 and 3.8.3.3 can affect the design of the base mat, as you state in Section 3.8.5.3.
RESPONSE
The use of a 15 ft thick containment mat versus the 10 it thick mat in the PSAR does not change the design approach. Thickness of mat and the load categories listed in Sections 3.8.1.3 and 3.8.3.3 are inputs in the mat analysis as described in Sections 3.8.1.4 and 3.8.5.4; the effects on the design are automatically included. 2349 258 Q130.32-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 130.33 (3.8) In Section 3.8 of the Haven Site Addendum, the strength of concrete for various Seismic Category I structures should be provided, since there is no mention of concrete strength in the WUP PSAR.
RESPONSE
Generally, Category I structures will utilize concrete with a specified compressive strength (f 'c) equal to 3,000 psi. There will be some exceptions where concrete of lower or higher f*c will be used. Typical examples of these cases are the porous concrete under the reactor mat for which the f *c may be 1,000 psi, and heavily loaded, relatively thin walls or slabs for which i*c of greater than 3,000 psi may be used. Regardless of the f*c selected, the appropriate codes and procedures will be utilized as described in the PSAR. 2349 259 Q130.33-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 312.12 (2.1) 45e example lease agreement shown in Table 2.1.2-2, which covers tr e leasing of lands within the exclusion area, is a standard type of agreement. To meet the intent of 10CFR100, the lease agreements should contain a provision which specifically conveys to you, as the lessor, the authority to exclude or remove personnel in the event of a plant emergency.
RESPONSE
The standard lease agreement shown in Table 2.1.2-2 will be amended to contain the following provision to cover the leasing of lands for farming or gardening purposes within the exclusion area at the Haven Nuclear Plant: Lessor shall have the right at any time to exclude or remove Lessee and any other person or persons from the premises in the event of a nuclear accident or emergency, if in Lessor's sole judgement such accident or emergency may create a hazard to the public health or safety, and Lessor shall have no liability for any loss of use of land or damage to or loss of crops by reason of any such exclusion or removal. A revised lease agreement containing this provision will be provided in the FSAR. 2349 260 Q312.12-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 OUESTION 312.13(2.1) With regard to your determination of the 4.1 mile distance to the city of Sheboygan, the nearest population center, it is stated in Section 2.1.3.1 that the greatest influence over the northern expansion of the city toward the site is the development of wastewater treatment facilities to service the area. Sewer and water plans, as shown on Figures 2.1.3-20 and 2.1.3-21, indicate that sewer service will eventually extend beyond the city limits north to Playbird Road. This would place the limit of sewer service approximately 3 miles from the Unit No. 1 containment structure. We believe that it would be prudent to consider the possibility of the population center distance becoming 3 miles over the projected lifetime of the nuclear plant. The corresponding low population zone distance, in accordance with the guidance of 10 CFR100, would be 2.25 miles rather than 3 miles as you currently propose. We have not yet reached a final position on this issue pending a site visit, discussions with local planning officials and further review. However, in the interim, we request that you provide the radiological consequences of the limiting design basis accident for a low population zone distance of 2.25 miles.
RESPONSE
Current development just south of Playbird Road consists of larger homes with lot sizes of 1 acre or more. This semirural character is expected to continue in the area east of County LS. The only area likely to take on a denser pattern of residential occupancy is west of County Trunk LS up to the railroad tracks. We have calculated the radiological consequencet. of the limiting design basis accident if the low population zone {LPZ) distance were 2.25 miles at the Haven cite instead of the present 3 miles. Doses calculated for this reduced LPZ distance are: 61.00 Rem (thyroid) 0.67 Rem (beta) 0.97 Rem (gamma)
. ur values are based on the containment releases as described L. ection 15.4.1 of the PSAR and are based on the worst sector me teorology.
2349 261 Q312.13-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QfJESTION 321.3 (2.4.3) Section 2.4.3 - Describe in detail the provisions for flood protection onsite from water levels greater than 610 feet mean sea level, which you refer to in the first paragraph on page 2.4.12, amendment 16.
RESPONSE
The provisions for flood protection onsite along Sevenmile Creek referred to are described below. Referring to Figure 2.4.1-1 and Table 2.4.3-4 of the Site Addendum, the top of the slope increases from a minimum of El. 610 ft at Station 1750 to El. 614 ft at Station 1950. The top of the slope is higher than the calculated probable maximum flood elevations. The existing bank slope is well vegetated and will remain intact so as to ensure the stability of the bank against scouring. There is sufficient bank width to enhance the flood protection for the functional integrity of any safety-related equipment during probable maximum flood conditions. 2349 262 Q321.3-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 pDESTION 321.4 ( 2. 4 .13) Sections 2.4.13 and 3.8.5.1 -- There is an apparent conflict between statements made in these two sections concerning design basis groundwater levels. Section 2.4.13 states that the design basis groundwater level will be taken to be plant grade. Section 3.8.5.1 however, briefly describes an underdrain system which has as one of its stated purposes the reduction of hydrostatic forces on the containment. If credit is taken for the underdrain system in any structural calculation, it must be considered safety-related. If this is the case, please address the Branch Technical Position on Safety Related Dewatering Systems (attached) which is an appendix to the Standard Review Plan 2.4.13, revision 1 (NOREG-75/087) .
RESPONSE
The design basis groundwater level for structural calculations is El. 610, which is plant grade. This groundwater level is defined in the Haven Site Addendum, Section 2.5.4.6, Groundwater Conditions. Section 3.8.5.1 of the PSAR describes the waterproof membrane that is placed below the reactor containment structure, and carried to plant grade. The membrane entirely envelops the containment structure below groundwater level, and prevents any external hydrostatic pressure from being applied to the steel liner of the reactor containment. The underdrain system described in Section 3.8.5.1 is located on the containment side of the waterproof membrane and its only function is to act as a backup in the unlikely event that water penetrates the membrane. Thus, it is the waterproof membrane for which credit is taken to prevent external hydrostatic forces on the liner. Credit is not taken in this regard for the underdrain system. 2349 263 Q321.4-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 321.5 (2.4.7, 9. 2. 5) Section 2.4.7 and 9.2.5 - Ice-related effecca on the Great Lakes are of sufficient concern that any safety-related water supply must be carefully evaluated. The hydrologic description of ice effects covered in section 2.4 admits to severe shore icing, but does not account for the possibility of windrowed ice f ar from shore. Such deep ice far from shore can and does occur in the Great Lakes, even in depths of 30 feet or more. Ice piles have been observed in Lake Erie one mile from shore extending to the bottom in 26 feet of water. We believe that you have not documented the capability of safety-related intakes in Lake Michigan to withstand the ef fec ts of severe icing conditions. Indicate the provisions to prevent ble kages of your intakes by large quantities of frazil or floating ice, and the protection of the intake from forces caused by ice piles. Alternately, discuss a source of cooling water other than of fshor e intakes for the ultimate heat sink.
RESPONSE
Ice conditions such as frazil ice, anchor ice, and ice foot at the Haven site and their effect on the offshore intake structures have been addressed in detail in Section 2.4.7 of the Site Addendem. As described in that section, two submerged intake structures will be located at a sufficient water depth to preclude any floating ice or pack ice from restricting the required flow during winter storms. In addition, electrical heaters will be used to prevent potential accumulation of frazil ice on the intake bar racks during winter operation, as shown in Section 9.2.5. 2349 264 2321.5-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 OUESTION 321.6 (2.4.7, 9.2.5) Sections 2.4.7 and 9.2.5 - Describe the modifications to the ultimate heat sink under the conversion to a one unit facility. Specifically, will one of the offshore intakes be eliminated?
RESPONSE
Section 18.9.2.5 describes the ultimate heat sink design for a one unit facility and Section 18.9.2.1 describes the associated single-unit service water system which utilizes the ultimate heat sink. There are two 100 percent capacity separate and redundant offshore intakes for the single unit. 2349 265 Q321.6-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION _321.7 (2.4.11) There is soma confusion with the design basis low water levels for service water requirements. Section 2.4.11.5 states that the service water intakes and conduits are designed to satisfy plant requirements at the minimum recorded low mean water level of 576.6 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) . Section 2.4.11.2 states that the drawdown due to wind would be about 2 feet, and if superimposed on the recorded mean low water, would yield an elevation of 574.59 feet MSL. State whether or not the safety-related systems are designed for the low water level due to wind setdown, and if not, what provisions are made for this design basis condition.
RESPONSE
As stated in Sections 9.2.5, 18.9.2.5, and S9.2.5 of the Site Addendum, the ultimate heat sink is designed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.27 (Rev. 2) . The ultimate heat sink is used to convey water to the service water pumphouse. The aforementioned sections describe the limiting condition for designing for a pumphouse water level which ensures adequate submergence and net positive suction head for the service water pumps. This limiting condition is the postulated failure of one of the redundant offshore intake lines / intake structures with the stated maximum service water flows through the remaining intake. For this case, it was conservatively assumed that the lake level at the intake structure was at the minimum recorded low mean water level of 576.6 msl (Section 2.4.11.5) . The associated head loss from the offshore intakes to the onshore pumphouse results in the minimum pumphouse water level for design purposes. The ultimate heat sink is also designed for the low water level resulting from surge and seiche. However, as described in Regulatory Guide 1.27 (Position C.2) , a single failure of one of the intake structures would not be postulated concurrently with surge and seiche phenomena, for . which the ultimate heat sink components are designed with two redundant intakes available. The head loss to the pumphouse is smaller than described in the single-failure case and, thus, the pumphouse water levels are higher for the surge and seiche case even when considering the lower lake elevation of 574.59 mal. 2349 266 Q321.7-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 321.8 (9. 2. 5 m 2.4) The water levels presented on Figure 9.2.1-4 do not correspond to those in Section 2.4. For example, if plant grade of 610 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) corresponds to O feet reference, than the lowest recorded water level of 576.6 feet MSL should correspond to -33.4 feet, not -45 feet as stated on Figure 9.2.1-4. Explain this inconsistency. In addition, Figure 9 . 2 .1-4 should be amended to include, (1) the maximum low water level due to wind setdown, and (2) the minimum water level necessary for correct operation of the safety-related pumps.
RESPONSE
The water levels presented on Figure 9.2.1-4 are preliminary and are consistent with the Lake Michigan water levels discussed in Section 2.4. Refer to the response to Question 312.7 for an explanation of lake water levels and their application to the design of the ultimate heat sink. The apparent inconsistency mentioned in the above question results from neglecting the head loss associated with intake flow. As <txplained in the response to Question 321.7, the pumphouse water level is below the lake level due to the head loss associated with the water flowing from the offshore intake (refer to Figure 2.1.2-1) to the onshore pumphouse. The pumphouse water level would equal the lake level if there was no flow in the intake line. This condition could only exist for a portion of the pumphouse (if isolated) as each unit must always have service water flow for decay heat removal. Figure 9.2.1-4 will not be revised until detailed system engineering is completed. The variation between levels at El. -41 ft-6 inches and El. -45 ft-O inches is due to the diff erence between the normal lake level of approximately El. 580 ft msl and the minimum recorded low mean water level of 576.6 ft. As explained in the response to Question 312.7, use of low lake water level due to wind setdown (surge and seiche) is not postulated simultaneously with the single failure of an intake line and thus is not a limiting condition. The minimum water level necessary for operation of the service water pumps will be determined during detailed system engineering and is a function of the net positive suction head (NPSH) and submergence depth required by the pump manuf acturer. Bowever, the assumption that a minimum of 5 f t of subnergence is required over the pump impeller (which allows a water level as low as approximately E1. (-) 50 f t-0 inches as on Figure 9.2.1-4) provides a ndnimum NPSH available of approximately 38 ft. Service water pumps of the vertical wet pit design such as illustrated on Figure 9.2.1-4 can be purchased with an NPSH requirement substantially below 38 feet. 2349 24/ Q321.8-1
2349 268 WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 362.1 (2. 5. 4 . 5.1) Piezametric data from piezameters 16 and 18 (Fig. 2.5.4-13) indicate the water surface would reach levels in the permanently excavated slope. Discuss measures to control seepage at the toe of slope and address the impact on slope stability. RESPONSE: . The response to this question is provided in Sections 2.5.5.1 and 2.5.5.2. 2349 269 Q362.1-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 OUESTION 362.2 ( 2. 5 . 4 . 5.1) Provide the guidelines that will be used by field personnel in determining the extent of weak or weathered rock. zones to be removed (e.g. based on refusal to yield to construction equipment of a specified weight or capability).
RESPONSE
The response to this question is provided in Section 2.5.4.5.1. 2349 270 Q362.2-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 IIAVEN 6/79 OUESTION 362.3 (2.5.4.5.1, RSPL We require timely adequate notification for inspection by the NRC Geosciences Branch staff of finally prepared rock foundation surfaces beneath Category 1 structures before treatment with concrete. Provide a commitment that you will give this notification.
RESPONSE
The response to this question is provided in Section 2.5.4.5.1. 2349 271 Q362.3-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 pt1E6916h 3G2.4 ( 2. 5 . 4 . 5 .1) In view of the anticipated variable foundation conditions beneath the Service Water Piping and the large potential for differential settlement, we request submittal of piping and connection details and estimates of anticipated and tolerable limits of total and differential settlement along the piping length.
RESPONSE
Neither the type of pipe nor the piping and connection details has been selected or designed at this time for the service water piping between the pumphouse and the intake structures. During the Production Engineering phase, additional test borings will be performed along the service water piping route, soil samples obtained, and geotechnical laboratory testing performed. This program will provide the basis for estimating settlements of the piping and provide input to service water piping design criteria. Piping and connection details and estimates of anticipated and tolerable limits of total and differential settlements along the piping length will be provided in the FSAR. 2349 272 Q362.4-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 362.5 (RSP , 2.5.4.5.2) The specified gradation range (Fig. 2.5.4-33) for the structural fill is very wide and could result in poorly graded or segregated soils whose characteristics would be significantly different from tested material. Provide an additional control specification (e . g . uniformity coefficient) that will assure a reasonably well graded structural fill. We require that the Sieve analysis testing be conducted on structural fill as placed in the foundation, and not on stockpile material. Justify your reason for not using the preferred testing standard for sieve analysis (ASTM-D-422) of soils for the structural fill.
RESPONSE
The response to this question is provided in revised Figure 2.5.4-33 and in Section 2.5.4.5.2. 2349 273 0362.5-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 OUESTION 362.6 (RSP, 2.5.4.5.2) We require the compaction criteria for structural fill beneath Category I structures be changed to an average of 85 percent but not less than 80 percent relative density ( AS'IM D-2049) or not less than 95 percent of ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density, whichever results in the highest in-place dry density. This dual criteria is necessary in recognition of the submitted widely graded structural fill which would permit the use of clean soils with no fines to soils containing fines up to 18 percent passing the 200 sieve. Attaining the specified level of compaction should not be difficult with presently available compaction equipment and will assure that backfill will exhibit good static and dynamic properties. Indicate your intentions with respect to this position.
RESPONSE
The specified gradation range for the structural fill has been changed in that the percent of fines (particles passing the No. 200 sieve) has been reduced from 18 to 10 percent. Additionally, a uniformity coefficient of 6 or greater has been specified for the structural fill. These requirenents signiticantly reduce the wide gradation of the structural fill and obviate the need for a dual compaction criterion. The compaction criterion stated in Section 2.5.4.5.2, which requires that structural fill be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined from AS'IM-D-2049, assures that the fill will exhibit good static and dynamic properties. Analyses have shown this to be the case for liquefaction potential and for dynamic and static settlements. The dynamic laboratory tests (resonant column and cyclic triaxial) discussed in Appendix 2L were performed on specimens compacted to the above criterion. The liquefaction analysis (Section 2.5.4.8.1) and settlement analysis (Sections 2.5.4.8.2 and 2.5.4.10.2) were performed for fill compacted to this criterion. The analyses showed an adequate factor of safety against liquefaction and small static and dynamic settlements. Use of other compaction criteria, particularly those not substantiated by testing or analysis for the design condition at the Haven site, is not justified. Additionally, field compaction control by a dn criterion which requires dual maximum density determinations is unnecessarily complex and expensive. Adequate compaction control can be maintained and field density assured by the criteria stated in Section 2.5.4.5.2. 2349 274 Q362.6-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 362.7 (2.5.4.6) Provide and discuss the results of pumping tests that were to be performed in 1978. Provide the conceptual design of the construction dewatering system.
RESPONSE
The response to this question is provided in Appendix 20 and Section 2.5.4.6. 2349 275 Q362.7-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 362.8 (2.5.4.7) Describe the properties and field controls and documentation to be required if soil cement is to be placed in the foundation of structures. Indicate the properties and field controls to be required (e.g. strength, etc.) for fill concrete and porous concrete.
RESPONSE
The soil cement which may be used beneath the foundation of selected structures will be a mixture of Portland cement and relatively clean gravelly sand. The gravelly sand will meet the requirements outlined in Section 2.5.4.5.2 for structural fill. The primary criterion for determining the composition of the soil cement is that the compacted soil cement will have a shear modulus greater than 400,000 pai at shear strains of 10-* percent. A laboratory testing program will determine the cement content and density required to achieve this minimum shear modulus. The strength of the soil cement will be determined by unconfined compression and triaxial compression tests. The elastic properties will be measured over the range of strains anticipated in design using resonant column tests. A testing, inspection, and documentation program will be developed in order to control the placement and quality of the soil cement mixture. Gradation will primarily be controlled by sieve analyses performed prior to mixing. Cement and water content will be controlled by specifying that a stationary batching plant, meeting applicable provisions of ASTM C-94, be utilized to mix the materials. Density will be controlled by requiring that thin lift construction practices be utilized. Construction techniques will be monitored and the density measured in place. Gradation and water content will also be randomly monitored on the fill. As a final assurance that cement content, water content, and gradation requirements are being met, test cylinders will be made from samples obtained from the fill. These cylinders will be tested in unconfined compression. The resuits of the unconfined compression tests will be compared to unconfined compressive strengths of samples tested in the resonant column device to assure that the recuired elastic properties are being provided. The ultimate compressive strengths for fill concrete and porous concrete will be not less than 1,0 00 psi. Selection of compressive strengths will be developed in the production engineering phase. Field controls for mixing, delivering, and placing concrete will be in accordance with the requirements of the engineer's specifications. The industry standards and codes upon which these specifications are based are described in Section 3.8.1.2.2, Structural Specifications, of the PSAR. 2349 276 Q362.8-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 362.9 (2. 5 . 4 . 8 .1, 2.5.4.12) Provide a graph of depth versus maximum acceleration levels from the results obtained with the SHAKE program for each of the adopted five earthquake time histories.
RESPONSE
These graphs are pro rided on Figures 2.5.4-34 through 2.5.4-39. 2349 277 Q362.9-1 .
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 362.10 (2 . 5. 4 . 8 .1) For the condition of shear stresses in the free field (Fig. 2.5.4-20) only, provide curves of induced cyclic shear stress peaks resulting from each of the individual time histories rather than an average curve.
RESPONSE
These curves are provided on Figure 2.5.4-40. 2349 278 Q362.10-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 OUESTION 362.11 (2 . 5 . 4 .10 .1) For each Category I structure founded on soil, provide adopted soil parameters (e.g. unit weight, shear strength, etc.), actual bearing factors and computed ultimate bearing capacities including the margin of safety against bearing type failure under both static and dynamic loading. Include in this discussion the foundation design of the pipe tunnel where it is located on in situ glacial till.
RESPONSE
The response to this question is provided in Section 2.5.4.10.1. 2349 279 Q362.11-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 13 HAVEN 6/79 OUESTION 362.12 (2 . 5. 4 .10 . 3) The discussion on lateral earth pressures omits site specific information. Provide specific adopted soil parameters, deuign values and resulting lateral earth pressure coefficients to be used in design at the Haven site.
RESPONSE
The response to this question is provided in Section 2.5.4.10.3. 2349 280 Q362.12-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 362.13 (2.5.4.13) Provide approximate locations and typical installation details of settlement monuments. Discuss the frequency of monitoring and the method for presenting recorded settlements that will include the settlements that develop as construction loads are applied.
RESPONSE
The response to this question is provided in Section 2.5.4.13. 2349 281 Q362.13-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 362.14 (2.5.5) Provide information on the type, properties, method of installation and service history of the proposed filter cloth.
RESPONSE
The filter cloth to be used as a part of the shore protection will be woven of polypropylene monofilarent yarn. It will be equivalent to Poly-Filter X as manufactured by Carthage Mills Incorporated. The attached product data sheet for Poly-Filter X provides information on the properties of this material. Also attached is an outline of several methods successfully utilized for installing filter cloth underwater. One or more of these methods will be contained in the enginer's specification for installation of the filter cloth underwater at the Haven site. Woven filter cloth, Filter X, has been used in shorefront installations for over 20 years. Poly-Filter X, which has considerably higher strength and abrasion resistance .than Filter X, has been used for 16 years. Both cloths have been used in environments more severe than the environment at the Haven site. The layered riprap configuration designed for the Haven site, with the smaller stones resting directly on the filter cloth, tends to distribute the loading from the larger stones, thus minimizing stress concentrations. This layered system minimizes abrasion between the stone and the cloth since little movement of the smaller stones in the bottom layer will occur during storms. 2349 282 Q362.14-1
CARTHAGE MILLS . ERO5!ON CCNTROL DNSION s HOME OFflCE: 124 W. 66th STREET da* sia. 242 274o CINCINNATI. CHIO 45216 _ POLY-FILTER X PRODUCT DATA Cloth - A pervious sheet woven of polypropylene monofilament yarns. 'Ibe yarn con-sists of at least 85?o propylene and contait s stabilizers and inhibitors to make the filament resistant to ultraviolet and heat deterioration. After weaving, the cloth is calendered and palmered so that the filaments retain their relative positions with respect to each other. All edges are selvaged and/or serged. TEST 51ETHOD RESULT Breaking Load & Elongation AST31 D 1682, Grab Test tensile strength: Afethod, 1" square jaws, stronger principal direction 380 lbs. constant rate of travel 12" weaker principal direction 220 lbs. per min. ' elongation at failure between 10 & 35?c Oxygen Pressure CRD-C 577 or 7111 same as Breaking Load & Elongation in Fed. Std. 601 result
- Effect of Alkalles Special (a) same as Breaking Load & Elongation result
- Effect of Acids Special b) tensile strength:*
stronger principal direction 350 lbs. weaker principal direction 220 lbs. elongation at failure between 10 & 35?c Low Temperature Special ( ) same as Effect of Acids result" High Temperature Special (d) same as Effect of Acids , result" Weight Change in Water CRD-C 575 or 6631 less than 1% in Fed. Std. 601 Brittleness CRD-C 570 or 5311.1 no failure at minus 60 F in Fed. Std. 601 Freeze-Thaw CRD-C 20, modified same as Effect of Acids result
- Weatherometer AST31 G 23, modified tensile strength:*
stronger principal direction 350 lbs. weaker principal direction 200 lbs. elongation at failure between 10 & 35?o Bursting Strength ASThi D 751, using 540 lbs. per square inch Diaphragm Bursting Tester 0362.14-2 h
POLY-FILTER X PRODUCT DATA Page 2. Puncture Strength ASTM D 751, modified (g) 140 lbs. Seam Brealring Strength ASTM D 1683,1" square jaws, 195 lbs. constant rate of traverse 12" per min. Abraslon Resistace ASTM D 1175, modified tensile strength:* stronger principal direction 100 lbs. weaker principal direction 70 lbs. elongation at failure between 10 & 35% Percent of Open Area Special (I) not less than 5% not more than 6% Equivalent Opening Sizo Special UI U. S. Standard Steve No. 70 (E. O. S. ) (O.210 mm) Permeability '3. 3 and 3. 8 x 10- 2 cm/sec. Specific Gravity 0.95 Effect of Heat softens at 284 to 3300 F Weight approx. . 05 lb. /sq. ft. (. 8 oz./sq.ft.) Seams sewn with polypropylene thread at point of manufacture Will not support marine or biological growth Packaged in burlap A complete laboratory la maintained at the point of manufacture; the cloth is tested after weaving and the seams tested after sewing to insure absolute quality control.
- Tensile strengths obtained by using " Breaking Load & Elongation" method as stated in the first test above.
(a) thru (1). These test methods or modifications available on request. Please identify by TEST and parenthesized letter. 2349 284 SU273001 0362.14-3
CARTHAGE MILLS EROSION CONTRot. DMSlON HOME OFRCE: 124 W. 66th STREET A.. s:3. 242 274o CINCINNATI. CHIO 45216 Listed below are several methods that have been employed sucessfully on numerous occasions to place POLY-FILTER X (or FILTER-X) below sea level.
- 1. In one instance a reinfor :ing rod or pipe is sewn to the seaward edge of the plastic filter cloth. If floating equipment is being used at the job site, the cloth is unrolled beneath the water by being pulled by use of cables from the shore toward the barge. This is illustrated in the enclosed sketch "l-2".
- 2. Once again sewing the tce edge of the filter sheet to heavy pipe or reinforcing rod, if floating equipment is not available, large rods with a "Y" on the evid have been used to push the roll from the shore down the slope beneath water.
- 3. Again using rod or pipe sewn to the toe edge of the cloth, it has been unrolled beneath the water by skin divers. .
In the three above methods stone has been dropped on the cloth as it is being unrolled. Normally they do not drop the s hole cross section of stones as the cloth is being unrolled but just enough to sacure it in place until ready to proceed with the next step of construction.
- 4. In another instance the plastic filter has been sewn to frames of reinforcing rods and then the entire frame placed into position by a crane working from the shore-line. This is illustrated in the enclosed sketch "l-1". When the frames are very large, such as 100 feet by 60 feet, the frame naturally has te be cross braced.
- 5. Another method has been to secure POLY-FILTER X to a heavy piece of scrap material (such as II beams or metal pipe, sometimes filled with concrete) -
making accordion folds the entire length of the cloth against the scrap material, securing the cloth by light strings or wire; attach ropes to each of the two free corners of the cloth - the large bar with the cloth attached is then placed at the design depth on the ocean botton1 (or, in the case of a jetty, at the seaward extreme of the structure); the wires holding the cloth in its folds are cut and the ropes are used to pull the cloth up the slope (or shoreward for jetties). This is illustrated by sketch "1-3". In all the above methods of installation, it is recommended that the cloth be overlapped 3 feet whenever sheets are to join one another.
- 6. If the depth is not too great, the cloth can be unrolled lineally along the shoreline, scattering rock on it as it is being unrolled.
- 7. Cables are sewn longitudinally to the cloth in several rows (if there is appreciable wave action or turbidity, cables have been sewn to the cloth in a grid pattern), and
~
. 2349 285 O
0362.14-4 -
Underwater Placement General Statements Page 2. the cloth is unrolled down the slope or longitudinally. The flexible cables provide the weight to maintain the position of the cloth and allow it to conform ta the irregularities of the bottom or slope. It is not necessary to secure the filter to cables above the expected high water line. 2349 286 0362.14-5 e g
( & =y
)$$1E4 Poly-Filter X or Filter-X 4
li!!Ril$I i!!! - DETAll M sus dei g ggs ! ipu Steel Bar Frome M M d k.______/ , m , g,/ \ ,-
,#Mw Wire PM WS See Deloil I E M S.L g p n g g y"), swwwm
( _ p 3,;. Fromed Plastic Filter Cloth l' --
..#L' . .#_ ,
10' " .vW A".a
. ..m .M_i. '
0 Existing Ground j3>, +
' v' 4Cg J-~ u ; -
aff.g g#i
%.- e;g)1
,. .+.
y . , .:+ m '- n_, q]
!);;;:.
" '- '='y u ,
v. Wj
' ,),_ __
Q _&y,Q;;,^(" q j , - ~-L . x ;, : . ii,yf
.- g,-
. .e -
.y ; . .+ ,
.n
, y:
i
) ,
y,
,, g .'
c,, g py -; =e3 . , , m v,
- o.g 7:
.d
. , , , ' - n .m f -
O
, . s.mn , .- . .
, . u. . . ., .n
_ ad . 5 [.SfAsE %r.anta.A A.45taaN hb ~ - ' M se. M I'-4 i-senA.siedlE[ s .e - imbAd Y * * ~~d IA-2 hism6s.asA$r a- 2 ais.nl U~ ' a - General) Filter cloth is sewn to a frame of reinforcliig rod or other weighty material, making sure the cloth is in a loose condition and not stretched so that it can more easily conform to the bottom contours. The frames are picked up by a dragline working from the beach seaward and placed into position beneath water level. After several frames are in position, the dragline places the required base course of rubble and uses this as a roadway to walk upon as the construction continues seaward. 1
=~- Shoreline yg ,
SE E
- e J w .
bh
#Lsr
%EE!m h
Ll*
.y-t it hf d'1 c wi i
di - IPI u b 3 h _$ II . , k' 4 This process is repeated with additional frames being lowered N to the bottom, base course being placed on them, and dragline on CARTHAGE MILLS moving out on top of the base course. When the seaward end of ERO5 TON CONTROL DIVISION the jetty has been reached, the dragline places the upper portion s of the structure as it " walks" back to shore, it is supplied with HOME OFFICE: 124 W. 64TH STREET . TELEPHONE 242-2740.CINCINHATI. OHIO 45216 neceSSary stones to " top off" by trucks using the base l-1 course as their roadway. O O O
SH0 REWARD SEAWARD M S.L , Stone A Poly-Filter X or Filter-X o *s
$ ifk F g . 1
- ; . Ex.isting Grcundj
- n
; ,w, e..
i p
}. .
s - (I ; cv -Tqmww7 ,, , e, ., ....,
" _ -m.l w u h ,..._ w w ,~,.a.L.m.- w .e '
JasL2 nbL4. "',
" .2 m _.ma
'-N -
(General) Tubes are sewn into each end of individual sheets of the filter by lapping the cloth back upon itself and then being seamed. Pipes are inserted into these tubes and the filter sheet rolled into a roll on thebcach. The first roll is then secured to the beach at the shoreward terminus of the jetty; the pipe attached to a yoke on a barge, the cloth is un-rolled by pulling the yoke seaward to the barge; when the end of one sheet is reached, the second roll is lowered into position from the barge with a minimum of 2' overlap. The opertation is then repeated, unrolling the second section of plastic filter. Small stones,100-150 lbs.
~
N >3 , L L-1 g
% ~
7 7 N in weight are randomly dropped onto the filter cloth to hold it in position until ensuing steps of construction are undertaken. Care should be 00 taken to make sure that the overlap is especially well covered with stone so that no peeling of the cloth can occur due to wave and tidal action. CO CARTHAGE MILLS EROSION CONTROL DIVISION s HOME OFFICF: 424 W. 66TH $1REET . TELEPHONE 242 2740.CINCINNAil, oHtO 45216 l== 2
SEAWARD SHOREWARD Poly-Filter X or Filter-X 8 0 m
- / '
Pull to shore =
/ l .
d/G/ fy/j/f *
\ Steel H Beam (General) Where tide action is fairly consistent, the filter cloth is secured to an II-beam or other weighty bar and folded accordion style up against the beam. It is then secured to the beam by small pieces of wire. The two free corners of the cloth have ropes attached to them. The beam is then taken to the seaward end of the jetty and lowered into position beneath the water. The wires securing the cloth are cut and men or equipment on the shore pull the cloth shoreward by use of the ropes attached to the free corners.
rv CARTHAGE MILLS u EROSION CONTROL DivlSION A 4
< HOME OFFICE: 124 W. HTH STREET
- TELEPHONE 242 2 740. CINCINNATI, OHIO 45286 g3 N
CD 4 O O O
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 OUESTION 372.6 (2 . 3 .1) ANSI AS 8-1-1972 based its extreme wind distributions on an analysis by Thom for about 140 locations across the U.S. [Thom, H.C.S., 1968: New Distributions of Extreme Winds in the United States. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers), Vol. 94, No. ST 7, Proceedings Paper 6038, pp. 1787-1801.) In the site region, Thom used data only from Chicago, IL. and Green Bay, WI. for a 21 year period. Verify that your design wind speed of 90 mph is appropriate for the Haven site based upon records in the general site vicinity. Specifically, using the Fisher-Tippett Type II methodology outlined by Thom and at least 30 years of recent data, provide the annual extreme-mile wind speeds 30-feet above the ground for a 100 year recurrence interval for Milwaukee and Green Bay, WI., and for any other locations that may be representative of extreme wind conditions at the site. List the annual extreme windspeeds by year that you used and p:: ovide a plot similar to Figure 6 of Thom (1968) for your analyses. Discuss what value best represents extreme wind conditions at the site.
RESPONSE
The Fisher-Tippett Type II methodology outlined by Thom(1) was applied to the most recent 30 years of extreme fastest-mile wind speed data at four National Weather Service (NWS) stations which are representative of the Haven site. The objective was to provide an annual extreme-mile wind speed at 30-ft above the ground for a 100 year recurrence interval at these NWS stations (Green Bay, Wisconsin; Madison, Wisconsin; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Chicago, Illinois (Midway)). From the results of these calculations, isotachs were drawn to estimate a value which best represents extreme wind conditions at the Haven site. Table Q372.6-1 depicts the annual extreme fastest-mile wind speeds by year for the 1949-1978 period for the four NWS stations within proximity of the Haven Site (2). These data were analyzed using Thom*s methodology (*), and the results of these calculations are shown on Figures Q372.6-1 through Q372.6-4. For each NWS station considered, these plots were drawn using the 2 year and 100 year recurrence extreme wind speed values, and connecting these two points by a straight line(3). The value of 7 (a parameter which defines the shape of the distribution) is an integral part of the Fisher-Tippett Type II methodology. Based on an analysis of 7, relative to climatic data base size (*), 7 was set equal to a mean value of 9.0 to accoux.t for its convergence (to that value) due to the size of the data sample. The 100 year recurrence interval fastest-mile wind speeds, as shown on Figures Q372.6-1 through Q372.6-4, were plotted on Figure Q372.6-5, and an isotach of 80 mph was developed. Based on the information presented on Figure Q372.6-5, the extreme wind condition at the Haven site, accounting for both the accuracy of this technique and data recording methods at the NWS 2349 290 Q372.6-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 stations, can be conservatively approximated by a value of 90 mph. REFERENCES
- 1. Thom, H.C.S. Some Methods of Climatological Analysis.
Technical Note No. 81, World Meteorological Organization Publication WMO-No. 199.TP.103, 1971.
- 2. Local Climatological Data for Green Bay, Wisconsin; Madison, Wisconsin; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Chicago, Illinois (Midway) 1949-1978.
- 3. Thom, H.C.S. New Distributions of Extreme Winds in the United States. Journal Structural Division, Proc. ASCE, Volume 94, No. ST 7, July 1968.
- 4. Thom, H.C.S. Toward a Universal Climatological Extreme Wind Distribution, a contribution to the International Research seminar: Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures. National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada, 1967.
23492$1 g O Q372.6-2
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 TABLE 0372.6-1 ANNUAL EXTREME FASTEST-MILE WIND SPEEDS AS RECORDED (mph) Chicago (i.Adway Year Green Bay Madison Milwaukee Airport) 1949
- 65 60 54 1950 109 77 72 54 1951 68 73 50 50 1952 57 46 59 60 1953 73 63 58 50 1954 60 70 73 51 1955 67 49 72 54 1956 63 47 59 46 1957 70 56 54 43 1958 59 43 54 49 1959 49 45 46 51 1960 56 51 58 42 1961 51 42 45 47 1962 47 50 39 45 1963 50 54 56 49 1964 59 57 51 47 1965 45 54 43 47 1966 40 51 40 39 1967 49 42 45 51 1968 54 54 42 42 1969 37 37 46 40 1970 60 56 45 39 1971 50 40 62 43 1972 42 41 46 40 1973 48 47 56 42 1974 36 37 50 41 1975 59 44 54 43 1976 42 43 49 40 1977 54 46 45 47 1978 47 32 50 36 NOTE:
- 1949 Green Bay fastest-mile wind speed not applicable since observations were recorded at two different locations that year (1976 LCD, Page 4) 2349 292 1 of 1
G iOOc 200 h
~
800 t
/r o 50 5 5
20
~
f
= /
E' _
/
$5 /
/
1 r 4
; I l I l i III .I ! l I I lI ril ll 1 lll1 lil ! I1 liII II l 1111 1 I l I t u 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130140150
] WIND SPEED (MPH) y HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT < FIGURE Q 372.6-1 " MAXIMUM VALUE PROBABILITY
" APER, FISHER-TIPPETT TYPE 3I DISTRIBUTION, GREEN BAY WISCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT PRELIMIN ARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT A.'4ENDMENT 23
1000 g 200
- /
~
J 5 [ 50 5 y [ 8 E 20 / l' -
/
/
2 A f g iI I i ! l II i II IIII f11 11 i f I till iIIi I i 11 1 1111 1 I i i 15 20 1 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130140 150 WIND SPEED (MPH) N HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT
$ FIG URE Q 372.6-2 MAXIMUM VALUE PROBABILITY j PAPER, FISHER-TIPPETT TYPE II A DISTRIBUTION, M ADISON WISCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT PRELIMINARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AMENDMENT 23
3 2 T N E T M R D Y H O NE P M T PE I E R A LY T 0 I B T ECISE ES 5 1 AT K O JY L BT t 0 T A 4 1 N OE URN I 0 A RP APA I 3 1 0 L PP W L SY 2 P I ET RU3 ETIMIT EF 1 I 0 1 i 1 R A 6. L ENI , I LA 0 0 E2 A S l l i 1 L7 VHOT S I UY 0 C3 R MI T l
/ 9 UQ U FUI NA
/
N , B SN
- 0
! I 8 N EMRI E
RI E ROI NI M
/ I V UX P TCL SSE I
0 7 A GA AI I I R HFMPDWP I
)
/ /
I I 0 M 6 H P
}
1 1 ( f 1 5 D 5 E
/ -
1 1 l l 0 5 P E S i f 5 4 D N l l I 0 l 4 W l i l 5 3 I I I 0 3 I I I 5 2 I I 0 2 I I _ - - U - - ~ ~_ 5 o 0 0 0 o z O ' 2 g1 0 0 0 5 ' o s 2 I 5g8Ee z5C* NuA* Nj
10oc
/
~
2oo
~
g' i f g 50
~
0 _ E 20 g e / g 10 5 5 l t / e - 2 P g i i 1 I I I I III IIi1 11 t!!! fit lill ll l 1Itt Iti Ifli Illi I 1 i I t 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 70 80 90 100 110120 00140150 WIND SPEED (MPH) N y HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT e FIGUR E O 372.6 -4 MAXIMUM VALUE PROBABILITY PAPER, os FISHER-TIPPETT TYPE II DISTRIBUTION CHICAGO (MIDWAY AIRPORT) WISCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT PRELIMIN ARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT AMENDMENT 23
80 t 8 GREEN WISCONSIN BAY
+
SITE - $\ MAD.ISON +\ 78 82 N e MILWAUKEE MICHIGAN N N N 80 i 44 ? 5 Y 7,5 9 S C A LE- MIL ES .i' c-- lLLINOIS (
/ HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT e CHICAGO FIGURE Q 372.6-5 y 100 YEAR RECURRENCE 4 WIND SPEED (MPH )
N WISCONSIN UTILITIES PROJECT PRELIMI NARY SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
\ AMENDMENT 23
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 432.2 ( 13. 3. 3) Your list of agencies to be contacted, on page 13.3-1, should include the State Department of Agriculture. If the county agricultural agencies are autonomous, also include the appropriate agencies in Sheboygan and Manitowoc Counties.
RESPONSE
In the State of Wisconsin, all disaster preparedness functions are organized under one central office called the Division of Emergency Government (DEG). The DEG functions as the primary source of communications and the lead coordinator of all the State's emergency response resources. In principle, the single notification of the DEG is adequate to activate other State agencies as appropriate. Certain other specific agencies have been identified in Section 13.3.3 because training, drills, and agreements requested by NRC are involved. Except for these specific cases, it would be inappropriate to initiate communications with other State agencies outside of the normal DEG plan. It should be noted that in Annex I, Appendix 6, of the Wisconsin Emergency Plan, the Department of Agriculture is recognized as the appropriate resource agency responsible for the control of foods, animal feed, and crops. The lead agency at the scene of a radiological emergency is recognized to be the Section of Radiation Protection. The Applicants' Emergency Plan is designed to facilitate the flow of information and available data to this agency. Finally, it should be noted that the Sheboygan County Civil Defense Department identified in Section 13.3.3 is synonymous with the Office of the County Director of Emergency Government. 2349 298 Q432.2-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 432.3 (13.3.3) Please scope (e .g. , by means of a block diagram) the jurisdictional relationships of the Town of Mosel and the City of Sheboygan to the Sheboygan Sheriff's Office. The principal government office or agency in each local political jurisdiction, which would have the responsibility for prompt initiation of protective action warnings and instructions to the public, should be clearly identiffad.
RESPONSE
Under the State of Wisconsin Emergency Operations Plan for Emergency Police Services (Annex D) , the Sheboygan County Sheriff is the Director of Emergency Police Services for Sheboygan County, including the Town of Mosel. The Chief of Police is the Director of Emergency Police Services for the City of Sheboygan. The Sheboygan County Sherif f has conunand and control authority over the Chief of Police under the Emergency Operations Plan. According to the State of Wisconsin Emergency Operations Plan f or Warning (Annex C) , the County Emergency Government Director appoints a Warning Officer and the Municipal Emergency Government Director designates municipal warning points and appoints a Warning Officer. In Sheboygan County, the County Emergency Government Director is appointed by the County Board and constitutes a full-time position. The mayor is the Municipal Emergency Government Director for the City of Sheboygan. However, the County and the City cooperate in a joint action emergency plan. In accordance with the provisions of this joint action plan, the Sheboygan County Sheriff's Office has the responsibility for prompt initiation of p rote ctive action warnings and instructions to the public. 2349 299 Q432.3-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 432.4 (13.3.4) Please scope the facilities presently in place and used in Sheboygan County for providing early warnings and information to the public in emergencies (e.g. , for snow storms, air pollution alerts, floods). Pertinent experience in the Town of Mosel should be related in somewhat greater depth or detail.
RESPONSE
The primary warning system in Sheboygan county consists of a siren network with units located at both rural and municipal fire department stations, including one at the Town of Mosel. A similar syste.a is used in Manitowoc County. In addition, both counties have agreements with local radio stations to provide information to the public. Radio station WHBL in Sheboygan cooperates with the Emergency Broadcasting System and can be linked with the Sheboygan County Sheriff's Office. Its transmitter is located at a hardened site. There have been no major emergency actions in the recent past in the Town of Mosel or elsewhere in the County. However, the siren system is used from time to time to provide tornado and fire warnings. Relatively minor emergency actions have also been carried out in the County in response to local flooding. 2349 300 Q432.4-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 432.5 ( 13 . 3. 4 ) Your preliminary plans emphasize the protective measure of public evacuation virtually to the exclusion of other protective measures and alternatives (e.g., shelter, removing dairy herds from pasture). Preliminary planning should reflect provisions for initiating protective actions for all exposure pathways, onsite, and offsite, including: (1) Direct radiation exposure from a confined source in-plant, an airborne plume, and ground deposition, (2) Inhalation exposure from an airborne plume, and (3) Ingestion exposure from contaminated water, milk, and other agricultural products.
RESPONSE
Detailed considerations of evacuation are provided in response to NRC guidance and questions and are not intended to emphasize evacuation to the exclusion of other considerations. However, the authority to carry out evacuation, shelter, removal of cattle from pasture, and the implementation of other public protection measures properly rests with the State of Wisconsin. In addition to providing protection for onsite personnel, the Applicants' emergency plans are designed to provide for the collection of useful and necessary data and to expedite the provision of those data to the responsible State age.cies. While it is not within the scope of the Applicants' authority to implement protective measures in the puolic realm, considerations of radiation dose pathways and appropriate environmental sampling provisions will be addressed in the emergency plan to facilitate the provision of information to appropriate State agencies. These details will be provided in the FSAR. 2349 301 Q432.5-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 432.6 (13.3.4) Your plans should provide for taking preciptation, water, and vegetation samples within the site boundary and outside at least to the low population zone boundary to assess potential ingestion exposure pathways in an emergency. The expected response and anticipated capabilities of offsite agencies for radiological hazards assessment in the environs should be described, recognizing, however, that for more severe emergencies protective actions offsite would be initiated based solely on in-plant information, but possibly modified thereafter as offsite information would become available.
RESPONSE
The State of Wisconsin Section of Radiation Protection is the lead agency responding to radiological incidents. The Chief of the Section of Radiation Protection is identified in Annex I of the Wisconsin Emergency Operations Plan.as the Captain of the Radiological Response Team. The Section of Radiation Protection routinely performs environmental monitoring around nuclear f acilities, conducts f allout sampling and milk sampling programs, and participates in an interlaboratory comparison program. The section is prepared to collect and analyze environmental samples in the event of an emergency. The Applicants' provisions for environmental sampling in the event of an emergency will be presented in the FSAR. 2349 302 Q432.6-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 OUESTION 432.7 (13.3.4) Your estimates of notification times, on page 13.3-2, are very low. Such estimates would depend in part upon the availability of resources which were present or could be brought into the locale. In paragraph 13.3.4.c, please list the number and type (i .e . , town, county, state) of police officers, as functions of time, which were assumed for your calculations. Compare the assumed resources with those which could be immediately available or assigned to the locale within the assumed time.
RESPONSE
The response to this inquiry is being provided to the NRC in a separate subnittal and is subject to withholding from public disclosure pursuant to 10CFR2.790. 2349 303 Q432.7-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 432.8 (13.3.4) In the last paragraph of Section 13.3.4, on page 13.3-5, please describe the basis for the time-dose-distance plots presented in Figures 13.3-2, -3 and -4. Acceptable bases are described on page 13-9, of Regulatory Guide 1.70, Rev. 2 - Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants.
RESPONSE
Refer to Section 13.3.4 of the Site Addendum for the response to this question. 2349 304 Q432.8-1
WUP PSAR Amendment 23 HAVEN 6/79 QUESTION 432.9 (13. 3.3) Please specify a source of local weathe2.2 forecasting which could provide information as an aid to con e .'quence assessment. If special arrangements would be required to obtain such information, please include the source in your list of contacts with agencies.
RESPONSE
First order stations of the National Weather Service are located at Austin Straubel Field in Green Bay and at General Mitchell Field in Milwaukee. The Milwaukee Weather Service Office specializes in torecasting shoreline winds and routinely prepares nearshore boating forecasts for the Lake Michigan shoreline, including the Sheboygan area. 2349 305 Q432.9-1}}