ML20010A732
| ML20010A732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1981 |
| From: | Frederick Brown ARMY, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-03-81-122, CON-NRC-3-81-122 NUDOCS 8108120125 | |
| Download: ML20010A732 (3) | |
Text
~
DEPARTMENT CF THE ARMY g
WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. BOX 631 VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI 39180 888 R$ PLT RS FE st TJe 7 AUG '81 s
WESGH S
/op s
n-Il d.I'b,c 2
AUG 111981 >
Mr. George E. Lear t?'
u,hisse s e m. 7 M"
N Hydraulic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch
'C)-
,p Division of Engineering N
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Lear:
The Waterwaya Experiment Station (WES) is assisting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the Safety Evaluation Program as provided by Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-81-122.
One of the tasks of this effort is to review Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Plant. Accordingly, we have reviewed the following:
a.
Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) Report, March 1979, "Analy.;is/
Calculation for Containment of Somerset Reservoir Storage in Harrima Reservoir, Yankee Rowe Plant."
b.
NRC draft report, 26 January 1981, " Draft Flood Study - Yankee Rowe haclear Plant and Upper Deerfield River Basin."
c.
Eaton, A. C., " Davis Bridge Power Project to Develop 60,000 HP,"
Engineering News Record, Vol 92, No. 4, 24 January 1924, pp. 142-146.
d.
Eaton, A. C., " Building the Highest Hydraulic Fill Dam," Engineering News Record, Vol 92, No. 6, 7 February 1924, pp. 235-258.
c.
Collins, E. B. and Wilson, H.
R., "The Davis Bridge Power Plant Development of the New England Power Company," General Elactric Review, Vol XXVII, No. 10, October 1924, pp. 665-672.
f.
Chas T. Main, Inc., "Harriman Dam Stability Analysis," report prepared for the New England Power Company, December 1979.
g.
New England Power Company, " Inspection Report for New England Power Company - Deerfield River Project," report by Chas T. Main, Inc., August 1968.
~
(IooI B108120125 810807 4,I0 PDR ADOCK 05000029 1
P PDR
r WESCH Mr. George E. Lear 7 AllG '81 h.
New England Power Company, "Second Inspection Report of the New England Power Company - Deerfield River. Project," report by Chas T. Main, Inc., October 1973.
1.
New England Power Company, " Third Inspection Report of the New England Power Company - Deerfield River Project," report by Chas T. Main, Inc., October 1978.
J.
NRC, " Summary of Site Visit and Harriman Dam Inspection for Yankee Rowe Review," 17 December 1979.
k.
NRC, " Site Visit to Yankee Rowe Nuclear Plant and Hydraulic Meeting with Yankee Atomic, FERC, and New England Power Company," 21 January 1980.
1.
YAEC, " Scope of Work and Technical Specifications for the Drilling Contractor to Install Piezoweters and Obtain Soil Samples at Harriman Dam (Revision 1)," April 1980.
.New England Power Company, " Report on Laboratory Tests on Samples from m.
Harriman Dam, VT," report by Geotechnical Engineers, Inc., 16 November 1979.
n.
NRC, " Meeting with FERC Regarding Dams Near Yankee Rowe," 15 October 1979.
o.
Davis Bridge Dam, Record of Well Drill Holes, July 1921-April 1922.
p.
Miscellaneous drawings which were furnished by the utility.
As requested, in our review of the above documents we have specifically addressed an evaluation or assessment of the dynamic stability of Harriman Dam, which is located approximately six miles upstream of the Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Plant. The failure of this dam fer any reason when the pool is above elevation 1490 ft mean sea level will produce a flood 1cvel at the Yankee Rowe site that is anywhere from 15 to 70 ft above plant grade (see NRC draft report entitled " Draft Flood Study-Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Plant and Upper Deerfield River Basin," dated 26 January 1981). Therefore, the stability of Harriman Dam is crucial to the operation and safe shutdown of the Yankee Rowe Power Plant.
Our review of the above-listed
.uments indicates that additional information is required for NES to properly evaluate the stability of Harriman Dam.
Specifically, additional information is requested in the following areas:
a.
Design eacthquake. Insufficient discussion is given to the local and regional geology and local and regional seismicity to determine if the seismic coefficients used in the pseudostatic analyses are appropriate. Additional discussion should include the attenuetion laws -used for the region.
If dynamic finite element analysis is required, the selection of the " design" carthquake will need to be evaluated.
2
WESCH Mr. George E. Lear 7 AUG'81 b.
Soil profile. Additional information is required to determine the representative soil profile parallel to the axis of the dam, upstream, down-stream, and along the center line of the dam.
c.
Strength degradation of the various materials believed to be representa-tive of the nonplastic soils in the foundation, shell, and core of the dam.
Static and dynamic laboratory tests on undisturbed sampics of this material will be required to determine if cyclically induced strength degradation is a problem. We understand that undisturbed samples are difficult to obtain.
Test pits may be the only alternative available; however, one must evaluate the strength degradation properties of the material to determine the type of analysis (liquefaction or permanent deformation) appropriate for the stability calculations.
d.
Uniformity of the dam and foundation materials. Additional Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results and/or cone penetration test results are recommended to determine the uniformity of the foundation materials and the dam itself.
It is possible that this information presently exists in the utility's files, and WES has reviewed a fair amount of this information; however, it is not presented in a fashion which lends itself to evaluation.
It is suggested that typical cross sections might be prepared. Boring logs could be placed on these cross sections. Adjacent to boring logs, a plot of SPT "N" values versus depth could be shown. Different symbols could be used'to define the type of materials in which the "N" values were obtained. This infor-mation would also be useful in obtaining a clearer picture about the soil profiles requested fa su'cparagraph b above, e.
In situ dynamic soil properties. Information regarding the compression and shear-wave velocities as a function of depth should be provided.
From the information requested above, it may be possible to evaluate the dam and determine whether it is safe or unsafe.
It is also possible that after evaluating this information it will not be possible to make a determination about the safety of the dam, and additional information may still be required.
If this is the case, then additional information regarding dynamic soil properties and the results of one-and, possibly, two-dimensional finite element analyses used to determine the dynamic response of the dam will be required.
If you have any questions regarding our review, please contact Dr. W. F.
Marcuson, III, at FTS S42-2217.
Sincerely,
/$ ~2rb&
F. R.
R0WN ff*v Engineer Technical Director CF:
Dinesh Cupta, NRC 3