ML20010B163
| ML20010B163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Dresden, Oyster Creek, Haddam Neck, San Onofre, La Crosse, Big Rock Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1981 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-02-04.D, TASK-02-04.E, TASK-02-04.F, TASK-2-4.D, TASK-2-4.E, TASK-2-4.F, TASK-RR LSO5-81-08-015, LSO5-81-8-15, NUDOCS 8108140168 | |
| Download: ML20010B163 (53) | |
Text
.. _
in o
w g
3 o
August 5,1981 L505-81 08-015
[ Dl!
e dl[l/[p AUG.13 ggSlh LETTER TO ALL SEP OWNERS 2
(ExceptPalisadesandYankeeRowe) tr ua, fuW 11, g
Gentlemen:
tb
SUBJECT:
GUIDANCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF SEP TOPICS II-4.D, STABILITY OF SLOPES: II-4.E. DAM INTEGRITY, AND II-4.F. SETTLEMENT 0F STRUCTURES AND BURIED EQUIPMENT Enclosed is a copy of our draft guidance for the assessment of SEP Topics II-4.D. Stability of Slopes; II-4.E. Dam Integrii.y and II-4.F Settlement of Structures and Buried Equipment. These assessment guides contain infor-mation needs related to the specific criteria and regulatory guides of the Connission that are pertinent to each topic and provide a listing of information related to each topic which would normally be acquired by the staff for use in the topic review and detailed review guidelines for review of significant topic elements.
You are requested to use these guidelines to complete the safety evaluation of these topics for your plant site and submit to the staft by the dates scheduled in our July 7,1981 letter (SEP Redirection letter from D. G. Eisenhut to all SEP Licensees).
Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reat tors Branch #5 Division of Licensing I
Enclosure:
a As stated p f)a^'I
$8h cc w/ enclosure:
See next page 6' i
.,6/
gf di
,, of S g
810e140168 810e05 x
DR ADOCK 05000010 lN p
PDR s
.SL/.SEPB: @C/. w :DL SEPB
- DL A
o,ric,)
SEPB:D s.
~~~>. m en g,...
amer.mann...... s.a u.s s e.l.1.....
1.d. q....
D.[C..$81 n
..[..f.........
- ^ " > [.,/f../. 81....Sf../.j.../.81
/ /81
.../.y.../.81 S
/
Nac resu aie nemoinacu e24c OFFICIAL RECORD COPY-
- " * -33"2'
~~
v i
DRESDEN 1 Docket No. 50-10 Mr. L. De1 George cc Isham, Lincoln & Beale Counselors at Law One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 Mr. Doug Scott Plant Superintendent Rural Route #1 Morris, Illinois 60450 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office Dresden Station RR #1 Morris, Illinois 60450 Mary Jo Murray Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 W. Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Morris Public Library 604 Liberty Street Morris, Illinois 60451 Chairman Board of Supervisors of Grundy County Grundy County Courthouse l
Morris, Illinois 60450 Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor l
Springfield, Illinois 62704 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Activitics Branch Region V Office ATTN:
EIS COORDINATOR 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 l
l The Honorable Tom Corcoran l
United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
a I
1 DPESDEN 2 Docket No. 50-237 Mr. L. Ce1 George CC Isham, Lincoln & Beale Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety Counselors at Law 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 Chicago, Illinois 60603 U.'S. Environmental Protection Agency Mr. B. B. Stephenson Federal Activities Branch Plant Superintendent Region V Office Dresden Nuclear Power Station ATTN: EIS C0ORDINATOR Rural Route #1 230 South Dearborn Street Morris, Illinois 60450 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Dr. Forrest J. Remick Natural Resources Defense Council 305 East Hamilton Avenue 91715th Street, N. W.
State College, Pennsylvaria 16801 Washington, D. C.
20005 The Honorable Tom Corcoran U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission United States House of Representatives Resident Inspectors Office Washington, D. C.
20515 Dresden Station RR #1 j
Morris, Illinois 60450 Mary Jo Murray Assistant Attorney General Environmental Control Division 188 W. Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Morris Public Library 604 Liberty Street Morris, Illinois 60451 Chairnen Board of Supervisors of Grundy County Grundy County Courthouse Morris, Illinois 60450 John F. Wolf, Esquire 3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland 20015 Dr. Linda W. Little 500 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 I
HADDAM NECK / MILLSTONE-1 i
Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 Mr. W. G. Counsil l
cc William H. Cuddy, Esquire Connecticut Energy Agency Day, Berry & Howard ATTN: Assistant Director Counselors at Law Research and Policy One Constitution Plaza Development Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Department of Planning and Energy Policy Board of Selectmen 20 Grand Street Town Hall Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Haddam, Connecticut 06103 Resident Inspector Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Station ATTN: Superintendent c/o U. S. NRC Millstone Plant East Haddam Post Office P. O. Box 128 East Haddam, Connecticut 06423 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 U. S. Environmental Protection Natural Resources Defense Council Agency 91715th Street, N. W.
Region 1 Office Washington, D. C.
20005 ATTN: EIS C0ORDINATOR JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Resident Inspector c/o U. S. NRC Superintendent P. O. Box Drawer KK Haddam Neck Plant Niantic, Connecticut 06357 RFD #1 Post Office Box 127E Waterford Public Library East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Rope Ferry Road, Route 156 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 First Sclectman of the Town of Waterford 1
Hall of Records 200 Boston Post Road Waterford, Connecticut 06385 John F. Opeka Systems Superintendent Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Mr. Richard T. Laudenat Manager, Generation Facilities Licensing j
Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 s
S
's l
a_
e 0
Mr. David P. Hoffman BIG ROCK POINT Docket No. 50-155 cc Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary U. S. Environmental Protection Consumers Pcwer Company Agency 212 '! cst Michigan Avenue Federal Activities Branch Jackson, Michigan 49201 Region V Office ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR Judd L. Bacon, Esquire 230 South Dearborn Street Consumers Power Conpany Chicago, Illinois 60604 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Joseph Gallo, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Isham, Lincoln & Be. ele Washington, D. C.
20555 1120 Connecticut Avenue Rora: 325 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Washington, D. C.
20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Peter W. Steketee, Esquire Washington, D. C.
20555 505 Peoples Building Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Washington, 0.. C.
20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission I
Washington,*D. C.
20555 Big Rock Point Nuc, lear Power Plant ATTN: Mr. C. J. Hartman Mr. John O'Neill, II Plant Superintendent Route 2, Box 44 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 i
Maole City, Michigan 49664 Christa-Maria j
Route 2, Box 108C Charlevoix Public Library' Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 107 Clinton Street Charlevoix, Michigan William J. Scanlon, Esquire Chairman 2034 Pauline Boulevard County Board of Supervisors Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 Charlevoix. County Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Resident Inspector Big Rock Point Plant Office of the Governor (2) c/o U.S. NRC l
Room 1 - Capitol Building RR #3, Box 600 l
Lansing, Michigan 48913 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Herbert Semel Mr. Jim E. Mills Council for Christa Maria, et al.
Route 2, Box 108C l
l Urban Law Institute Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 e
Antioch School of Law l
263316th Street, NW Thomas S. Moore Washington, D. C.
20460 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
205 e
1 9
p 2'
4 2-BIG ROCK POIf1T Mr. David P. Hoffman Docket fio. 50-155 t
cc Or. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 Ms. JoAnn Bier 204 Clinton Street
.l Charlevoix, Michigan 49720
'l 9
i l
l e
e I
--+-v
, +
9-w-gy v-yy
,w 3
19
-,9-er.-w-g
--,.y g-,r-y
.-.,yym m-,,,v.m-.ry,ga,m-m,-+-
,, =.
e%--,
,,.c...-c..
.,3,.~,--,
,-e e
Mr. R. Dietch SAN ONOFRE 1 Docket No. 50-206 cc Charles R. Kocher, Assistant General Counsel James Beoletto, Esquire Southern California Edison Company Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 David R. Pigott Chickering & Gregory Three Embarcadero Center Twenty-Third Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Harry B. Stoehr San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. O. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Resident Inspector / San Onofre NPS c/o U. S. NRC P. O. Box 4329 San Clemente, California 4267E Mission Viejo Branch Library 24851 Chrisanta Drive Mission Viejo, California 92676 Mayor City of San Clemente San Clemente, California 92672 Chairman i
Board of Supervisors County of San Diego l
San Diego, California 92101 California Department of Health ATTN: Chief. Environmental Radiation Control Unit Radiological Health Section i
l 714 P Street, Room 498 l
Sacramento, California 95814 l
l U. S. Environmetal Protection Agency Region IX Office ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR 215 Freemont Street l
San Francisco, California 94111 L
Lacrosse Docket No. 50-219 Mr. Frank Linder CC Fritz Schubert, Esquire U. S. Environmental Protection Staff Attorney Agency Dairyland Power Cooperative Federal Activities Branch 2615 East Avenue South Region V Office la Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 ATIN: EIS C00RDItJATOR 230 South Dearborn Street
- 0. S. Heistand, Jr., Esquire Chicago, Illinois 60604 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M Street, N. W.
Mr. John H. Buck Washington, D. C.
20136 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board I
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mr. R. E. Shimshak Washington, D. C.
20555 La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor Dairyland Power Cooperative Dr. ; awrece R. Quarles P. O. Box 135 Kendal at Longwood, Apt. 51 Genoa-Wisconsin 54632 Anneth Square, Pennsylvania 19348 Ms. Anne K. Morse Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman Coulee Refon Energy Coalition Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P. O. Box 1583 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601 Washington, D. C.
20555 La Crosse Public Library Dr. George C. Anderson 800 Main Street Department of Oceanography La Crosse, L'isconsin 54601 University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Resident Inspectors Office Mr. Ralph S. Decker Rural Route #1, Box 276 Route 4, Box 1900 Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 Cambridge, Maryland 21613 Town Chairman Thomas S. Moore Town of Genoa Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Route 1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Genoa, Wisconsin 54632 Washington, D. C.
20555 Chairman, Public Service Comission of Wisconsin l
Hill Farms State Office Building Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Frederick Milton Olsen, III 609 North lith Street Lacrosse, Wisconsin 54601
Mr. John E. Maier cc Harry H. Voigt, Esquire Mr. Thomas B. Cochran LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
1333 Ne,1 Hampshire Avenue, N. W.
1725 I Street, N. W.
Suite 1100 Suite 603 Wash {ngton, D. C.
20026 Washington, D. C.
20006 Mr. Michael Slade U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 12 Trat1 wood Circle Region II Office Rochester, New York 14618 ATTN: EIS C0ORDINATOR 26 Federal Plaza Ezra Bialik New York, New York 10007 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau Herbert Grossman, Esq., Chairman New York State Department of Law Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 2 World Trade Center U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10047 Washington, D. C.
20555 Jeffrey Cohen Dr. Richard F. Cole New York State Energy Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Swan Street Building U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Core 1, Second Floor Washington, D. C.
20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director, Bureau of Nuclear U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Operations Washington, D. C.
20555 State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road West l
Ontario, New York 14519 l
Resident Inspector R. E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S. NRC 1503 Lake Road Ontario, New York 14519
Mr. I. R. Fi nfrock, J r.
0YSTER CREEK Docket No. 50-219 cc G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Gene Fisher Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trcubridge Bureau Chief 1800 M Street, N. W.
Gureau of Radiation Protection Washington, D. C.
20036 380 Scotts Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 J. B. Lieberran, Esquire Berlack, Israels & Lieberman Commissioner 26 Broadday New Jersey Department of Energy New York, New York 10004 101 Commerce Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Natural Resources Defense Council 91715th Street, N. W.
Licensing Superv.isor Washington, D. C.
20006 Uyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station J. Knubel P. O. Box 388 BWR Licensing Manager Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Jersey Central Power & Light Company Madison Avenue at Punch Bcwl Road Resident Inspector Morristown, New Jersey 07960 c/o U. S. NRC P. O. Box 445 Joseph W. Ferraro, Jr., Esquire Forked River, New Jersey
- 08731 Deputy Attorney General.
State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 1100 Raymond Boulevard Newark, New Jersey 07012 Ocean County Library Brick Township Branch 401 Chambers Bridge Road.
Brick Town, New Jersey 08723 l
Mayor l
Lacey Tcwnship i
P. O. Box 475 l
Forked River, New Jersey 08731 Commissioner Department of Public Utilities l
State of New Jersey 101 Commerce Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office l
ATTN: EIS C0ORDINATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 l
6 l
l r
fp.
F0ic:AT rtG SICP SAITrY 'IO!'1C FNAI.lfATio::S
- TOPIC II.4.D - :;TAbil.I't Y OF St.0 PES -
WZ::::NG DRAF 1.
INTPODUCTIO'i This topic per'tains i o t he (: cot cehnical F.nr.ineering review of t he stability of all carth and rock alopr: both nat ural and man-made (cuts, fills, embankments, dams, etc.) s. hose. failure, under any of the conditions to which they could be exposed durine,the life of the plant, could adversely affect the-safety of the plant. 'lhe scope of'the review embraces the following subjects which are evaluated using data developed by the applicant and informati<n availabic from all sources:
(a) slope characteristics;.(b) ' design criteria N
and analyses; (c) results of investigations including borings,.shaf ts, pits, trenches, and laboratory tests; (d) propert ics of borrow material, and com-paction and excavation specifications; and (c) pcoposed instrumentation and i
performance monitoring systems and programs, i
=
t J
'h f.
i a
y;.gq7ING DRA:?T
O r
II.
1.r.v11 At CRTTr.RT A The applicabic rules and basic acceptance criteria pertinent to the teview of.
i this topic are:
1.
10f Fn Part 30, Appendix A General Design Criterion 1
" Quality Standards and Records."
(a)
This criterion requires that structurcs, systems,and components important to safety shall be designed, fabricated, erected,and tes'.cd to quality standards 6
commensurate with the importance of the safety f unctions to be perforced.
It fabrication, erection, also requires that app:opriate records of the design, to safety shall be-and testing of structure systems, and components important raintained by or under the control of the nuclear power unit licensee throughout the life of the unit.
General Design Criterion _2
" Design Banes for Protection (b)
Ac.ai nst Natural Phenomena." This criterion 'equires that safety-related ~
portions of the system shall be designed t o withstand clie effects of earthquakes floods, tsunami, nn.s seiches without loss, of capability to.
tornadoes, hurricanes, perform their. afety ienetions.
General Design Crithion 44 "Coolinr. Water." - This criterion -
(c) a system shall be provided with the safety function of transferrin [
requires that i
the combined heat load from st ruct ures, nyst ems and components important. to safety to an ultimate heat sink under normal operating and accidental conditions 100, Annendix A. "Selsr-ic and Geologic Siting Criteria 2.
30CFR Part for Nuclear Power Plants" These criteria describe the nature et the investigations recuired to obtain the neologic and sei.nmic data necensary to determine site suitability r.cologie and seismic fact os s re.;uired to be takan into account and identifv in the nit inr. and ds sign of nuelcar power plant s.
~
o Tne fellowinr. Regulatcry Guldes provide information, recommendctions, and guidance and in r,cneral describe a basis acceptable to the staff that ciay be used to implement the requirements of the above described criteria.
(a) Mulatory Culde 1.127. "Ingcetion of k' ster Control Structures Associat ed v3 th Nuclear Power Plants." - This guide' describes a basis acceptabic to the NRC staff tor complying with the commission's regulation of 10CFR Part 50 550-36 with rer.ard to developing an appropriate in-service inspection and surveillance propams int dams, slopes, channels, and other water-control structures associated with cecrgency cooling water systems or flood protection of nucicar power planta.
Regulatory Guide 1.13't. " Site Investigations for Foundations (b) of Nucicar Power Plants." - This guide der.cribes programs of site investigation; f
related to geotechnical engineering aspects that would normally meet the needs for evaluating the safety of the site f rom the standpoint of the perfor=ance of -
foundation and carthucrks under anticipated Joading conditions including carth-;
300 and 10CFR, Part 100, Appendix A.
It quakes in co= plying with 10CFR, Part provides general guidance and recore:endat tons for developing site-specific investigation programs as well as specific guidance for conducting subsurface investigations, the spacing and depth of borings, and sampling.
t Guide 1.1'48, "1.aboratory Investigations of Scils (c)
Regulatory forEngineeringAnalysisandDestynofhjcicarPowerPlants._"-Thisguide describes laboratory investir.ations and tu8 ting practices acceptable for needed for enginecris soil and rock properties and characteristic::
determining analysis and design for foundations and carthwork for nucicar power plants in 100, and 3 0CFR, Part 100, Appendix A.
complying with 30CFR, Part
o III.
l'ELATl'.D S.'irl;iT TOP 1t::; AND INTI:i:: /irr.:;
Geotechnical l'ngineering anpect:. of net tlerent of foundations and buried equipment are revicued under Topic II.4.F.
Other interface topics include II.4.E, " lum Inti r.rity;" 11 3.C, "Ul t irute 11 eat Sink;" III.6, "Scismie Desit,n Cons ider..t lon;" Xhl, " Technical Spec i f ication:t;" 111.3.C, "In Service Inspection of Riter Control Structures;" Ill.3. A. "Ef fects of Iligh I?ater on Structures;" and IV.3, " Stations Service and Cooling Rner Systc=s."
e e
e aw e
+m
9 IV.
INFORMATICN R);Qti;F.1) FOR ltFNIFW Information presente,d must be nufficient to demonstrate the dynamic i
and static stability of all slopes whose failure could adversely affect, directly or indirectly. safety-relate d st ructures of the nuclear plant or pose a ha ard to the puhfic. Completeness of information is determined by the abilit y to make an independent evaluation on the basis of information provided.
Information presented sheuld at least include:
1.
Cencral pims with vicinity map.
Larga-scale embankment plans for any fill nt ructures where a slope 2.
f ailare could adversely af fect cafety-relat ed facilities, with boring and -
instrumentation locations shown.
Embankment and cut slope cross sections with instrumentation shown.
3.
4.
Embankment and cut slope details.
5.
Graphic summaries of embankment and cut slepe shear strength' test data, with scle eted design values shown.
6.
Embankment and cut slope stability c'ross sect'fons with design assumptions, critical failure surfaces, and factors of safety shown.
4 7.
Embankment and cut slope stability evaluation
~
E=bankment scenage control desir.n with assumptions, section, and 8.
selected design scheme shr.m.
9.
Instrumentation installation detalis.
10.
Interpretation of instrumentatico data.
(a)
Inclinometer data-prefiles of slepe. movement with time.
(b)
Profiles or centour plans oi survey monument displacement.
(c)
Embankment section -(th emb.inkment and foundacion pore picssure contours. It may he neces:.ary t o plot conteur diagrams for various dat es and pool elev.itions.
J e.
(d)
Dnbankment seet lons showing phreat ic surface.
I Topographic map showing contours before construction.
11.
- 12. Topographic map showing contours af ter construction.
1
[
Site plan shocing and identifying n11. safety-related structures 13.
and appurtenances.
Embankment or cut sections that cuperimpose the' foundations of I
14.
safety-related structures which could be af fected by slope failure.
- 15. Embankment or cut sections that superiepose the location and l
I orientation of buried safety-related equipment (e.g., pipelines, electrical conduit, etc.) which could be affected by slope failure.
An assessment of the potential for liquefcetion at-the site.
16.
A sum. nary and description' of groundwater, seepage, and high and 17.
low ground eater canditions.
An assessment of the ground motion (acceleration) associated with 18.
%O t
l B
I l
l b
..L.
V.
r.n It'J (:UIDn.1;;E::
In Ecneral, the review proce, s is conducted in accordance with the
'Ihe geotechnical procedures described in standard Revisw Plan Section 2.5.5.
engineering aspects of the design and as-constructed condition of slopes are criterla and the safety significance of any reviewed and compared to current differences is evaluated. Rijor revicW r.ntdelines pertinent to this topic evaluation include. the folJowing ite:ns.
O e
W 4
4
- Amoe 9
e m.
-m m.
a-
1.
In rwcL i n: the i cipiit et ent of t he cr it eria, the di.cussion and evaluation of slope characteristic:.aie acceptable if:
(a) cross sections and profiles of the slopes in sufficient quantity and detail to represent the slope and f oundation conditions are present ed; (b) a so : nary and description of static and dynanic prope:Itics of the noll and rock comprining Category I cebankment dams and their J oundations, u.it ural.nul cut slopes, and all soil or rock slopes whose stability would directly or JudJ rect ly af fect safety-rcisted and Category I facilities are presented; and (c) a sinmnary and description of groundwater, scepage and hip,h and low r.roundwat er cond itions are presented.
e G
"we 9
o 2.
In rxet ing the recluirement s et t h.
c ri t erla. t' discur.; ion and evaluation of the design criteria and design analynec arcacceptable if (r) the static analyscs include calculations which arr. css the following factors:
(1) uncertainties regarding, slope shap.,1oundaries of soils within the slope and their propc' tics, forcen actinn en the slope, and pore pressures acting within the slope: (2) failure surfacen corresponding to the lowest factor of safety; (3) cffect of the assumpt!ons inherent in the method of analysis used; and (4) adverse conditions such as high water icvcis due to the probable maximum flood, sudden drawdown or steady seepage at various icvels. The evaluation is acceptabic if the dynamic analysis accounts for the effect of cyclic motion due to postulated carthquake effects on soil strength preperties.
hhe various paraceters, such as geomer y, soil strength, codeling nod
' (locations and nu:Ser of elements (mesh) if a finite-ele =ent analysis is used),
and hydrodynamic and soil pore pressurca, 8hould be varied to show that there is-an adequate margin of safety. L'here liqueinetion is pousible, dan slopes.and embankments should be analy:cd by stat e-of-the-art methods.
An assessment should be made of the post-carthquake stability of. safety-related slopes and the effects of increased pore pressures on soil stress-strain behavior (e.g.,
instability due to redistribution of excess pore pressures).
d I
3.
In n:ceting the' requ;teraente of tiie crJ teria related co the presentation of results of invimtigations including burinti, shaf ts, pits, ere-nches,nnd laboratory tests,the discussion and evaluation ar'eacceptable if site investigations and ' laboratory te8tian progran:4 required to evaluate geotechnical co;,incering pararr.eters related to nite nafety,such as those described in Regulatory Gulds 1.l'52
" Site inventinations for Foundations of 1.ncicar Power Plants" and Ec:'.ulatory Guide 1.13S "1.aboratory Investigations of Soils for Engineering Analysin and liesign of Nuclear Power Plants" have been conducted and the results cIcarly reported.
e e
a=u==
I, e
d.
j
-e er,-,
c.,----
-n-
,g~o+om,--
w p i-q,--
-nn+,,
--g,--
y e-w r g.- 4 s n p,vyv vn, r
,r
-,s m,,r,m..e,.we+,
e y
,,m,r e
- e g o s ve epe.-c n e, m., ~g y e--
o 4.
In meet inr, the requirement.r. of Ilic ci it cria related to preperties of borrow materials, and comp iction and excavat.f on specifications, the discussion and evaluation arcacceptable if the planned excavation, backfill, and borrow materials are described in detail for dams, dikes,and embankment Planned const.ruction procedures and control of carthwork should also slopes.
be described.
Quality Control techniques durinp :ind following construction must also be addressed.
The quality control and testing program must provide a high 3cvel of assurance that the selected borrow material is as good and as relatively homogeneous as anticipated from the results of the investigations program and that the compacted soils nect the design specifications.
- w 0
0
. ee w em.
e.
, e
5.
In r:e.tinr. the requirements ot the criteria reinted to proposed' instrumentation and performance monitorinc,. the distiintston and evaluation are acceptahic if (a) the overall instritmentation-plan, purpose for each set of instrumente, and reanona for their locat ion are discusned and related to the types of data needed to confirm desir.n asr.imption:; and performance criteria; (b) the different kinds of instrument s, spei tal instruments, and significant details for installation are discussed and are baned on acceptable 3ractices to assure reliability of measurements for the needed time during and/or after construction; and (c) a prograir is described for periodic nonitoring of.
instrus?ntation and insnection of embankr.ents during and af ter construction to confirm design assumptions or to detect occurrences that could detricentally affect stability. The conitoring program 8hould npecify scheduled cime intervals for periodic monitoring such as examination of slopes, recording and processing-slope inclino::eter data,and survey of settlement nonument,s. A ceans for timely -
processing and review of inst rumentation d.it.i should he included.
e e
e
=h
t
,.x
'./
Format for SEP Safety Topic Evaluation SEP Topic II.4.E - Embankments and Dams I.
INTRODUCTION:
This topic pertains to the Geotechnical Engineering review of the stability of all carth, rock, or earth and rock-fill embankments whose failure, under any of the conditions to which they could be exposed during the life of the nuclear power plant, could adversely affect the safety of the plant. The review pertains to the investigation, engineering design,
_ construction, and performance of embankments and evaluation of existing embankments on-site or of f-site used for plant flood protection or for impounding cooling water required for operation and safe shutdown of the' plant. The scope of the review embraces the following subjects which are evaluated using data developed by the applicant and information available from all sources:
(a) purpose and location of.the embankment and appurtenant structures (spillways, outlet works, etc.); (b) specific geologic features of the site;.
(c) results of subsurface investigations, including borings, shafts, pits, trenches, and field and laboratory tests; (d) engineering properties of the bedrock, foundation soils, borrow soils and rock, and embankment soils and rock; (e) design assumptions, data analyses, and discussions of foundation and abutment treatment and embankment-design; (f) construction requirements; (g) excavation and compaction specifications and quality assurance programs; (h) instrumentation and performance monitoring systems and programs; (i) construction notes; and (j) operation notes.
l i
II.
REVIEW CRITERIA The applicable roles and basic acceptance criteria pertinent to the review of this topic are:
1.
" Quality Standards and Records."
This criterion requires that structures, systems and components i=portant to safety shall be designed, fabricated, erected, and tested to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety function to be performed.
It also requires that appropriate records of the design, fabrication, erection and testing of structures, systems and components important to safety shall be maintained by or under the control of nuclear power unit licensee throughout the life of the unit.
B.
" Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena." This criterion requires that' safety-related portions of the system shall be designed to withstand the ef fects of earth-quakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunami, and seiches without loss of capability to perforg their safety function.
C.
Geperal Design Criterion 44 - " Cooling Water." This criterion requires that a system shall be provided with the safety function of transferrir.g the combined heat load from structures, systems,and components important to safety to an ultimate heat sink under normal operating and accidental conditions.
II.
10CFR Part 100, Appendix A, " Seismic and Geologic Sitine Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants." These criteria describe the nature of the investiga-tions required to obtain the geologic and seistic data necessary to determine site suitability and identifies geologic and seismic factors required to be taken into account in the siting and design of nuclear power plants, a. - - -
The following Regulatory Guides provide information, recommendation and guidance and in general describe a basis acceptable to the staff that may be used to implement the requirements of the above described procedure.
A.
Regulatorv Guide 1-127, " Inspection of Water Control Structures Associated with Nuclear Power Plants." This guide describes a basis acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the com=ission's regulation of 10CFR Part 50 550-35 with regards of developing an appropriate in service inspection and surveillance program for dams, slopes, channels and other water control structures associated with emergency cooling water systems or flood protection of nucl, ear power plants.
B.
Regu'. story Guide 1.132, " Site Investigations of Foundations of Nuclear Power Plants." This guide describes programs of site investigations related to geotechnical engineering aspects that would normally meet the needs for evaluating the safety of the site from the standp'oint of the performance of foundation and earthworks under anticipated loading condition including earthquake in complying with 10CFR Part 100 and 10CFR Part 100 Appendix A.
It provides general guidance and recommendations-for developing site specific investigation programs as well as basic guidance for conducting subsurface investigations, the spacing and depth of borings and sampling.
C.
Regulatorv Guide 1.138, " Laboratory Investigations of Soils for Engineering Analvsis and Design of Nuclear Power Plants." This guide describes laboratory investigation and testing practices acceptable for determining soil ar.d rock properties and characteristics needed for engineering analysis and design for foundations and earthworks, for nuclear power plants in complying with 10CFR Part 100 and 10CFR Part 100 Appendix A.
'o' III. RELATED SAFETY TOPICS AND INTERFACES The slope stability aspect of embankments and dams will be reviewed under topic II-4.D.
Settlement of embankments and dams will be reviewed under topic II.4.F.
Other interface topics include:
II-3.C " Ultimate Heat Sink";
III-6 " Seismic Design Consideration"; XVI " Technical Specifications; III-3.C "In Service Inspece. ion of Water Control Structures"; II-3.A " Hydrologic Description"; II-3.5 " Flood Potential"; III-3.A " Effects of High Water on Structures"; and IV-3 " Stations Service and Cooling Water Systems."
l l
I e
"h 6
iisq
___________m.-
IV.
INFORMATION RECilIRED FOR REVIEW:
Information presented must to sufficient to demonstrate the dynamic and static stability of the embankments and dams whose failure could adversely affect the safety of the nuclear plant or pose a hazard to the public. Completeness of information is determined by.the bility to make an independent evaluation on the basis of information prohided.
Information presented should'at least include:
1.
General plan with hicinity map.
, 2.
Large-scale embankment plan with boring and instrumentation locations'shown.
3.
Geologic profiles on the embankment axis, control structure ax'is, spillway axis, and pertemnt transverse sections that present soil and rock layering, groundwater table location and foundation treatment measures (cutoff trench, grouting limits, etc.)
-4 Embankment cross sections with instrumentation locations shown.
5.
Embankment details.
6.
Embankment foundation excavation plan.
- i. Graphic summaries of embankment and foundation shear strength test data, with selected design values shown.
8.
Emabankment slope stability cross sec_tions with design assumptions, critical failure surf aces, and f actors of safety shown.
9.
Embankment slope stability evaluation.
- 10. Embankment seepage control design with assumptions, section and selected design scheme shown.
- 11. Relief wit 11 profile showing the quantities of flow measured at various depths in the relief wills.
- 12. Plot of pool elevation versus total relief well discharge quantities.
- 13. Distribution of field control test locations. For each zone tested, a profile parallel to the axis with field control test data plotted at tne I
locations. sampled.
~
14.
Instrumentation installation details.
~
15.
Interpretations of instrumentation data.
(a) Settlement profile or contour plan.
(b) Alignment profiles of measured movements.
(c) Embankment section with embankment and foundation pore pressure concours.
It may be necessary to plot contour diagrams for various dates and pool elevations.
(d)
Embankment sections showing phreatic surface through foundation.
(e)
Profile of relief well line showing well and piezometer locations and measured and design heads.
t
/
G e
egm 9
e
V.
REVI N GUIDELINES:
In general the review process is conducted with procedures similar to those described in Standard Review Plan Sections 2.5.4 and 2.5.5.
The Geotechnical-Engineering aspects of the d,esign and as-constructed. condition of embankments and dams are reviewed and compared to current criteria and the safety signifi-cance of any differences is evaluated. Major review guidelin.J pertinent to this topic evaluation are summarized in the following sectic..s.
+
O e
W C
D e
dw 4
r lie muni ei i
~_.
~
9 9
1.
In meeting the requirements of the criteria, the discussion under 2.5.6.1 General is acceptable if (a) the purpose of each embankment and dam and the natural and severe. operating conditions and environment under which it is to function are clearly stated and define'd, (b). adequate reasons are
~
clearly stated for selecting the locations within the site or for proposing the use of an existing embankment or dam on-or off-site, _ and (c) general-design features are adequately discussed and related to the intended functions.
t 4
0
'I 6
i E
i e
4
- 9e=
3 I
i-s l.
1 c
i m
a j
i
,.. +, -, -,
y.-,m
,-r
-. ~.
l 2.
Ia meeting the requirements of the criteria, the discussion and evaluation under 2.5.6.2 Explorations is acceptable if (a) the type, quantity, extent, and purpose of the underground explorations are adequately defined and the exploration and camp, ling sethods used are commensorate with the current state of the art and provide competent information and data; (b) local geologic featrres and foundation and borrow area, soil, rock and j
groundwater conditions'are adequately defined and are related to geologic featurcs of the plant site in general; and are supported by sufficient field investigations, at proposed' or existing locations of embsnkments at J dams, to determine areas of actual or potential subsidence, solution activity, uplift or collapse, zones of weakness or irregular weathering, glacial or other preloading conditions, and unstable soil areas;.and (c) a summary and description of important static and dynamic engineering properties of the soil and rock comprising embankbents and dans and their I
foundations are presented and based on acceptable state-of-the-art methods and supported by field and laboratory' test records.
ega
^
i J
3.
In meeting requirements of the criteria related to 2.5.6.3 Foundation and Abutment Treatment, the discussion and ehaluation is acceptable if (a) need for treatnent is discussed and the selection of treatment types such as, grouting, vibration to Increase density, cutoff trenches, slurry trenches, and dental treatment or concrete backfilling is justified and supported by adequate field tests, test pits, borings, or other positive explorations; (b) plans of the areal extent and depth limits of treatment, summaries of specifications, construction procedures employed, methods of quality control. and estimates of construction quantities inholhed are described and the effectiveness of the slee.ted technique is discussed in relation to geologic, soil and grot.ndwater conditions and ehaluated and supported by appropriata field instrumentation and test results.
9
^ me
+
i 4
__m.__
_-m
.= _
4.
In meeting requirements of the criteria related to 2.5.6.4 Embankments, i
the discussion and evaluation is acceptable if (a) general embankment features, including heights, slopes, zoning, material properties l
(including borrow and f'oundation), sources of materials, and location 1
4 and usage of materials in the embankment are described and related to the intended purpose of the 2mbankment; (b) slope protection design, material I
properties, and placemene methods are discussed sufficiently to evaluate i
conformance with the current state of the art; (c) embankment settlement a.id overbuild are discussed and supported by consolidation test results and appropriate analyses;.(d) compaction and permeability properties of-excavated and borrow materials for the embankment are described and i
4 supported by laboratory and field test results and results of. test fills I
for rocky materials such as shales and earth-rock mixtures that require large correctPm factors for oversize particles; (e)- foundation preparation 1
and protection are addressed; (f) field control measures are described for placement of fill, material requirements, placement conditions, moisture control, compaction procedures an?. equip
- ment, and any special placement activities required; and the quality. control and testing program is described. Significant or unusual construction activities and problems t
which occurred should also be described.
).
i l
l l
I i
5.
In meeting the requirements of criteria relating to 2.5.6.5 Slope Stability, the discussion and evaluation is acceptable if (a) the shear testing performed for both the foundation and embankment materials, shear test results, selected design strengths, reasons for selecting the methods of slope stability analyses used, and the results of design cases analyzed for the embankment are discussed and supported by the data; (b) the static analyses include calculations which assess the following factors:
(1) uncertainties regarding material properties, forces ccting on the slopes and pore pressures acting within the slopes; (2) failure surfaces corresponding to the lowest factor of safety for various loading conditions; (3) effect of the assumptions inherent in the method of analysis used; and (4) adverse conditions;such as high water levels due to the probable maximum flood, sudden drawdown or steady seepage at various levels; (c) the dynamic analysis account; for the effect of cyclic shear stresses due to postulated earthquake effects on soil strength properties. The various parameters, such as geometry, soil strength, medaling method (locations and number of elements (mesh) 1f a finite-element analysis is used), and hydrodynamic and soil pore pressure, should be varied to show that there is an adequate margin of safety. Where liquefaction is possible major dam slopes and embankments should be analyzed by state-of-the-art methods. The current must ha stability of existing embankments and dans demonstrated to be adequate for the intended purpose and time.
6.- In meeting requirements of the criteria related tr 2.5.6.6 Seepage control, the discussion and evaluation is acceptable if'(a) the assumptions used for seepage analyses are. discussed and supported by adequate exploration and testing to determine:, (1) seasonal groundwater conditions, permeabilities, seepage directions, flow rates, and pressures in the foundation and.
abutments; (2) permeabilities of soil and rock materials in the dam and.
embankment; and (3) potential piping conditions; (b)' the design ' assumptions, including filter criteria; results of design analyses, including critical seepage conditions related to embankment stability and evaluation of filter zones to prevent piping; and reasons for the selected seepage control' design are discussed and are supported by the geology, subsurface groundwater conditions, and the laboratory and field test data; (c) special construction activities related to the final construction of seepage control features are discussed
, and (d) seepage conditions at existing embankments are evaluated and shown to be safe for the intended purpose and time.
- mm
7.
In meeting the requi. aments of the criteria related to 2.5.6.8 Performance Monitoring, the discussion and evaluation is acceptable if (a) the overall instrumentation plan, purpose for each set of instruments, and reasons for their location are discussed and related to the types of data needed to confirm design assuptions and performance criteria; (b) the different kinds of instruments, special instruments, and significant details for installation are discussed and are based on acceptable practices to assure reliability of measurements for the needed time after construction; (c) a program is described for periodic monitoring of instrumentation and inspection of embankments and appurtenant structures after construction to confirm design assumptions or to detect occurrences that could detri-mentally affect stability or operation. The monitoring program should specify sheduled time intervals for periodic monitoring,,such as examination of slopes for erosion or cracking or sloughing survey of settlement monuments,
~
measurement of water levels in piezpmenters and wells, and water f1ow rates at seepage outlets. A reans for timely processing and review of instru-mentation data should be included. Graphical presentation of instrumentation data that readily shows changes with time is 9 commended. A summary and
~
evaluation of performances monitoring data should be provided for existing embankments and dams in use for water storage or flood protection during operation of the plant.
i-
o 8.
In meeting the requirements of criteria related to 2.5.6.9 Construction Notes (FSAR), the discussion and evaluation is acceptable if (a) significant embankment construction history is provided and (b) changes in design details or construction procedures that become necessary during con-struction are discussed. Construction history should include photographs of founaation areas af ter cleaning and during and after treatment, operations in borrow and embankment areas to record exetvation and compaction procedures and equipment, installation or instrumentation, and any unusual or different conditions, such as solution channels in the foundation or abutments.
Summaries of the resluts of control testing density, moisture,
content, grodations, etc.) should be provided. The discussion of changes in design details or construction procedures should include reasons, describe the changes and evaluate the effects of such changes. As-built construction drawings showing changes should be included.
G l
l k
- Q j
9.
In meeting the requirements of criteria related to 2.5.6.10 Operational j
Notes, the discussion and evaluation'is acceptable if embankment performance j
history since completion of construction is provided in sufficient detail to document the,following:
a (a) Dates and results of performance monitoring showing any adverse or unusual conditions that have occurred.
(b) Procedures used to correct any adverse conditions affecting the stability or safety of embankments or dams such as excess leakage or seepage, sloughing of slopes, excess pore pressures, excessive settlements or surface erosion.
(c) Any flooding, high water, severe storms, results of any damage, and remedial measures required.
A thorough evaluation should be given of the effects of any adverse conditions and subsequent remedial measures on the stability of embankments
~
j I
and dams and future safety of the plant.
g d
- %w I
t
FORMAT FOR SEP SAFETY TOP.IC EVALUATIONS TOPIC II.4.F.. SETTLEMENT OF STRUCTURES AND BURIED EQUIPMENT I.
INTRODUCTION This topic pertains to the review of plant Geotechnical Engineering aspects related to the, properties and stability of subsurface materials and foundations as it influences the static and seismically induced settlement of Category I structures and buried equipment. The scope of the review includes:
(a) geologic features of the site; (b) the static and dynamic engineering properties of soil and rock strata enderlying the site; (c) the results of field and laboratory' tests, including data and discussions to support the established static and dynamic engineering properties, characteristics, and stratigraphy of soil and rock underlying the sites; details of excavations, backfill, and earthwork illustrated on plot plans and profiles supported bu laboratory testing and field compaction test results; (e) groundwater conditions and piezometric pressures in all critical strata as they affect the loading and settlement and stability of foundation materials; (f) liquefactin potential of all subsurface soils; (g) results of static and dynamic analyses including be'aring capacity, rebound, settlement, and differential settlement of supporting soil under loads, and (h) results of confirmatory tests and performance monitoring of safety-related foundations and earthworks and buried equipment.
t II.
REVIEL' CRITERIA The applienbic rules and basic acceptance criteria per'tinent to the review of this topic are:
1.
30CFR Part 50. Appendix A:
Cencral De:iy.n Crityrion 1 "Qnality Standards and Records."
f c.
This criterion requires that st ructures, syst ems, and co=ponents i=partant to safety shall be designed, f abricated, crected. and test ed to quality standards commensurate with the inportance of the safety functions to be perfor=ed. It also requires that appropriate records of the design, fabrication, erection, and testing of structure systems, and components ieportant to safety shall be
, maintained by or under the control of the nucicar power unit licensee throughout the life of the unit.
b.
General Desicu Criterion 2
" Design 11ases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena." This criterin requires that safety-related portions of the syst em shall be designed to withstand the ef fects of earth-quakes, tornadocs, hurricanes, 1]oods, tsuna.i.and seiches without loss of capability to perform their safety functions.
2.
10CFR Part 100, Appendix A.," Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria -
for Nuclear Power Plants" - These criter5a describe the nat.ure of the investi-gations required to obtain the geologic and seismic data necessary to deter =ine 1
site suitability and identify geologic and seiscsic f actors required to be' taken into account in the siting and design of nucicar power plants.
The following Regulatory Ct.ide8 provide infornation, recom=endations, and guidance and in gene. cal. describe a basis acceptabic' to the staff that may be used to implement. the reqnt s ementa of the above described criteria.
Reculatorv Guide 1'.127. "innpeet ten of L'ater Control Structures (a) c Assceinted with Noelcar Power 1lants." Thin guide describes a basis acceptabic
'W e m
m e
4 p
=
to t he ~ "ic staf f. f or complyinn with the convi. sin i'r renul.ition of 10CFR Part 50 150-35 with regard to developing an appropriate i n'-service-inspection and surveillance program for dams, slopes, channels and other water c ntrol structures associated with cmergency con 3 tng wat er system ( or flood protection of nucicar power-plants.
(b) Pyy.ulatorv Guide 3.132. "Si t e,,3 n,yatigat ions for Foundati ns of-Nuclear Power Plants." - This guide describes programr. of site investigations related to geotechnical engineering aspects - t hist vculd normally teet 'the needs for evaluating the safety of the site f rom' the standpoint of the performance of '
foundation and carthworks under anticipated inading cond]tions including carthquake in co= plying with 10CFR, Part 100 and 30CFR, Part 100, Appendix A.
It provides general guidance and recommendations for, developing site-specific investigation programs as well as specific guidanec for conducting subsurface investigations, the spacing and depth of borings, and sa...pling.
(c) Ref.ulatory Guide 1.13S. "I.ab, oratory Inves t igations of Soils for_
Encincering Analysis and Desip of Nucicar, peyer Plants'." - This guide -describes-laboratory ins 1stigations and testing practices acceptable for determining so i r
and rock properties and characteristics needed for engineering analysis and'-
design for foundat tons and carthwork for' nuclear power plants in co= plying with
~
10CFP Part 100 and 10CFR,Part 300, Appendix A.
3 i
1 6
r A
.ma see new e en
--u u
.w
.-.-__..u--,
_--_----_.---a---,_,,_a,,-
,------_--a---_
au.w
III. RELATED SAFETY TOPICS AND INTERFACES I
The Geotechnical Engineering aspects of slope stability are reviewed under SEP Topic II.4.D.
Other'SEP interface topics include II.4.E, " Dam Integrity;" II.3.C, " Ultimate Heat Sink;" III.6, " Seismic Design Consideration;"
XVI, " Technical Specificati,ons;" III.3.C, "In Service Inspection of Water i
Control Structures;" III.3.A, " Effects of High Water on Structures;" and IV.3, " Stations Service and Cooling. Water Systems."
f d%=
P 1
}
I e
e 4
er y v-
-- - =
-y vww.
= -,. -*
w
+
-,y-v.-----9
--%*.<,e,--g-=-
. er rv c-y+ -,.
,-+-yw,,,w-ve y-
-e
IV.
7:.
. _:ATIer: _f LQ..... i T 0. 1:J T 1 1'._ti, Information mu;.: be preacnted concerning the properties and stability of soils and rock related to total,or differential static and seidrically induced settlemer.t which may af fect safety-rel.ited nuclear power plant facilities or.
pose a hazard to the public.under beih utatic and dynamic conditions.
Complete-1 ness of information is deterrlined by the ability 'to make an independent evalus-tion on the basis o~ information provided.
Information provided should at least include:
Geologic data incleding discusnons, maps, and profiles of the site 1.
stratigraphy, lithology, structural geology, geologic history,and engineering gecology.
^
2.
General plan with vicinity raap.
Large-scale site plan showing instrumentation, boring, and geophys-3.
ical survey locations.
' Embankment cross sections with instrumentation,shown.
4.
5.
Embankment details.
Summaries of-load plate and lad.iratory chusolidation and dynamic test 6.
results'with selected design values shown.
Topographic map showing contouru before construction.
7.
Topographicmapshowingconto$: _after construction.
8.
4 Site plar. showing and identifying all' safety-related structures 9.
and appurtenances.
Profiles I. hat super trapose the s oundations of saf ety-related structures 10.
on subsurface materials.
Profiles that superimpcse t he locat ton and orientation of buried 11.
safety-related equipment (c.g., pipetines, electrical conduit, etc.) on subsurface materials.
4
'~~
- 12. ~ Tabulat hm of al 1 a t t t v-relat. il..t ruct ure : t his t includes
.forndation types (e.g., matn - ndividual h>ntingn, et c.), elevations, dead i
loads, live loads, bearing pressure, and supporting materials (e.g.,. rock, in situ soil structure, fil.,.etc.).
1 13.
1,ocations of all t ompactet' fill an! backfill at the site and the islentli irat ion of Ll'ose areas where the fill t r backfill is safety-related.
14.
Instrumentation-installation deralls.
15.
Interpretation of instru. entat ion data.
m (a) Settlement plate profiles or contour plans of subsidence with time.
1 (b) Profiles or contour plans of. survey monument displacement.
A summary and description cf groundwater, secpage. and high and low 16.
groundwater conditions.
17.
An assessirent of the ground marion (acceler7 tion) associated witn the Safe Sbutdown Earthquake.(SSE).
Evaluation of " rattle :: pace" where mechanical and electrical equip-18.
t ment penetrates structural metabers, to assess allowable dif ferential, settlements.
m 4%
i J
f I
se.
e p-4
-a
r e
o V.
Mr.V ! Eb' CUllW1.I!!!'.S in coninetc.1 in accordance'with the In general the review proce:.3 I'lan Sre t ion ?.5.4.
The Geotechnical procedures der.cribed in Standard Keview avid a.-constructed conditions Engineering nupectn of the desir.u, denir.a 1.ani,
etiteria,and the safety of structuren are reviewed and ect,iated to curient ft.e,ior review guidelines significance of any diflerences ia evalo.it ed.
the foilowing iteras:
pertinen*; to this topic evaluarlen inciude e
e D
9
=w 4
Dmo
1.
In raect inr, the i cituh ena nt of t h.
ct iterLi, the presentation of geologic site dat.' and discunston of nite ts.do;;ic feat urenare acceptable
~
if the mapt, profiles,and discussion prenen: a complete and inachiguous representation of the site rieology. Exploratory techniquen used in.the site investigation are reviewed t.o determine If they are representative of the cur. at state of the' art and that sarnples' extracted are repres(ntative of the in situ conditions. The areal extent of the investigations are reviewed to
. assure that all arcas or r.ones of actual or potential' surface or subsurface subsidence, uplift or collapse, deformation, alteration, solution cavities, structural weakness,.unreif eved stresses in bedrock, or physically or checically unstabic soils or rocks have been identified and evaluated in detail.
e G
e 0
+
s h
f f
i 9
e w
.-.-- -.-------.a
In rici t i:
I hi icquirements of ti.. c r i te r i... tlie di:.eussion of the e...il and rock strata underlying strit ;c...:d dynarai c. nnins et in;. liropert ies o:
the site is acceptable it:
(a) inf ormation provided is adequate to enable an evaluation of the static and scismically induced settlement indeper. dent characterintics of the foundat, ion mats rials; and (b) assumptions made in assigning design soll parameters are reasonable, nufficiently explained,and conservative.
O w
0 wh O
m
3.
In :.:ing the requ ! renen t : ef the eriterJe, the discussion ofI he t
renults of field and laboratory testi. and:the data and discussions to support the established static and dynamic engineering properties and-stratigraphy underlying the citeare acceptable if:
(a) the ni t e inve:.tigations and tenting programs required ' Lo evaluat e f.cotechaleni engineering parameters related to site safety such as those described in Reguldt ory Guide 1.132 -
" Site Investigations for Foundations of Nuclear Power Pinnts" and Regulatory Guide 1.138
" Laboratory Investigat tons of Soils for 1:nhineering. Analysis and Design of Nuclear Power Plants" have been conducted and.the results clearly W
~
i reported; (b) the test parameters have been selected to conform to site i
. conditions; (c) tests conducted are appropriate for the particular functions of facilities being evaluated; and (d) results arnong complementary tests are.
j-consistent.
e 4
0 9
6 e
s
=w T
{'
f P
4 o
_ _. ' - -^- - - -, - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _. _ _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ -. - _.. _ _.
4.
In.. et iur the rc.iui rena nti o: the ci i t t ri... exc.c...t ion bachf 111 and earthwork element >. of the pioject s are evaluated t o assure that construction specifications and quality control procedures within state of the art conservative standards were applied and met.
Results of field and laboratory invent igations to establish properties of borrow caterials are reviewed to determine t heir adequacy.
5 m
e 9
=w, i
l l
l 1:
I I
i t
5.
In meet inn i he t r.pii rcraent : ot tb. eiiicria, grou.idwatet cend i t ionc.
as they affect foundation r,tability at e evaluated by analycis of pie:oreter and permeability data f rom tests and evaluationscenducted at th'e site.
Devatering activitics durin; and followiur. conntruction are reviewed in conjunction with the impact o t' dewateriur on noil properties.
e O
= eme.m l
l l
l i
~
e e
6.
In meet j ug t he rcepiirs :nentu of t.he criteria, the liquef.ietion potential of subsurf ace materictls is evaluat ed where safety-related As detailed in structures are founded on potentially saturated soils.
SRP Section 2.5.4, Acceptance criteria, subnection 2.5.4.8, undisturbed the soils are sampics obtained f rom the site in.iy be required t o.how that not likely to liquefy.
s e
a e
+
b e
e
- w w
. a ---
m m
i e
.," v e 7.
-In meeting the-requirements of the criteria, ' the discussions of static and dynamic analyses are acceptnble if th-vt.ibility of all safety-related f acilitics has been analy::cd takinp, intc). account bearing capacity, rebound, settlement, and differential settlements under:
(a) dead loads of fills; (b)~ plant ' f acilities; *(c) lateral loailing conditLons;~ and (d) seismic:.
loading.
Soil and roch properties used in the analyses must be documented with field r and 1.ihoratory test. procedures and results. An assessment must.be made of the dynamic volume change characterlot les of foundation materials.
The r.iethods of analyses used must be' appropriate for site-specific conditions and th'c function of the facility.
w T
'm 4
h e
p F
9
,a
...... ~.
8.
In meeting the requirements of -the criteria, the discussion'of the results of confirmatory test and performance monitoring is accpetable if:
(a) the purposes and locations of tests to confirm foundation and equipment settlement predictions are thoroughly detailed and explained;' (b) the test methods used were appropriate for site condistions; (c) the overall instru-mentation, purpose for each set of instruments, and reasons for their location are discussed and related to the types of data needed to confirm design assumptions and performance criteria; (d) the different kinds of instruments, special instruments and significant details for installation are discussed and are based on acceptable practices to assure reliability of measurements for the necessary time during or after construction; and (e) a program is described for periodic monitoring of instrumentation and inspection of-
' foundation or settlement monument displacements, to assess both total dis-placements, of singular foundations and the displacements of individual foundations with respect to adjacent facilit es, to confirm design assumptions and to detect occurrences which could adversely affect operation of safety-related facilities.
- = =
I I
s
,s%.r