ML20040C318
| ML20040C318 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1981 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Koester G KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201270523 | |
| Download: ML20040C318 (6) | |
Text
y y
c D k t File:
B[a"g "nnath DEC 31 1981 LB#1 Rdg Glear BJYoungblood Docket flo. : STN 50-482 DEisenhut bec:
JHopkins TERA MRushbrook NRC/PDR Mr. Glenn L. Koester SHanauer L/PDR Vice President - Nuclear RVoller NSIC Kansas Gas and Electric Company TMurley TIC 201 North Market Street RMattson ACRS (16)l e!r o Wichita, Kansas 67201 RHartfield, MPA
~i 0 ELD
Dear Mr. Koester:
OIE (3)
Subject:
Request for Additional Information for the Review of the C'dW. /
s Wolf Creek Plant, Unit 1 Regarding Geotechnical Engineering As a result of our continuing review of the Wolf Creek Plant, Unit 1 FSAR, we find that we need additional information to complete our evaluation. The specific information required is in the area of geotechnical engineering and is presented in the Enclosure.
To maintain our licensing review schedule for the Wolf Creek Plant FSAR, we will need responses to the enclosed request by February 4, 1932.
If you cannot meet this date, please inform us within seven days after receipt of this letter of the date you plan to submit your responses so that we may review our schedule for any necessary changes.
Please contact Mr. J. B. Hopkins, Wolf Creek Licensing Project Manager, if you desire any discussion or clarification of thei enclosed request.
{
Sincerely, briginal Signea by%
g J. Youngbleod B. J. Youngblond, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
l As stated i
cc: See next page "The report ing and/or recordkeeping requirca:ents contained in this lotter effect f ewer than ten respondents ;
therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511." /
/ ?
se. 2$$k$
- !k.
? ~".::.' !8E8EJasSL
'~
~'
~
12/3)/81 12/j /81 PDR
..........l...................l......................................
om>
eme ronu m no an emeu cao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom im-mm
s Mr. Glenn L. Koester Vice President - Nuclear Kansas Gas and Electric Company 201 North Market Street Post Office Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 cc:
Mr. Nicholas A. Petrick Ms. Wanda Christy Executive Director, SNUPPS 515 N. 1st Street 5 Choke Cherry Road Burlington, Kansas 66839 Rockville, Maryland 20750 Eric A. Eisen, Esq.
Mr. Jay Silberg, Esquire Birch, Horton, Bittner & Moore Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Washington, D. C.
20036 Kansans for Sensible Energy Mr. Donald T. McPhee Post Office Box 3192 Vice President - Production Wichita, Kansas 67201 Kansas City Power and Light Company J330 Baltimore Avenue Post Office Box 679 Kansas City, Missouri 64141 Ms. Mary Ellen Salva Route 1, Box 56 Burlington, Kansas 66839 A. Scott Cauger, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Public Service Commission P. O. Box 360 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Mr. Tom Vandel Resident Inspector / Wolf Creek NPS c/o U.S.N.R.C.
Post Office Box 311 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Mr. Michael C. Kenner Wolf Creek Project Director State Corporation Commission State of Kansas Fourth floor, State Office Bldg.
Topeka, Kansas 66612
1
=
WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, DOCKET NO. 50-482
_., o 241.0WC Geotechnical Engineering Branch 241.lWC (P. 5.6.6 and 2.5.6.8)
A seep was noticed in the granular toe drain on the down-stream side of the main dam dur'ing staff site visits in August and December of 1981. At that time, the reservoir was not filled up to the normal operating level. This dam is a back-up structure for the safety-related UHS dam.
The possibility that the main dam embankment material may be a dispersive clay is of concern.
~
Provide a commitment to monitor the vertical and lateral deformation of the main dam and seepage through the dam during operation of the Nuclear Power Plant.
Subrait for review by the,
NRC details of the performance monitoring program presented in Section 2.5.6.8 of the FSAR.
Summarize the data collected to date and cccpare the results with estimated movements of the main dam.
Comment on the results of this comparison and its safety implication.
241.2WC The VHS dam embankment material was tested to detemine the (2.5.6.4.1.4.1.14) dispersive characteristics of the clay. The FSAR does not address this topic beyond the presentation of the laboratory test data.
Provide the following:
l.
Ful.l' details 6f your 's'tTdy,' including any input form
~
l w_
~
outside c'6sult' ant, on this iten.
l o
i t
m m.
- e-9
i Provide the test procedu e, details of the data monitored -
2.
and conclusions for the field test (filling only UHS pond) performed on the UHS dam.
3.
Amend the FSAR to include the abohe information.
241.3WC Prohide specification for the cohesihe backfill material. -
(2.5.4.5.1.5.12) 241.4WC Prohide clear prints of Figures 2.5-108 and 2.5-111.
(2.5.5.2)
Show on Figure 2.5-108 the location of the sections analysed for stability.
241.5WC Docket a write-up on the computer program used for the sliding (2.5.5.2.2.1) wedge method of stability analysis.
Ifyouhahenotuseda computer program, prohide detailed write-up of the method of analysis.
241.6WC 1.
What is the elevation of the water table for end-of-(2.5.5.2) construction condition for UHS slope and Intake Channel Slopes? Is it.el E65.0 ft or el 1070.0 ft?
2.
Justify using tne water table elevation of 1070.0 ft rather than the noraml cooling lake lehel of elehation 1087.0 ft for steady-state condition.
3.
The drop in the water level for rapid drawdown condition r
should be fror3 an initial elevation of 1087.0, ft
~
e,,.
to elevation of'.1070.0 ft:in the event of main dam failure, and to elevation of 1065.0'ft in the event of both main 88dh x.
d m and UHS dam failure. Justify the water table elehations used in the stability analysis for rapid drawdown conditions presented in Figures 2.5-113 d and 2.5-113 h.
4.
RehiseFigures2.5-113ath'roughhtoshowtheproper water lehels and if required rehise the analysis to reflect therehisedwatertable.
5.
Prohide analysis and factor of safety for the stability 4
of the UHS slope (analyzed by Sliding L1 edge Method) for the rapid drawdown condition.
6.
Justify using total stress shear strength'. parameters'for i
the residual soil in 'the analysis presented in Figure 2.5-113 h.
l Revise your analysis using effectihe stress strength parameters and proper water table.
' '-113 g 7.
Table 2.5-57 and analyses presented in Figuw:
and 2.5-113 h are not campatable.
RehiseTable2.5-57.
- 2..'4C The FSAR does not address the dynamic stability and lique-
- .i.5.2) f action potential aspects of the UHS slopes and Intake channel slooes. Amend the FSAR to include these items.
j w'
w c Y
r,
_f
241.8WC
- 1) Provide settlement versus time plots for category I (2.5.4.10) structures based on data from the settlement monitoring program.
- 2) What are the maximum total and differential settlements measured to date and also expected in the future?
- 3) Compare the measured settlements with the anticipated settlements assumed in the analysis of these structures and their appurtenances, and evaluate the impact of ary difference between the measured and anticipated settlements on the design and construction of these structures and appurtenances.
, E 44".
~
- 4~A F
,., ]- '
- = r -
.1 N
_