ML20054H941
| ML20054H941 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1982 |
| From: | Kay J YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TASK-02-03.A, TASK-02-03.B, TASK-02-03.B1, TASK-02-03.C, TASK-03-03.C, TASK-2-3.A, TASK-2-3.B, TASK-2-3.B1, TASK-2-3.C, TASK-3-3.C, TASK-RR FYR-82-59, NUDOCS 8206250233 | |
| Download: ML20054H941 (37) | |
Text
-
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC C0:PANY lg.
f 1671 Worcester Road, Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
- Yauxes v.
June 16, 1982 FYR 82-59 2.C.2.1 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention:
Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing
References:
(a) License No. DPR-3 (Docket No. 50-29)
(b) YAEC Letter to USNRC, dated February 3,1982 (FRY-82)
(c) USNRC Letter to YAEC, dated March 30, 1982 (d) USNRC Letter to YAEC, dated March 31, 1982
Subject:
Additional Information for SEP Topics III-3.C (Inservice Inspection of Water Control Structures), II-3.A (Hydrologic Description), II ~.B and II-3.B.1 (Flooding Potential and Protection Requirements), and II-3.C (Safety-Related Water Supply - Ultimate Heat Sink)
Dear Sir:
The attached information has been prepared in response to References (c) and (d). This information supports the conclusions in our assessment presented in Reference (b) and provides additional information on inservice inspection programs, precipitation, runoff, groundwater, and ultimate heat sink.
We trust this information is satisfactory; however, if you have any questions, or desire additional information, please contact us.
Very truly yours, Y hKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY J
A. Kay Senior Engineer - Licensing JAK: dad lo35' B2062502:K3 B20616 l
SEP TOPIC III-3.C Inservice Inspection of Water Control Structures ITEM 1 CONCERN Regulatory Guide 1.127 describes a basis acceptable to the NRC staff for developing an appropriate inservice inspection program for dams, slopes, canals, and other water-control structures associated with emergency cooling water systems or flood protection of nuclear power plants. The Licensee's submittal describes, on page 1 in the second paragraph of Section 4.0, Discussion, a formal inspection program for the Yankee site which the Licensee states would comply with Regulatory Guide 1.127.
Section 5.0, Technical Evaluation, page 2 of the Licensee's submittal states, " Yankee concludes that the in-service inspection programs for water control structures at Yankee are acceptable and meet the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.127."
It is unclear whether this conclusion refers to the existing or the ideal inspection program.
REQUE ST State whether the formal inspection program described on page 1 in the second paragraph of Section 4.0 of the Licensee's submittal is now in ef fect for the Yankee site or will be in the future.
ANSWER The program for inspection of water control structures at the Yankee site is outlined on page 2 in the last paragraph of Section 4.0 of Reference (b).
As stated in Reference (b), there is no formal in-service inspection program for the Yankee plant which complies with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.127.
However, routine preventative maintenance is performed on the intake structure that would detect any signs of deterioration that could result in failure. Specifically, the intake racks are frequently inspected and cleaned throughout the year. Divers normally check for silt buildup and inspect the conduits and surrounding areas and perform any maintenance required during refueling outages. During more than 20 years of plant operation, no significant operational problems have occurred involving either the intake or discharge structures. The flood protection structures are high and dry except during the hypothesized Probable Maximum Flood and, therefore are not subjected to erosional or wave damage. The flood protection stop logs are installed, from time to time, to ensure that the flood protection capability can be maintained.
The program for inspection of water control structures in the Yankee plant has provided for the proper maintenance of these structures through many years of operation.
Based on this, Yankee concludes that the in-service inspection program for water control structures at Yankee are acceptable and meet the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.127.
)
ITEM 2 CONCERN Regulatory Guide 1.127 applies to water control structures whose failure could cause radiological consequences adversely affecting the'public health and safety. Harriman Das fulfills this requirement but was not identified by the Licensee in its submittal. Regulatory Guide 1.127 states, "The NRC staff may consider the recommendations of this guide fulfilled by the applicant or licensee if the structure is regulated by another agency or State that enforces a comparable inspection program." The Licensee's submittal must include evidence that the inspection programs at Sherman and Harriman Dans are comparable to that required by the NRC or should provide justification for any deviations.
REQUEST To demonstrate that both Sherman and Harriman Dans are subject to j
inspection programs comparable to that required for water control structures I
by Regulatory Guide 1.127, provide copies of the inspection reports used for
{
those dams. Specify the required frequency of inspection and the required qualifications for the inspector, and describe the data maintained onsite concerning the water control structures.
ANSWER Sherman and Harriman Dams are licensed by and regulated by the. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as part of FERC Licensed Project No. 2323, Deerfield River Project of the New England Power Company (NEPCo).
The most recent inspection report for both dams was-submitted to FERC by NEPCo in 1978. This report is the third formal inspection report submitted -
to FERC since the initial requirement in.1968. As a matter of public record,.
i these reports are available through FERC. A fourth inspection report will be submitted to FERC sometime later on in 1982.
I Regulations governing the dam inspections are set forth in FERC Order No. 122, Final Rule, Docket No. RM80-31, " Regulations Governing Safety of Water Power Projects and Project Works", issued January 21, 1981. These regulations specify the required frequency of inspections, the required qualifications of the inspectors and describe the data concerning the dans to j
be maintained on-site by the dams' owner and license holder (NEPCo).
1 J
^*
ITEM 3 CONCERN Regulatory Guide 1.127 suggests that the inspection of water control structures should be conducted under the direction of qualified engineers experienced in the investigation, design, construction, and operation of such facilities. No statement indicating compliance with this principle was made in the Licensee's submittal.
REQUEST Verify that inspections are performed by or under the direct supervision of competent engineering personnel.
ANSWER Inspections performed as part of routine maintenance as outlined on page 2 in the last paragraph of Section 4.0 of Reference (b) are performed by and under the direct supervision of competent engineering and plant personnel.
Divers performing underwater inspections of the intake tunnel, intake structure and external seal pit have included divers registered as professional engineers.
Inspections of Harriman and Sherman Dams, as required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, are performed by teams of engineers of various disciplines including registered professional engineers.
In addition, the dams are frequently (i.e., Harriman twice daily) visited by New England Power Company personnel.
Therefore, inspections of water control structures are conducted under the direction of competent engineering and plant personnel.
I
ITEM 4 CONCERN Regulatory Guide 1.127 suggests that a detailed checklist be developed and used for inspection of each water control structure, paying particular attention to detecting evidence of leakage, erosion, seepage, slope instability, undue settlement, displacement, tilting, cracking, deterioration, and improper functioning of drains and celief wells. Although the Licensee's submittal identified a few of the items to be inspected for each water control structure, the list was not comprehensive.
REQUEST Provide evidence, such as a copy of the inspector's checklist review sheet, indicating the items or features subjected to review or scrutiny during inspection of water control structures at the Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
If a detailed checklist is not used, provide the mechanism used by the inspector to report the findings.
ANSWER The mechanism used by New England Power Company to report the findings of inspections of Harriman and Sherman Dams is in the form of an inspection report submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Diving subcontractors who inspect underwater portions of Yankee plant water control structures provide letter reports summarizing their findings including photographs to the appropriate plant personnel supervising the preventative maintenance inspections.
l l
l l
l 1
ITEM 5 CONCERN Regulatory Guide 1.127 requires the use of photographs for comparison of previous and present conditions, and documentation of new or progressive problems as part of the inspection program. Technical reports presenting the results of each inspection should be maintained at the plant site for reference and should be available to regulatory authorities. The Licensee did not specify whether photographs, checklists, or technical reports of past inspections are available at the Yankee site.
REQUEST State whether photographs, previous inspection reports, and checklists are kept and are used for comparison purposes during inspection.
ANSWER Inspection reports including photographs are available at the Yankee site for plant (i.e., not including Harriman or Sherman Dams) water control structures.
Inspection reports for Harriman and Sherman Dams are available through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and are kept at Harriman Station by New England Power Company, the owner and license holder of the dams.
ITEM 6 CONCERN Regulatory Guide 1.127 requires that safety-related w. ster control structures be inspected immediately after the occurrence of unusually large floods, significant earthquakes,' hurricanes, tornadoes, intense local rainfalls, or other unusual events.' Such an inspection is called a special inspection.
REQUEST Indicate whether the inservice inspection program includes special-inspections following unusual events which could impair the functioning of safety-related water control structures.
ANSWER f
No unusual events (i.e., an unusually large flood including hurricane or local rainfalls, significant earthquakes, tornadoes or other unusual events) which could impair the functioning of water control structures have occurred during the 22 years of station operation.
However, if such an unusual event was to occur which could impair the functioning of water control structures, preventative maintenance supplemented with good engineering judgement would result in appropriate measures to insure the adequacy of the water control structures.
4
]
t l
1
-g 4
-.w-y--a*,
-.-g, w
g.-*-+-+
r,-grig
+. -,.g.--m r.&-
g--
r7 p
-e-w.,,-
ye-3
-.'--.p--6%-
ew
i ITEM 7 CONCERN Regulatory Cuide 1.127 requires the development of an inspection schedule. The Licensee's submittal does not identify the frequency of inspection.
REQUEST Specify the frequency at which inspections have been performed in the past for water control structures at Yankee, or, if irregular, give the dates.
Identify the frequency of future inspections.
ANSWER Formal inspections of liarriman and Sherman Dams, as required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), have most recently been performed in 1968, 1973, 1978 and 1982.
Yankee inspections of plant related water control structures (not including Ilarriman and Sherman Dams) have most recently been performed in 1974, 1975, 1977, 1978 and 1981.
Future inspections of Harriman and Sherman Dams will be scheduled as required by FERC.
Future inspections of Yankee plant water control structures will be scheduled, as in the past, to coincide with refueling outages as pointed out on page 2 in the last paragraph of Section 4.0 of Reference (b).
TOPIC II-3.A Hydrologic Description ITEM 1 CONCERN There is an absence of information about the storm water discharge system for the Yankee Nuclear Plant yard.
REQUEST Provide the design basis for the plant area storm drainage network.
Include in this design basis analysis the following items:
a) The rainfall rate and duration considered, b) The routing of flood runoff on the site, c) Roughness coefficients of ground surface employed in the design
- analysis, d) The presumed antecedent moisture condition; and e) Any other assumptions used in the design basis evaluation.
ANSWER Yankee Drawing 9699-FB-2A, " Storm and Sanitary Sewers Underground" (copy provided) is a plan view of the storm water discharge system.
1
...... _ _. ~
l l
~~
ITEM 2 i
CONCERN Local flooding from small streams adjacent to the site may cause flooding of the plant area during the probable maximum precipitation.
REQUEST Provide any studies which focus on rainfall runoff in minor tributaries adjacent to the site.
aHOWER The following summary of calculations based on our current analysis of flooding from local drainage areas is presented.
Two drainage catchments which could cause flooding of the plant area during the probable maximum precipitation were identified. These drainage areas are depicted in Figure 1.
Wheeler Brook's drainage catchment to the northeast of the plant has a drainage area of 1.2 square miles. The drainage catchment to the southeast of the plant drains about 0.3 square miles of slopes. This small catchment has no named channel and the runoff would mostly be conveyed as overland flow. Wheeler Brook discharges into Sherman Pond approximately 260 feet to the northeast of the nearest plant structure. The 0.3 square mile catchment drains down the paved roadway along the southwest side of the plant.
Peak flood flows associated with the two drainages are estinc.t ? as 1950 cfs and 630 cfs from the 1.2 and 0.3 square mile catchments, respectively.
These peak flood flows were estimated using two independent approaches. The first method used information presented in Appendix B of Regulatory Guide 1.59.
PMF peak discharges were plotted versus draining areas on a log-log scale using drainage areas under 10 square miles for the North Atlantic Region from Table B.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.59.
A best-fit line through the data allowed for an extrapolation downward to the drainage areas f
in question. The peak discharges were then scaled by the ratio of Rowe site specific precipitation (YAEC-1207) to the precipitation for the storms presented in Regulatory Guide 1.59.
The second approach used information developed in conjunction with the Design Basis Flood Analysis (YAEC-1207) to f
estimate peak discharge / square mile / inch of precipitation. These estimates 1
were then converted to runoff using the appropriate drainage areas and the 24-hour point precipitation, 19 inches.
l The two methods yielded similar results with the upper limits being l
adopted.
Due to the location, distance from plant structures, peak flow, and topographic factors, the peak flood flow from Wheeler Brook of 1950 cfs does not produce the controlling flood for the site. Assuming that the peak flow from Wheeler Brook coincides with the peak level in Sherman Pond,1131.7 feet MSL, Wheeler Brook would have a negligible effect on flood levels.
The 0.3 square mile catchment with a peak discharge of approximately 630 cfs would produce 1 to 2 feet of flooding down the paved roadway along the southwest side of the plant. The flow would then enter the Deerfield River just downstream of Sherman Dam.
I i
f 1
i l
f
. [~~[
f
~
I
~~
,Th;p 4
[
a,f,
,... 5,f.,
- .9 i(
s-g i
- \\ \\.,..
E I ',
^
't
'H A
M 2.r
- ,y
.,,4 y,.
'l
- > /.-
'5
- j
.j v,f i
%y
,~~
m,
,: ?
. ; i I
?
.;m f--
.EnuoM
?.;
/
} _. _... y
\\
ijl{}.((-
wsupuAu
,s.uguAca 9;
y t..
=,;
p.
%' rnangtsu L
s\\
4
,yA
. it"/_.fy-g
~
c,iU('f.(f',.(y q_ /:
y
,fg 9.6.
f.5,4,9 u.e-}Vg y
y r-em.p 3^
\\
\\
1 et
.,,r a.
.g
-.e q-3
~
\\,
i.
,.. T ',
7 f,',
).5 C*
n
,,ah,;3,h' ~ ?
&~
\\
m '. s #,?,..
A' Y
.+s >
p.,
u
% y.'
l'
,/, )
\\
,m{- d ;, pp::;o,;O....p,ij'([j
[ \\ ', ' p.
\\f
=;'
- i>.
x
.l.,.
j; q,
, &j, i
pg
,.1. \\.J '.a
%.W i\\
4'
.,.pI
- ),'hl}. (),Ijljjg
[.
h wa.
.?
' o*
~
~
1*
- - - - ~.- 4wo ""
~?...
a
" a"""
' m.
,-?,.
_ - _ = -. _
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET datum is MEAN SEA LEVEL f
FIGURE 1 LOCAL SITE DRAINAGE AREAS
TOPIC II-3.B Flooding Potential and Protection Requirements ITEM 1 CONCERN Groundwater fluctuations can cause changes in loads applied to buildings and flood protection structures.- The chosen design basis groundwater level should give reasonable certainty that it will not be exceeded at the plant site.
Safety-related structures must be able to withstand the combined loads of design basis groundwater level and. safe shutdown earthquake.
REQUEST Provide the design basis groundwater levels (if any)'used in the initial design of the Yankee Nuclear Plant.
To ensure that these are reasonably conservative values, provide all on-site groundwater measurements, referenced to the ground surface. Specify how long groundwater' levels were monitored and state whether this period included seasonal fluctuations.
ANSWER Information regarding groundwater levels on-site is provided from the following sources: original site borings in 1956; Dames & Moore borings in i
1978; and fire tank borings by Geotechnical Engineers in 1979.
The groundwater level in Boring No.1, near containment, from the 1956 borings showed the groundwater at elevation 1018 feet (NEP Datum). Ground elevation at the time of the boring was about 1037 feet and is now at about 1022 feet. These preconstruction borings were done during the month of June.
i I
From January through June of 19?8, the groundwater level in Dames &
Moore Boring No. I was monitored. Grouad elevation at this boring is.
1021.5 feet and it is located behind the service building near containment.
During this period groundwater levels ranged from 1004.3 feet to 1006.9 feet.
During October of 1979, groundwater levels were monitored in a boring near the fire tank. Ground elevation s.t the boring is 1033 feet and depth to i
the groundwater averaged about 4 feet.
In summary, plant structures have been exposed to seasonal groundwater fluctuations for over 20 years. During this period no adverse effects on safety-related stractures have occurred due to groundwater loadings.
l 1
- ~.. - _,
,m--
m..
r w,.,
.. ~.
. - ~ _ -
Boring Location Plan and Logs of Borings 1
T I
-E d.;j. @d,1[y Q %. Q l{ ^
n *% %. % p/g;g'.g g. y,5, h
- Q.
gk $M,',
Mh'QM'Mjp/%yQ.E
. N'
- g 2-.
, h, g
- .1 c..,
Q
+ -
~'
- ff..n & fhkl$
goo %f f
- hlhk k. g h
,...y
.s l
- ,e.:, g q 1)f
..,.,,.._ f,u-lt y ~ ~ O f
' k. qA q, T _
1;.s n.
y.w-
. *s 'w w db
- a...
, g;. 4 ~ r,-&,.9 wa
'[h h
f
'D[
ke E,
[.
}
Nk I (
..M
.[.
5 j
' y f
g
- a. p.c.%
. n.:
- m.
c..
y,r..... in....
- 4. ; L -.:.. ;
Dq.,
x..
,x.w e,, -... + -.,.,4.,,
s
. *.. m,;
.w my r%
5
, T
,.,. fl
- f,\\ f.s;d _
f-a
. g,f I.'
f.?.
]
T d _ l $}[+.
- Q L 7 h
- R((.f
~ d L
'b,
'M
. r:h *l6,"^ &g$-2 w
,l AV. ?
. {.{'
l f
- f. j,;W,fl &F }.nk?fjf'
(
s; I,.A
. ; ' '.ll $ ci;,
1
&L
's.
4*'..
L r
N f. f. * '
- f^.
-f ' ' l.; g '
A f
m
_4.
,.y
%Q::
.) G ^ pQ: '... _- -...
~.
L l 4.}y, % % -.: Q Q.-
', p%QQ
- v... '
q y.~,,m;fs
, ya
.y.
,n y
n
- 4. :
n 3
1.,,.p.
.. - 1r. -
v,,..
\\
..r sn._e -
., 5., s 4n,, e...
=
a e
h,+.x <3
,c.,
e.
g
-}y > s.
. C 1,,, ' z k, - '*', S.
'. ' y.
.j
' Nc N*
,,f&
, - gy,
4 4.
o inc l.
'. - (P.
ag
+
,.. l. '!, ".c.
vf.
, t. s'. ;.N
..:c."
g % **
h
~h $.:
h,.
- e. f. 'i f-
+h../,,
ht
- WW M** * * ? m
- Nf% 'lL h.
g
.1 m i-
+
g,
p ', a
,k/f e& y:w hhe>Sh?". R 5.%:b.: & y,
.h
",, h F.,..
f,. I.g [.I W '
c. =e
_l A l
,ci.,
- ns
.t.c -
v*,- p
,i,.., sq.h '*
,.4 q$, ~ -U, ' :- * *'.. '
'; w...
y %/ a a,
.I
. r.
r
..=:. s t
-u Ae.. y
.a4.
4 r p ; pp
.s
- h. [c.NgM. e'., e[:. -. e.
M-y 5
,.f' p
%+.
e:
I
=
^
-cs _
s y"
W M-
- , ~
' %~
,&s.y ' ? ;}, ':
[
?.
<).
1 2l l
I,
- % E%C C s
.'-.g%
- 5) *Q.. ~
L:/~
s,.
-g J.. tAb.9 -. b; y 2
.g,.
. \\, *p
. x x.1 c'
i
%.y e
s'--
+
t
' W (,7 7 j:. ci
- g. <., + w
",?
- ?
' 1;
- }
.. (~
k
, - ['.
i,J@-
a w
~,
' y :. ~a
,,.g t.
,r g,.
gw "- O.
ws, f.. w...
.s,. %
- ~, e.. -
,s,-
d{ h.jy k_,, -
y.
w
. y% _,.
A,
..e
.e
.i. _.
,h.. y,'3 g,
" '~'
..l
'g
.c _.-
l.
j~~. \\;f I
a%. w 6.
- -j..
n 4
7,
.~ ~
4p.,
3 g.
o.p' r, y,,,. Q.5.,
, F R.. -
w
,.,c f,
r, W
..Q b :t
[,
V.'-, -4
.4
+ g :L.G f-t,
. M.. g.. b. ;s ',. - Uf.
[
S,,
g p*f-3. " k,
,P y
j 3." *m ~y g
V -
e.
4
.f,
?
t.
3p. 4 3g 4 4, 7.'
r.$
i m.
~- -
-l
- Q W Q.; $.W f; 'd *";.;a.
w.hf 3f.f,.Y. e. p
[f f. '
..Y.. ;
k
- 3-l.
~ ~
' ?.
y..,.[ ~ {
e Ay f ;g,3. x.
n
.g...
t
..s
.. [.m. g[4. y u
s x
s y'
.x s
p* ;
J. y;g.
,y
' y
_.,. (Q,
.-[
-y
,,,yf.y.. h} v p. : -j - <.*, 7 g '
^4
... ~
.t,' _-
-p,.
.s4
'p
,. e"..,....
. ' 'W w-k
- .~- ' -
s
.:.g..--
e
.33
.k:[s;p--
g-f.Q.&y '%y'. ~M:
.y s'
..c p.
,.7 1
- v.g.m +~K f y ]4].g,'
[, '.q, ;..
..n-
- ', <.* ; a v.
y*
.v
-9
'M V~ q + r' _ m.,.y
+
n f
". i g
P 6, g.,
4
? * ".P, - g,~ 1 f ; gg.q[f- ",
2 l l. yQ)..pa m,..,.:
- . + 9 ; y, c
a
+ -
w ~ u
.y s== t ?. v.y--.. l-f$ V 1y..
p.....
e s
n J
.M W a t ;,.l R-l k '.k.~~' s. ' ; ; ' S.
y-
-~< ; y h
I
TEST BORING REPORT R AYM O N D CONCRETE PILE COMPANY 3014 Pazt Sq. Building NEW YORK GOW DIVISION Boston 16, Massachusetta To-Stone _LW,bater. Engineerire com,-
- Dat, June 21st 19 M. Job No. B-U903s.
Location of Borings _Janke9.Atontic_Elec_tric_Compans _licinity oL SEIERMAN Dty. Musachnaatta __ i All borings are plotted to a scale of I' -
8 fr. using- _.
as a fixed datum.
No. _. _.L. _..
No.. l.A _7/3*- f= l No.
2 No.
2A
.5. '. b.r L.
I 40'
- ~ ~
c L e v.l78. 5 ' i r2..
.__e t c /,o. 3 8. 5 ' A.....
..n 037'i -
j s.o A.,,,.--
f
_cor v/. o37'i rus 7
s, yo,
I. 0 '
.. s o n i n a..._.._.
e e
anAv n.,
a xLo4=v sano.
- 1. 0 '
$o n^A v a t.
'l n.2A.._
"" "^* -
p 4.O'
" '"_"_'."s.
s a
e nA v r i. a 3
uAnc (soutotas.
fy
._,, _ g-2' E 6~d-soutorms.j i
o a'. l
_... j, f
,,0,,9 son:Ho y
27 j
No. 2, V'"Y 30' j
NO SAM PL c5 wAno ring,
coueAc7 rAnrn Y E W.ow sAHp
,35 p,o 3,y oowN rows g.
H,Ano q
- SAND,
,3 f
.,9 6 to 18,o,,.
GRAvrt. a J
souLoERs.
.y rime OaAY'b &
I BOULDERS.
lM YELLOW
,f 14 3.,9 "80
- ^N 1
n
S
- 13. 0 '
on^ v < t-p.0 Dr..
, r. '
wA ROCK.
sou Lo E R s.
coneo 3.5*
. tiX 3.0 ' n c cov ravJ.,.
6 5' U
8.* 0 ','
+
(!*
- ,"! y*r
. @j 18' l a n a v.8 fa'~"oN w arr a;
,y - ad
. I8,0 '
T "i 1.
m x
,Arca natu r c A sin o
=^"o c a^v' 5 '
95 4 aL =
u-Qoutoens.
ei
- 19. 0 '
- g coueAcr riser
' 19. 0,
- yg 21 7
man o, o nA v u. 5~
.HAmo a wicA.
g coMPAcr.. _ _
". _/.
veny p,3 riuc 24.0' F'"'
- mano,
.,3.
16 JA v r u.ow
"^
o 10 '
u c1".
_ h L M << C,- p..r/;o 4
,'*[ylu, # ~
.e _.
~N co..
9.0 ex soum,....
.ou m,. n.._
e.N 3 X C.,-c u rri_z j o.c
.t.
24 6*ck-p 8.5' arcovenv v.
[coaro2.0' lEk
.. /.
cLAv..
ED 31, o e 7s
-33,oi 33.0'
~
35-coueAcr rows i p v a u.ow mano g
1-u.,,.
"^*
I
~~-
. 0.0' sou Lo ca s', CLAY
[Q
.' Jf.J..
si A
vu =y f'ocx.
... _ _ 9"'
a y, ;
39,o, cou p Acr.._
a.o l
j s com r o 0. 5 '
^x
_C ',40*0' I
couPAcr r He r,4 stur. 4.
(
16,,
7 a
s^no, g,.f-v a u.ow e 4=o T oRAVEL,._
l GMAVEL a rn~souto c a s.
E,L.f s outo c a s..ai oen.
r 45,0, so u s..
(coaro 0.5'
- cC 46.0' C'^'-
-10'
~
n arcovony, e.
Ry COMPACT
,,7 FIMr sLuc r.* i
~ ~.
MAND oRAVEL
~
6 #
. Q 4. ]2 nou ras,ui 65, o
n.
50.5' 52, 4
MerVSAL.
MErusAL D --
\\
- 20'.
- " - ~ -
Total Footage 18 5. 5 ', __
Figures in right hand column indicate number of blows required to drive Foreman A. Mow 4co
. ---,. one foot, using 140.lb. weight falling 30 inches.
CP 5-pc sg c,w.
Classification by_Ahi A VF1_
Sheer 2
of 7
O
TEST BONING REPORT
. 33 R AYM O N D CONCRETE PILE COMPANY 30h Park Sq. Builair g GOW DIVISION Boston 16, Massachusetts h
140 CEDAR STREET. NEW YORK 6. N. Y.
To...
...Strone.. A..Wby.%r... Engineering..C tRor.ati.on....
Da te......
......J.uly 16.th....
19..%...
9 Address. h2..fe.d9J.Al...S.tr.e.g.t,...B xto.ni.,b.na@.y3.9tta......
9 We have completed the foUowier boriars for you at.. Tank.ee,.AtgmiC,..kJRT..f144t,..,V.i.Q.ip,(ty. Qf.
h mazt. Dam...R0WS,.Fa === eh use.tts.
with results shown below. In accordance with your instruc amos, we have sent labe!!cd samples of the strata encountered To.... Ahn.... Mr. C.. T..@rAn
_ _...... A ddrus.....
.a bo.in.....
via_.. Borings.1..&. 2.. del.ivere.d.as...co;;:ple.tedder date of. Boring..I..calirmd...........Raymond Concrete Pile Co.
' LOCADON Pt.AN SCALE l' =
7 16_ %
s
(
POR IDCATION OF IDRIN3S SES ATTACHED PIAN r
Compass Points i
This boring report prep.ued in the B y...
B.,0.S.,T 0, N. OFFICE of the Job No. D=l'f9.03-00S.
Ravmood Concrete Pile Cornpany Sheet I of... 3..f.....
c
e
c onc a s t a pa k s c urieAm s
- N' Gow Drvtsaope Tusemahoaserlosvetrw3ernernuea Daie.. Jus lata-.. :- A Leeeeee af e-wre. Jensee atomis rastrR ;e==ve dew tr. mats m e E.Messeeheestae.
.e i ft to:eg ao s seed deseen As beeiegi see pserted to emw of saer e
N*
New 2-F-
No._ _
e
.d_9 6 li'.
D '._
ese t.o54' e m.ses enee
- i,,.
1 w.1 a e N.9 8.,
1.L,
, 1 3
."",' essa,
E 002.e eee ee e**e.
J es.ee s.
J h,,.
es=6eees esep;.e.
es..e
.ee. e.ee. n o..
e-. n o oe.
e F. a ee...
17 NLJ 21. 0*
s P
. HP
.,e1 J6 I
I e r, 8 2,
-e=
bq E.a i e ee, e se s p**
e.ee fj es som es.
e BX sees.
5". e=.6ees, swee 0 =. eseeweee s e
..Se es e -.
un.-,
N
......e_
- 381 I
,g,,,,
w e==*e e s.n.
e W
bg.
e j
..e *6a ee 3 ee,ta e..
< g:::ees.ees ee.ee.ee..
e ese.. A A e
e
- 54. $
eseese.. -
. son s.e:
e e n e s.e use e mes.=e
.e.e= e t.. u. 40
. ene 72 em.e. eeneone se e
e e.s me. se s e e=e ** **= ee 18. 0 ".
e e.
T=
.e. = s seehe *+en e.=es e.1. e.nee.s e.eeee.eese n s.e.e.
e=.=.e eso. s.e.n.avne. me.e ee =e =e.= esse =e a se=
T =e ee maae T
esos een.
.ee e e ne..
n se.
e en..
w..e m = eve e
..e 3. 5 m.a.n o n o 4.es-ee se seee se es.
e no eeee ese se ei.n6 some e, ee. e me m.os o.l a.
ee u.a. e e se.=ee.s e.e ee e.e e==..==.e.
es. e 4 e
Te e e en e.6.e.ee.
en see
.eee 2 ein e.e
- so.e. eee we. vee es.=o N E o.,.
Na ee.T.e.eos e.ee.o.n.e =e a s ee,....
e (A
..e6 e. e..,e.e.
=ee s s e eene es no e.
T
.s o e e o e m e.
e ews se eev eeen eu.e esos o.ee.ee = e e
SA se a ee one ene se Mese e.e ee.ame s. eeee-ews esanoes 2, see, e.e e.ne.mo see. e.
s o av e.as see s.
se 16. 0 es e s.
ee s.os e-s e,*en.
ee.e eas.e.e,4.e=see 2.&
o e. NR T=e.e.ase ev, se sees e e m e.s ae re e**.e av.ee e 2 A m e.e. me6.e enee e.e.
T.e e e ne e.e s se e-.
ee een e
e
- eee e T =e e es o.
en no s ee e.en.e e e e. e.e e sees
.=o ee..e e 6.
es 6e se
- e se e.e n
e.
e
.e e An some e*
g T.e.evee ees.ee e
.F...e see,eeee,-e.ee.e.e.se==e e se= ee 7 ee o
ese e.
A e.
5.0 ese
.e woe,s J,L _ _...t. e.e,ss en e
..., ee
.seene,. e.,=-,1. 0.e eee...e.s.
e.eso ee e.m s.ee e ne eeve..
.e.=e =eea.m.e se e
.-.e-o.--
no e
ese.e we se en es.e.e
- 7. F ese.e.... ese.see...e=> ee mee es ev
.e.
eemie EA e.
ene.eens ee s
ne.ess e sese**
e Ash sees e.=%e e eense ese. e.o
- e. e.e. m.os se oee.eerse e ee ee
- - *= l 4 c
1
!*. -,. e o 2
cy 4 At 4', d.
d e e.. e,
.l2 e
g k.e ? '
- w
~ ~" [ fe.
p
..y_.
/
- s, s,.
I%~
e'
- l#
. s?f 'e..
e'e Ct' A s.t *esAe:M NC7 Ts' Zs 5s[
- O' S -
,we A*
,'~e
.'.s a m. is 4 w. rs
,,1**
- '*'I, d.'n l'.' e
.A c-
- .%
- 1 $*T s
.__-.~
Toted Teenags
__J4.L_.
e.Arettees are eede be sweeJ eospeettee
- ee Leese (WLt. Fsgste end. cates tesse of read.eg theuren e* tee compiouse y,,._..
a.g, erster seems teecated are these coserved eben honese were mesa se en eened. Foreesty of tse soil streten. *enetwee of es.afe3. see Joe Na E r?tal.BOS of testes esesseme47, see. her someo ekseges a these leveJe coemarewe b, 39 9 g to enee 2* O. D_
yue se eight hand sehsee sedicate seinhoeof hiews.reesteed.eshes.
3 o'
I ansepues p.se ses fase, using a 140 lb. eengest feil ng 30 Shes'
/~
/
STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION 245 SUMMrR STREET. BOSTON. M ASS ACHU SETTS ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO P.O. SOE 2325. BOSTON. M ASS. 02907 c.a mat WCTION 5h""
M f f il M l T' T
=:=.::..
J
\\
1 SEP 101978 x
Mr. A. Hubert
. !M.9 LQ V $ 3 SeP ember 7, 1978 t
Yankee Atomic Electric Company C C,:2 0 T T.t'".T?c.'; o g p y*
20 Turnpike Road YAC0 J.O.No. 12074.15 Westborough, MA 01581 Dear Sira GROUNDVATER AND DEWATERING - YANKEE ROVE At your request, we searched the project files and talked to S&W personnel associated with the project to detemine groundwater conditions prior to and during constmetion, and also the dewatering methods employed to control groundwater flow. Our findings are summarized below.
The original site t$pography sloped upward to the south with the ground surface ranging in elevation from el 1050 to el 1020. Cround elevation at the reactor location was about el 1037. Todevelop the site of the main plant area, a bench was excavated to el 1022.
Borings and groundwater data conected prior to cont sm : tion were limited to the containnent and the screenwen areas. Two borings near the contain-ment showed the groundwater to be 19 ft (el 1018) and lu ft (el 1024.5)
The groundwater near the screenwell location was 10 ft deep,(respectively.One potable water well (300 ft deep) was drilled on the deep el 1004).
N south (uphill side) of the plant area.
.N Shallow groundwater and surface mn off was easily intercepted and diverted on the uphill side of the plant during plant area constmetion. The con-tainment foundation excavation was relatively shallow (15 to 20 ft deep) and required blasting to break up bouldery glacial tin. Seepage is l
nported to have been minimal. There was practically no seepage in the screenwen excavation, even though the screenven is located near Sherman Pond.
Dewatering and groundwater control was accomplished by ditching to intercept ah=11ov seepage uphill from the plant area and very minor sumping and pumping from foundation excavation. No special or elaborate devatering system was required during constmetion.
+.
~
4
i 2
September 7, 1978 AE 3-.
In summary, it seems likely the original groundwater level sloped with the topography. The reported lack of groundwater control during construction is consistent with the dense till found at the site.
The source of the above infozzation is consninication with A. Dasenback (he was resident engineer during construction) and V.F. Swiger, both of S&V.
Raymond test borings - June 1956.
~
meno from H.T. Evans to H.M. Johnson (9/20/57).
Should you have any question or desire additional information, please do not hesitate to call N.T. Georges at (617) 973-2171.
Very truly yours, d3.bcks, Chief Geotechnical Engineer ETG/as h
- T.I. '
-S
- 4 - -
~ ~. "..
.h
._a.
w Ay
=.9 1
l
.2
.- u enum.
r r.4:
1 e
l
, [.
' 3v.
%ft 4
' ~..
N
/
s
,/
' ' ~ O......
^ ~ ~ ~ ~
,/
N
.f
'/*A
'l
/
\\
,+
}
} Q g;$'
O 4p 4
lM O
{$+p;,.
O e,g/
- eg?y%'
6
- O q
- ,O
@ Q b
/
3 s'
v x i
5 l
y
/
F I G Li r: E
- I A PPRoxi MAra Boet uG L6 CAT (o os.
PP-E F A F ATIO M3
.i Now :
ACCURATE NAF U M hE R
- m
_h g
FILE \\D.344 00 3 - 86 O
J d a' SUBJECT W ATE.7 TA d,L E Elfr4 T 1o A)
O
- ra_
2 SHEET of 0
'D 0 M$
Y f
A M
$3 05 a
Z E
2 e ss BQ Q?
4 gN I<
M v
W g
3 g un O u, u.o W
C4 I
wU
)W UD b
~l td o o E(
4 89
(
\\ to g
w w ss k * ;i; 9
3-
[>,>
N o
m a
-b 2
9 w w O o u
5 k
A A.E A
.u R
E, a(
c u
D.
e w
x "o
u c
g 3
c
)
(.V-k
)
N b
d
~
7 i.)
~
r s
g z
I
(
s h
d d
ad d
b 3
~
E J
N b
N k
$)
~~.
k w
b W
2 w
I
)
k$f_-t V
4 k
wm<
J J
W 4
i q-ng s
a e
T
~
3 mi g
- N N
k e
-d 9
w z
=
m i
4h 2
rr er o
.4 R
I >
g i
')
$D 3
-d h
'.C" 'd c
~N '$
iu pc e
t N
~)-
W E
/
y M
l L
W 2
{
d J
d d
I E
A i
o h
5 E
e!
h t
=
s$s c
o o
j 0
l td o
o E
o M
N h >o E
O d
0 0
m i
g g t
m a3 to r1
~c
~
en 2
< *=
Y y
o
~
O O
w
~
5 >. _
0 e]
t1
a 03 "3
Eo n--
4 O dA 9
. uu LLI gj C
n.
(Y r'
V r-I- <
}
eJ O
2 N
24 z u" 0 '
}
Y N
7 h
i n
a e
s s,
e, Q
N N
N e4 A1 f.")
- gh, O
tt tv N
~)
y
~
onuss a moons
-943.0 (3=789 P 8ttee t EO ese U.S. A.
a
13 - i BY DI (i)AT E 7AN,l'/ 1978' v' REvistONS CHECKED BY BY DATE TO EO i
/
1 REA READNG i]Y REMA RkS **
TATE Tl M E BY C _r_)
EJEvArioM
. paonuot Wh0225)
T t
i.
,~.RE ADING t
-l().7 8 093o "Ctac(
l l, o..
42P o ne ~r
=
s g
g my groge teyst ELEVATiott = 1021 5' 4 - 2.')
10 l i o t)
G8f 7 Clock e
.s o
5-7 78
\\ ~6 ~50 D *eb l 7-4 _
64 F
( % v-1 4.GRooOWATER LML.
- (s'ozz S-RCADiM(-)
a
- s. l') -q b
\\\\bb
%~
\\ 7t -b
.{.d _,C C G:.,. l..,
m.,,
8P um l-)'-I' 6 (*. h gie<ogerce, 3
6 /r. is IIoa mcm.%
g g W 4 -9 '7s 0930 W
r.7 - 9
% c l_ ),
.q g.
I y
.o
$ 0 i" w
- (lozi.s-REAblNG) h.
j ni e 5
- sucw>e we4reten
[
p N OTES '
y j l
- 1) REA'btMG ts r o t 5 ^)
FROM YllE P!MMETER TIP Ta istE G [
l GKo0NDWATGR L.Ev6L,
I
- 2) iseG onc REbbsMG E.VER.4 yEEk: TAILG RGhbl^)Gs AFTER
(
1
'l i-REPORT ON FDUNDATION INVESTIGATION FIRE WATER TANK ROWE ATOMIC PLANT ROWE, MA m
l:
Submitted to Yankee Atomic Electric Co.
P l'%
Submitted by
]'
Geotechnical Engineers Inc.
1017 Main Street Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 hr L
February 22, 1980 Project 79617
}<
L r
L 1
~1_
m
I borings were stopped in this layer of till.
Total penetration into the till ranged from 7 to 54 ft in the borings.
~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ -
~ ~~ ~ ~
In Boring 5, a-layer of mottled clayey
~
4.
Silt and C1Ja
'~
silt and silty clay was encountered at a depth of about 4,5 ft.
This layer was about 8-ft-thick and had glacial till above and below.
Standard penetration d-resistances of 29 and 54 blows /f t were obtained from the two samples taken.
~
5.
Groundwater - A groundwater observation well was in-stalled in Boring 3 after the sampling was completed.
The depth of the groundwater in this well varied from 3.6 ft to 4.3 ft between October 9 and October 23, 1979.
These depths correspond to El 1028.7 to 1029.4 based on
. ]
Plant Datum.
The elevation of the groundwater may vary at dif ferent times of the year and may be different during construction.
= D
?*
J
..=
e-b-
l d
e I
H-
.s e
830 K
g.,
,.r : : u.
VAPOR
(
h C@NTAINER 5
3, ION X
EXCHANGE p
PIT PRIMARY 4--.
_DESEL GENERATOR BUILDING BUILDING PAD X
X TK29 TK34 oO X
3 TK34
\\
WASTE TK29 N
!!5,35n OO xe TK28 j
.m
>1 X
/
TK TK31 "J
3 36 X 2 V
X
>~
WASTE X
DISPOSAL BUILOING 4
5 p
b PROPOSED PUMP HOUSE
'J X
( APPROXIMATE LOCATION )
l e ?,O ?;
]
~ ~$i"' '
PROPOSED TANK DRU M J
X (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)
\\
~
- gf.jy.
STORAGE g
X
' M ' O +n,
$+EORING LOCATION X
8 1
N
-]
"N S
r N
H)
N X
X X
X X
X X
X X
SCALE lin.* 4 0 fl.
Yankee Atomic Eicctric Co.
Fire Water Tank BORING LOCATION PLAN Westte rough, Massachue.ctts g
,; p croTr.csisicAL ENGINE. Ells OfWC wmewtst(a. unssacouss t es Project 79617 January 3, 1980 Fig.
2
i
)..
3 P RO.T C f W
F"*****^*
- LOCa tsON !-f_ tece t two Plaa DRedED Bf Ca H D'.ii!.R.7 C.1 IK N G O ~11a. T.
.t s.-.
OciE $t*4TED ostotvr J 1211_. INCUNATIGes.J,clite1 LOGGED BY T. c. Ee11trJJ. GROUND EL 1e3s.O f t OafE Covs".ETED.,,pcze:gg.t_11ti SEFuNG m pnggam CHECKED SYg,_na33.mJ0fAL OCPTH es.2 er I"'##LE
.(L DE P TM mg>
y f ees
- ste=s ese etc A0v&=CC or 2g S0st shp ROCS DE Stat P fl0.s5 et
,s e s-ooeinc te is a
w V
cumtv. si'" suo-
- t'aa.-idir*
+d.
=-
I
~~ad=
ii. o i.
i.
castne to 5.5 reemded to angular grains. san else 3/4*. sica flakes..
ss..
I ft depth.
opper portion eestains roots, t.an (srJ.
probable 1030 boulder from 2.S* to S.2*.
ii.7 Q:l
' T.f
' 'y*
.- S
.P' ss-2As top $* and settee 2* - sitTV suo. %30s fines. oned N..
is coarse to fine. seetr traced. seamter to amter.
is.3o.
3, 3,
N grains. mas. eine 1-3/8". eles flakes, ettve-bro g (SPJ.,
g '
M.
ss-as s staddle S* = scTTtfo sittT rtwr suo to suoi sitTs f.*[h m
Little medlue sand. eccastenal coarse sand to f ane gogg --
A gravel, etca flakes, ettve-bre 1. (swil.
E, t
'.t t '
r Es-3As top $* = sitTT suoi staller to 55-24. %10% fines.
q "g
y:
11 10 13
=ttled apparence.
ss-3 3,
i s s-)e n settehe G*
- ecTTLZo stLTv rgart suo to saNov s!LTe _
, r,.;:
- to
[
Occasional piece of coarse to sedates sand. slaght rft:'
ptaaticity. eLca f tanes. e1Lvv.brova. I:P-rlLI.
Ye";!
w[..
'g 1020 N
srttT trwt sus m suov sitti occasionat piece of f ane
~'*
ss-4 17-23 18 12
~
f.k
'~
(S s.
f.:.;:
y, g..
Roll..
Ig*f
.h.
canvtttv. SILTT Suo To suov sitti swbrvunded to angular.
sau l-3/s". =6ca flases. aanstrattt'ed.
I'O o u tr=. *as.
g3 3
- 3. 44 3.
,.jp organic eder. ettve. (5r#.I.
- 20 g
- >. t:
r.;.
,A.;
, r.h.
M 1010 M. t : <
P W. ;
sitTv suo to suov sitte st=11er to ss-S.
maa.
Canvt.17 ss-6 43-21 to 12 y.;
else sott hed arrearance. no organic edor.
,.,g.;
J
- 2S g g
,$=,
y?.'.;
I.'8 if.y t ooS -
?.
s toitar to 55 6.
4.f, ceAvrtiv. sitTv sus to say,,v sitTi g.
k
,s g*;
49 18 11
.Q.y Es.1 o
T;g W n
~~~
~
..U h'Ib (continued on page 23 1000 --
eso.s et e ** * ** c.e ne==.
smaag 30*** a h*
- 0 ' t
- 80*T ra pt mana T&W e
e,*.
eae aa.e. sussachusette eg e. P
.ee e.ne.s er.eae**
Thamt1 AN4f C ELECTRIC Co@M o
et c. t,
e seethorowsh. naes.owsetts
! k.. s.....
o 3
east e.e.oer 30 men
- m. et lui t n sea
-e n
e.u 1
er 2
ea.s.e
[
4....................
e r
3 LOCATCN.ses.sa:cic.tD<Rr.iiD BY C'*Ltd evitsent h 80RthG No flaat-o.a.3 est a.r:r u. rire v..e e tae INCUNaflON...?sfittal LOGGED ST fd fillt.r.a W.I. CAOuNO EL loss.o f t C4fC 57 A TD ttit-#.-r L..l?'*
CHCCMfD BYg,,_gegggggg,,r:ti. TOTt.t. 0EPTH qAre Cart Cce.tTQ,,g.,.:ca a_193._ BCAM Q ont aseng h i
g{
g g y g,g l --.~,3dasPLE 4g,,,
S0st ase0 a0Cu Ot S calP fl045 ' '
~ - - - ~ ~ - --
perg -
stees ese occ A0vanct or
=g e0au.c f
oo
,ce.-
r te to e,
e.
v w
Db*.*.M.$f*.* I*9*.N I
p L
sooo..
k 7.a.*r tQ CaaWLiv, StLTY SAND TO SurW Sf LT Similar tm SS-4. maa.
2'h else 3M.
(t ss.s 15 11 3e 9
T
- 38 g
3 3.> e Og-L M.::
~
~
'?.4.'
,tre we-
.i.l9:
f l
995..
L
~
' fl?,',CaavTLtv. $ttTY Sar:0 To sAsov SILT S tollar to SS-4. sore.
fines, small sones of black fine to coarse sand, (Seq.
1**.;
$$.9 11-22 18 9
. J.j*
d0 10
,M'
- O*
~
W,$.7
+..
I 9M.
0.1.:..
.S L
~
Probahte cobble *'.@ C W.T LLY SFLTY SAN 3 TO S ANDf S f LTe slotter to SS.9, mas.
,h*
~~ E'j'T#'"""***'""""'****
6I';I
~
r s5-to ai s*-
is si r
6 **
90ttoet Depth 46.2 ft 1979 gordwate r observation wen t instat ted on Octobe r 4 I
945.
t Installation Datas Depth to Detteet of Pervious Section. 43.2 ft Depth to Top of Pervious factioes 33.0 f t
.~ IO Depth to Top of Sand Backf111 Around Pervious -
f
~
Section. 29.1 ft L
Grovt used to backf tll around riser p(Pe.
~
~
Croune.ater measure
- ente I
Depth to Croundwater f t l
~
Oate Octcher 9.1979 3.9 t
October 10.19?9
- 3. 8 October 11, 1979 3.6
[
October 23, 1979 d.3
~
r r
l r
l
~
u De I
r w
l i
F l
sena., no'.e ****
mo't8 M Flac Walta Tame st e ** ' e.*.o.as *...
eso t e=*.
e'*
nowe. saa e e chw.e t t e Tansit atoseIC ELECTRIC CD*UT es e e.. e c. ee 4*.
ri at t ' t c= en
.aea se....*a toe s tbetow9h. 8ta * *achw'* t'
- 2,p............
196l7 l8, es sea ee.......
,,, g snow..e.w.t._30 19 79 p.exas no L
Pe$t d
_OI I
N'*O N r
1 L
_4.........e_......
f l
i
-.Q
~
IHM 2 CONCERN Local Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) can cause ponding on the rooftops. Design inadequacies in rainfall control can induce significant hydrostatic loads.
It is necessary to verify that the roofs of safety-related structures can withstand the stresses resulting from PMP and other normal loads that are combined with PMP.
REQUEST Past practice indicates that verification of structural adequacy may be provided by either of the following methods:
1.
Where the structural distress level for each safety-related roof, expressed in ponded rainfall depth combined with other appropriate normal coincident loads, exceeds the height of the parapets around the roof, provide that structural distress level and the height of the parapets.
2.
Where the structural distress level for the roof of any safety-related building is less than the height of the parapets, provide the following data:
a.
The area of roof confined by parapets.
1 b.
The elevation of the roof and the elevation of the parapet walls above the roof.
c.
The design basis (construction) of the roof in pounds per square foot.
d.
The number, size, and elevation of scuppers.
e.
If credit is taken for a roof drainage system, provide the capacity of the drainage system and justification for the percent blockage assumed including ice and other possible debris.
f.
If the above information is provided in the form of drawings, they should not be reduced and should be readily legible.
ANSWER Part 1 All structures that house safety-related equipment have parapets that are either 4 inches or 6 inches except for the turbine building which has a 21 inch parapet. The roofs are all designed to support the design snow loading of 40 lbs per ft2, which is equal to 7.7 inches of ponded water.
Therefore, during the PMP, the water buildup is only a factor for the turbine building. If all drains on the other safety-related buildings were blocked, the ponded water would overflow before the design loading was exceeded.
- Part 2 The following information applies to the turbine building:
1.
The roof area confined by parapets is 12,960 ft2, 2.
The roof parapet walls are 21 inches high along the sides of the building and vary on the ends where the roof pitches. See attached Figure 1.
3.
The roof is designed to 40 lbs per f t2, 4.
There are no scuppers.
5.
The roof drainage system is shown in attached Figures 1 and 2.
The capacity of the system is such that the maximum incremental local PMP of 6 inches per hour (refer to YAEC-1207, Design Basis Flood Analysis) can be removed without exceeding the design loading of '
40 lbs per ft2, if at least two of the four drains on each side of the roof pitch are operating without blockage.
4 i
I
-~,.- -., --.
' {.
i=t6 0 e e i
G-9-IL
%. 0. W.
YAKKEE TU RGIM E BU(Lb t N 6 bl&t ENsto At s DC 8/ D j n
24' 03" 3"O
-tu
,,t ir 03' Pitch 3'O ww TMl 6RbvEL Roof o
f 37 +
0u~
u'a orma a
i
/(,2 7
\\letAper Av. Aewan p,
ptTcH HELCsHT n lo PIT ( H tl48
/
L_
l~ %i PARAPc7 He 6MT Ekb VIEW f
t' p
A
(
F(6 ORE 1
.F 7- "
cr!.9/'X YAncEE TV R E D N E Bull blM 6 Roof QR hly Ps 9l N 6 nV,1018' ( Ps96)
- Elv 10fi' [] 4"btMN
["] 4"0R4#v 4~
s n' q pae
~
1 o.
e
[])
q--
[] 3 nasu TOP PLAN view gg' g'p;pg
[]3
[
[] 1* bn Aiw
~
(,
g'
(, 9s pi O' YIN'5
)
_ 8*pa?( /
(, p, p :
p /
O 04
-Et.v IO TV, yu
-< - 31 1'<
6' E L v-IIol L L) ll
\\\\
L f it 0 I.(,
e L V.
t 1
3 0' 4*Jia g 'J,*.
3 'Jl=
g,4 ' q* J,',
b
"~# '
5"d:*
g *y, e Lv. Iott t 8 096, EL V.
4 g} s 4
4 6 O,->
e
.SLc.4-A
\\1Ildl*6,
\\J 4'd'a og;,
(,'J <'s CLV IO94.C' s 'd ~
l" SEC 0-6 g.
+
r pwse eLv notL
ITEM 3 CONCERN Ponding from precipitation and runoff from areas adjacent to the site may present a hazard to safety-related structures and equipment housed in them.
REQUEST Provide a list of structures housing equipment needed for safe shutdown. For each such structure, specify the location and elevation of the lowest non-watertight openings and provide the lowest limiting elevation of safety-related equipment. To facilitate the review of this information, provide architectural elevation view and plan view drawings which are keyed to the locations of the lowest non-watertight opening for each safety-related building.
ANSWER Note that the elevations on all Yankee drawings are referenced to New England Power Company (NEPCo) datum. The NEPCo datum is 105.66 feet above mean sea level (MSL). All elevations given in this response are referenced to
[
NEPCo datum to facilitate crosschecking with drawings.
1.
Turbine Building The lowest non-watertight openings in this structure are the doors with sills at 1022.66 feet.
The following areas containing safety-related equipment (with lowest elevation) are housed in the turbine building:
t l
control room (floor at 1052.66 feet)
)
bus room (floor at 1037.66 feet) cable tray house (1070.16 feet)
I auxiliary boiler room (floor at 1022.66 feet) piping (1023.66 feet) l cables (cable manhole covers at 1022.66 feet) 2.
Primary Auxiliary Building The lowest non-watertight opening in this structure is a door along the north wall with sill at 1022.66 feet.
The following safety-related equipment (with lowest equipment elevation) is housed in the primary auxiliary building:
piping'(1026 feet) cables (1026 feet) charging pumps (protected to 1028 feet) emergency feedwater pumps (1022.66 feet)
3.
Diesel Generator Building The lowest non-watertight openings in this structure are doors along the north and west walls with sills at 1022.66 feet.
The following safety-related equipment (with lowest equipment elevation) is housed in the diesel generator building:
diesel generators (1022.66 feet) safety injection pumps (1022.66) piping (1024.77 feet) cables (cable manhole covers at 1022.66 feet) 4.
Vapor Container l
The invert of the containment structure is at 1046.0 feet.
There are no exterior non-watertight openings into the vapor container.
5.
Safety-Related Tanks The following tanks (with invert elevations) are safety-related:
tank #28, safety injection tank (1037 feet) tank #39, primary water storage tank (1037 feet) fuel oil tank (1040 feet) tank #1, demineralized water tank (1028 feet) tank #55, fire tank (1034 feet)
The following architectural elevation view and plan view drawings are l
provided to facilitate review:
l i
Drawing Number Title l
9699-FY-6A Plot Plan 6966-FA-1A Ground Floor Plan - Turbine Area l
9699-FA-1B Mezannine Floor Plan - Turbine Area I
l 9699-FA-lc Operating Floor Plan - Turbine Aren 9699-FA-2A North Elevation 9699-FA-2B East Elevation 9699-FA-2C South Elevation 9699-FA-2D West Elevation 9699-FA-5A Cross Section 9699-FA-llA Control Room Details
1 Drawing Number Title 9699-FA-16A Plans '- Primary Auxiliary Building 9699-FA-16B Elevations - Primary Auxiliary Building 9699-FA-19A Plans and Elevations - Diesel Generator Building 9699-FA-20A Cross Section and Details - Diesel Generator Building i
4 4
l
-e r-,
--.-,,r.-
y
.-w-y--
-+...,.c---y y,
, -, - -.. =, -
w
-y
...-w.w-,,
+.
' ITEM 4 CONCERN It is noted that flood protection structures exist on-site and that flooding phenomena will initiate insertion of stop-logs at entrance gateways.
Such emergency procedures should be documented and incorporated into the plant
. technical specifications.
REQUEST 1
j Provide the most current flood emergency procedures for Yankee Nuclear
. Plant. If more than one procedure is used, identify the application of each procedure. Also, indicate whether these flood emergency procedures are referenced or incorporated within the plant's technical specifications.
l ANSWER Flood emergency procedures are incorporated within the plant's emergency operating procedures.
Procedures to be implemented to assure the safety of the plant in the event of external flooding are summarized below:
o Contact the Harriman Station as to pond level and projected rate of increase.
o Start the screenwell house water eductor if needed.
o Place the traveling screens in operation.
o Place the emergency flood control panels inside the screenhouse i
door casings.
i o
Sandbag the screenhouse door flood control panels to make doors as watertight as possible. Burlap bags and sand are stored on-site.
1 4
o Maintain contact with Harriman Station by phone or radio for information on river conditions.
o Frequently clean strainers in cooling water lines to running equipment.
o Install the yard barrier stop logs if extreme flood levels are l
expected and sandbag or cover unprotected building doors.
i i
4
~, _.......,,., _ _
., _. - _,, _ _ _.. ~....., _. _..,., -.
d TOPIC II-3.C Safety-Related Water Supply (Ultimate Heat Sink)
I ITEM 1 2
CONCERN l
The capacity of the ultimate heat sink should be sufficient to provide cooling.for the period of time needed to evaluate the situation and to take f
corrective action. In addition, the ultimate heat sink should be able to dissipate rejected heat to ensure that design temperatures of safety-related i
equipment are not exceeded. During a prolonged dry period and under certain possible conditions of hydroelectric power operation of the Deerfield. River l
system, circulation of Sherman Pond water through the condenser could produce higher pond temperatures. The UHS must be able to dissipate the maximum i
possible total heat, including the effects of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) under the worst combination of adverse environmental conditions.
REQUEST Verify that the operation of the hydroelectric system and severe natural phenomena do not adversely affect the capability of the UHS to dissipate sufficient heat following a LOCA or plant shutdown. Clarify whether the need to have the Sherman hydroelectric facility operating is an 1
environmental or safety concern. Specifically, identify those situations in i
which the amount of water flow through the Sherman hydroelectric facility is critical to the cooling water temperature at Yankee's intake. In making this j
determination, consideration should be given to the environmental factors.
which would tend to increase pond temperature and to the potential for recirculation between cooling water discharge and intake. If the flow is i
critical, then provide any transient analyses of pond temperature performed-which demonstrate the capability of the Yankee UHS. Describe any plant technical specification which includes provisions for actions to be taken in the event that conditions threaten partial loss of the UHS.
f ANSWER The operation of the Sherman hydroelectric facility is not essential to the capability of Sherman Reservoir to dissipate sufficient heat for plant cooldown. This is due to the large volume of water contained within the pond 1
(4561 acre-feet at spillway crest) compared with the total amount of heat j
rejected from the plant during cooldown.
During a severe natural phenomena, should Sherman Reservoir not be i
available, the heat sink function is maintained by the immediate steam j.
generator inventory supplemented by on-site water supplies. Replenishment of these water supplies would be as described in'the response to Item 2 of Topic.
II-3.C.
During a LOCA, the UHS function is served by the containment sphere, where heat is radiated directly to the environment. In addition, the heat sinks described in response to Item 2 of Topic II-3.C would also be available for plant cooldown. The containment sphere is not adversely affected by severe natural phenomena, as evaluated for SEP Topics III-6 and III-2.
1 4
.rr.
--v-
-g
,,,w+,
y r-.v y,4
-,_--.r---,_..--_-...-..
.-.-yw--.,
-.y
.,,,-._,-._,__-_,__.y--
,. ~, -,, - -, -. _., -
ITEM 2 CONCERN Because of the importance of the sink to safety, the heat sink function should not be lost due to natural phenomena, site-related events, or a single failure of manmade structural features. A large lake and a cooling lake with a seismic-designed submerged pond are cited as examples of acceptable heat sinks in Regulatory Guide 1.27.
Although Sherman Pond and the other reservoirs upstream can be categorized as equivalent to a large lake, the heat sink function at Yankee could be lost by failure of either the corrugated steel inlet piping or the Sherman Dam.
REQUEST Describe how the heat sink function is maintained following the occurrence of severe natural phenomena or catastrophic failure of the dam or inlet piping. A cooling capacity of less than 30 days may be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that replenishment or use of an alternate water supply can be effected to assure the continuous capability of the sink to perform its safety function, taking into account the availability of replenishment equipment and limitations that may be imposed on freedom of movement following the occurrence of severe natural phenomena. Provide a discussion of the emergency procedures to be followed.
ANSWER The heat sink function is maintained by venting steam to the atmosphere from the steam generators. The initial capability of the steam generators to remove decay heat based on their contained water inventory is approximately 1-1/2 hours. Makeup water via the emergency feedwater system, is then provided to the steam generators from the demineralized water system (Technical Specification limit of 85,000 gallons) and water from the 350,000 gallon fire tank to provide in excess of 30 days of cooling capacity.
A replenishment source to the fire tank would be provided using flexible hosing and a portable pump or pumps. For the case of a failure of the corrugated steel inlet piping, Sherman Pond's integrity would not be compromised and the pumps could be placed at a suitable location in the pond.
For the case of a failure of Sherman Dam it is assumed that the entire pond is drained. Therefore, a suitable pump location could be developed in the old river channel before this additional source of water is needed. An adequate flow in the river is insured at all times when needed by Harriman Reservoir, approximately 7 river miles upstream of the plant. Discharge out of Harriman l
Reservoir is through the three hydroelectric turbines with a combined capacity l
of approximately 1800 cfs. The storage in Harriman Reservoir is about 103,000 acre-feet at the spillway crest. Water could also be trucked on-site
}
from a remote location if necessary to replenish the fire tank.
- _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _