ML20126J652
| ML20126J652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1985 |
| From: | Mark Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506190051 | |
| Download: ML20126J652 (5) | |
Text
1 0
,p u sc y I
UNITED STATES e
l ' ).-g'(, gg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 8
%.w..../
June 6, 1985 Docket Nos: 50-424 and 50-425 APPLICANT: Georgia Power Company FACILITY:
Vogtle, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF GE0 TECHNICAL MEETING ON V0GTLE On January 23, 1985, the staff met with the applicant and its representatives to discuss geotechnical open items on Vogtle.
Participants are listed in.
The applicant provided background information to the staff on the foundation competency of the clay marl and compaction control testing. The applicant stated that it had put 200 bore holes through the Blue Bluff marl. According to the applicant, the poor recovery in the CS series borings in 1977 was due to the use of a single tube core barrel where some grinding of the core had occurred. The applicant felt it had gotten good core sample recovery from the 500 series borings. The staff stated that the preponderance of subsurface information indicates that no voids or solution cavities exist in the marl and that only boring 107 had indicated a loss of drilling mud at the top and bottom of the clay marl layer. The staff further stated that geologic mapping provided in the FSAR indicates interbedding of limestone lenses and layers and sand lenses within the clay marl layer. The staff also indicated that ground-water monitoring records at wells 129, 805A and possibly 800 (FSAR Table 2.4.12-7) appear to reflect hydraulic connection of the upper portion of the clay marl with the water table aquifer. The applicant will respond to these staff observations but indicated at the meeting that well 805A is not in the marl and that the gravel packs at wells 129 and 800 appear to extend up to the soils in the water table aquifer, therefore, these wells cannot be interpreted to be a reflection of groundwater levels only in the clay marl.
On Open Item (01) 5. " Submittal and evaluation of settlement records," the applicant needs to provide the following information: (1) how it arrived at a settlement of 0.20 inch in Table 3-2 of its December 28, 1984 submittal between the control and containment buildings (2) a comparison of measured total and differential settlement values with settlements actually used in design analytical studies (3) the reason why(4) a sample calculation 'or the average and maximum settlement marker number 222 was installed 2 years later than marker 219, and tilt and maximum slope for differential settlement.
8506190051 050606 PDR ADOCK 05000424 A
1 On014."VerficationofFSARcommitmegtsoncompactionofCategory1 backfill,"
materialswithgreaterthar.6% fines;4.5lb/ft}imit)wasaddedtocompacted the applicant indicated trat 3.5 lb/ft (upper was added to materials with less than 6% fines and for materials where the fines content was not known. The applicant's computations revealed that the average compaction for Category 1 backfill was 100%.
86.3% of the tests exceeded 97% compaction.
9.4% were between 95 and 97% compaction.
3.8% were between 93 and 95% compaction.
0.5% were below 93% compaction.
The applicant concluded that even with this conservative adjustment to maximum dry density, the FSAR commitments were mr.t.
The applicant indicated that it would submit a summary of its compaction control records where the higher maximum dry densities were used to compute the adjusted percent compaction.
The staff stated that on future compaction of Category 1 fill at the site, it wanted the applicant to use both the relative density test (ASTM D4253) and the modified density test (ASTM D1557) on materials with less than 6%
fines and to use the higher value obtained from the two tests to establish the percent compaction.
The applicant indicated the areas where fill was yet to be placed included the diesel generator building, auxiliary feedwater pumphouse and tunnels for Unit 2.
On 01 6, " Foundation design and construction information on radwaste buildings and tunnels," the applicant indicated that the radwaste solidification building should not be included as part cf this item duc to its remote location where it would not impact any Category I structure.
In response to this item, the appli-cant will provide foundation information which will include the structures' elevations, description of the type and size of foundation and properties of the supporting fill materials.
The staff indicated that it needed to further review information already pro-vided by the applicant on O! 7. " Bearing capacity stability."
The applicant stated that it would provide additional information on OI 9
" Acceptability of variations in soil dynamic properties," in mid-February 1985.
Information on confirmatory issue (CI) 3 " Locations and description of observed cavities," will also be provided in mid-February.
1 On O! 8. "Long term groundwater and settlement monitoring requirements " the staff indicated that additional information on monitoring frequency was needed as part of the design basis hydrostatic level determination. A telecon was to be scheduled the following week to discuss the groundwater information which was needed for the staff to complete its review.
Melanie A. Miller, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated tg31c'rC;) 0310110 Cortified E:/
O Enclosure PARTICIPANTS NRC Georgia Power Company M. Miller D. Hudson J. Kane B. Harbin R. Pichumani L. Heller Bechtel G. Staley (part-time)
C. McClure Southern Company Services, Inc.
W. Ferns Z. Yazdant R. Thomas M. Perovich J. Bailey T. Crosby K. Kopecky
MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION
.;D5keE U(d)':3,,d4424/425 NRC'PDR' ~'
Local PDR NSIC PRC System LB #4 r/f Attorney, OELD E. Adensam Project Manager M. Miller Licensing Assistant
- a. vuncan NRC PARTICIPANTS M. Miller J. Kane R. Pichumani L. Heller G. Staley bec: Applicant & Service List
- w