ML20198G183
| ML20198G183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1974 |
| From: | Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Moore V US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1018 NUDOCS 8605290271 | |
| Download: ML20198G183 (7) | |
Text
,
.. ~. -.. -
r
,r
,I
,f.
i
~.<-
~._
d i
l NOV 21 i
l l
V. A. Moore Assistant Director for LUR's, Group 2, L Q-2 GEOLOGY, SEISi40 LOGY, AND FOUNDATI0ft ENGINEERING l
PLANT HAME:
Washington Nuclear 1 & 4 LICEilSIl4G STAGE:
CP 00CKET tlUMBER:
50-460/513 RESP 0H3IBLE BRANCH:
LWR-2-3 REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE:
fovember 8, 1974 APPLICANTS RESPONSE DATE NECESSARY FOR
!! EXT ACTIO!! PLANlED Oil PROJECT:
December 12, 1974 DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE:
Responses to Q-2 REVIEW STATUS:
CP Enclosed are our Q-2 questions and positions regarding the geological, seismological and foundation engineering aspects of the site.
The comments were prepared by Drs. Franklin-and McLean, Corps if Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, and S. Coplan and R. Mcitullen, SAB-L.
OrigbaiS! cent l
E L Dentos i
Harold R. Denton, Assistant Director i
for Site Safety Directorate of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated 1
cc:
w/o enclosure A. Giambusso i
W. Mcdonald l
J. Panzarella g
cc:
w/ enclosure Distribution k
50-460/513
$etFile c ro er W. Gamm111 L:SAB j
I A. Schwencer L:AD/SS.
T. Cox R. Morris. USGS 8605290271 741121 PDR ADOCK 05000460 l
F. McLean, WES A
PDR SEE PREVIOUS PAGE FOR CONCURRENCE L jm/SS
' " ' * =
- HRDayton
- ==~a==*
_11/
/74
~'
j Forse AEC.lls (Rev. 9 5)) AECM 0240 ero se, se e i.e e. e
,se.s ea d
b <
DISTRIBUTI0fl Docket File: 50-460/
i L: Rdg. File 513 L: AD/SS L: SAB APPROP1IATE A/D V. A. Moore, Assistant Director for LUR's, Group 2, L TITLE 2 GE0 LOGY, SEISM 0 LOGY, Afl0 F0utlDATION ENGIllEERIfiG PLANT NAME Washington Nuclear 1 & 4 LICEliSING STAGE: CP DOC'ETNUMBER\\ 50-460/513 4
l RESPONSIBLE BRANCH:
L',JR-2-3 REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE: November 8, 1974 APPLICANTS RESPON5E DATE NECESSARY FOR l
NEXT ACTION PLANMD ON PROJECT: December 12, 1974 DESCRIPTI0tl 0F RESP 0tlSE: Respenses to Q-2 i
REVIEW STATUS: CP
\\
EnclosedarecurQ-2q\\
ue'stions and positions regarding the geological, seistological and foundation engineering aspects of the site. The coLawnts were prepared by
. Franklin and I' clean, Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, and S. Coplan and R. I'ct ullen, SAD-L.
- N Haro R. Denton, Assistant Director for ite Safety Directorete of Licensing
\\
f
Enclosure:
\\
As stated K\\
cc: w/o enclosure A. Gaicbusso s
W. Mcdonald
\\
J. Panzarella T
cc: w/ enclosure i
S. Hanauer g
i F. Schroeder N
W. Gassill
\\
A. Schwencer
\\
T. Cox
\\
R. itorris, USGS
\\
i F. McLean, WES
\\
i L: SA g L: SAB f['L SAB L:p L
e,, e. e.
McMullen:ck Scoplan CStepp WGapi6tTl HDenton l
,,n,,,,,,,
l
._11//104
. ll/EC/74
-._l_Il_ 64 -
._.ll./7&l4
_13L_HA mro.
l f Form ABC.)lO (Rev 9 93) ARCM 0240 W u. s. eevsammany enistine or,eess sera.ese see l
l
-e i
N0'/ e :
V. A. Moore, Assistant Director for LUR's, Group 2, L Q-2 GE0 LOGY, SEISH0 LOGY, Ad0 FOUNDATION ENGINEERIriG PLA;1T llAME:
Washington Nuclear 1 & 4 LICEllSI?iG STAGE:
CP GCCKET ilUMBER:
50-460/513 RESPONSIBLE BRANCH:
LWR-2-3 REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE:
Hovember 3,1974 APPLICANTS RESPONSE DATE NECESSARY FOR
- EXT ACTI0tt PLAtitlED Ott PROJECT:
December 12, 1974 DESCRIPTION 0F RESPONSE:
Responses to Q-2 REVIEW STATUS:
CP Enclosed are our Q-2 questions and positions regarding tne geological, seismological and foundation engineering aspects of the site.
The comments were prepared by Drs. Franklin-and McLean, Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, and'S. Coplan and R. McMullen, SAS-L.
CrisSsittnift?
E L Deme Harold R. Denton, Assistant Director for Sita Safety Directorate of Licensing
Enclosure:
As statad cc:
w/o anclosure A. Giambusso W. Mcdonald J. Panzarella cc:
w/ enclosure Distribution S. Hanauer L: Docket File 50-460/513 F. Schroeder L:RDG W. Gamm111 L:SAS A. Schwencer L:A0/SS 6.
Cox R. !! orris, USGS F. :-ic La a.7, W E S SEE PREVIOUS PAGE FOR CONCURREllCE
..._ iL lD/33 a"'***
H RDebton 11/
/74
="
- r-, uc.m a n. o.m uc:.< on.o e.,
N DISTRIBUTI0ft Docket File: 50-460/
L: Rdg. File 513 L: AD/SS L: SAB APPRCPRIATE A/0 V. A. Moore, Assistant Director for LWR's, Group 2, L k2 GEOLOGY, SEISNGLOGY, kid FCUNCATI0il E?iGIiiEERING TITLE FLANT fiMEhWashington Nuclear 1 S 4 LICEMSING STAGE: CP COCKET NUMBER 1 50-460/513 RESP 0MSIBLE BRANCH: L'AR-2-3 REGUESTED COMPLETION DATE: Novernber 8,1974 APPLICANTS RESPONSE DATE NECESSARY FOR NEXT ACTICN PLMMED ON PROJECT: Decester 12, 1974 DESCRIPTICN OF RESPCNSE: Respenses to Q-2 REVIEW STATUS: CP i,
Enclosed are cur Q-2 q stions and positions regarding the geological, seis=ological and foundation engineering aspects of the site. The coi.awnts were prepared by Uks. Franklin ano McLean, Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Stationhand S. Coplan and R. T.crullen, SA'.i-L.
N I
I
~.
r..
Harold R. Centon, Assistant Director fcr ' Site Safety Directorate of Licensing
\\
Enclosure:
N As stated N
N cc: w/o enclosure
\\
A. Gair.busso
~'.
W. Mcdonald J. Panzarella cc:: w/ enclosure S. Hanauer F. Schroeder W. Gaunill A. Schwencer T. Ccx R. Forris, USGS F. McLean, WES l
S AS a p_t, - L: SAS f, ML: SAB L:'
L L:
wh RMcMullen:ck Scoplan CStepo WG 1
HDenton
.l.ll/fl74 IIL2Pl.74
_1,.1]_f 74 11fygl4
.11L, 47_4
.. n rui. uc.m c me.. y.m acur.o o........... *........,.............
~-
I WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT UUITS 1 AND 4 Q-2 GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING 323.1 Appendix 2M Figure 2M-4 and page 2M-4 discuss a sinuous anomally just north of the site, which is interpreted as being a deep buried channel in the upper Ringold Formation.
Demonstrate that the channel extends enly about 200 feet below the top of the Upper Ringold and is not a much deeper feature. Are stratigraphic horizons correlatable from one side of the " channel" to the other? The " channel" has a similar trend to that of the bedrock structural high in the Pomana basalt below it.
Is there a relationship? Discuss.
323.2 Appendix 2M, page 2M-4 and 2M-5, and Figure 2.5-12.
Boring data indicate a 290 four bedrock structural high within the Pocona north-northwest of the WNP-4 site.
a.
What is the probable origin of this structure?
)
b.
Are there similar features at the surface within the Pasco Basin?
c.
What is the basis for flattening out the structural contours to the northeast as shown on Figure 127 Other interpretations are possible using the limited number of control points shown on the figure and seismic refraction data cited do not appear to have sufficient resolution to contribute significantly to the definition of these contours.
d.
Is there any indication that overlying beds are affected by the folding?
e.
What is the orientation and altitude of bedding within the overlying Rattlesnake Ridge interbed, and the Elephant Mountains flow?
f.
Is there any relationship between the folding in the Pomona and the buried channel in the Ringold above it?
323.3 Question 2.55 (Sections 2.5.1.l(5)(c)(1) and 2.5.1.l(6)(b)
(iii)). The response is not adequate as noching is said about the seismic significance, the tilting at *Sa tuchat.
beds and the interbedded volcanic ash. Please expand your answer.
. 323.4 In Section 2.5.4.1(5), it is stated that in the areas of influence of Categcry I structures the upper sand materials will be excavated and recompacted to a denser state.
However, Figure 2.5-44 et seq. indicate that, in lieu of overexcavation and backfilling, soil under the spray pond may be densified in situ.
If it is intended that in situ densification may be done, please provide a plan for verification that the necessary density has been achieved.
323.5 (Appendix 2P, Section 4.4) The seismic velocity of the gravel unit is given as Vp = 6,000 fps; the velocity given in the report on geophysical surveys (Appendix 2L) is about 5,000 fps in the interval from about 60 to 100 feet.
Please resolve this inconsistency.
323.6 (Appendix 2P D, Section D.7) The regulatory position of the staff is that cohesionless backfill supporting Category I structures should be placed at an average relative density of at least.85 percent with no more than 10 perceat of the values below 85 percent and none below 80 percent. The proposed control line would result in a minimum relative density of 75 percent. This standard is not acceptable in the absence of cyclic triaxial test data on these sands to justify it.
123.7 (Figure 2.5-51 and 2.5-51a) Please provide the plan of compaction control to be used for Type C soil when it is placed under Category I structures. The criteria used should insure that the average relativo density vill be at least 85 percent and that no values will be lower than 80 percent.
323.8 (Appendix 2P D Sections D.9 and D.10) Weight losses in drying at high tecperatures can occur as a result of decomposition of carbonates, and some of the soils at this site reacted in varying degrees to HC1. The proposed method of compaction control (Section D.10) should be modified to provide that no soils showing a reaction to hcl should be dried at temperatures other than as specified in ASTM Standard D2049-69.
323.9 (Section 9.2.5.3 (c) and Figures 2.4-22, 2P-13, 2P-21, 9A-18)
The figures cited appear to show that the Emergency Shutdown Water pipelines will be underlain in part by uncodified in situ soils which have been determined to be potentially subject to liquefaction.
Picase provide assurance that soils underlying the backfill and bedding soils of the ESW pipelines will be treated as under other Category I structures, e
e.
' or that the integrity of the WSW pipelines will be otherwise assured in the event of liquefaction of the underlying soils.
323.10 (Appendix 2P, Section 7.2.4)
What differential settlement is expected to occur between the spray pond and the associated pumphouse?
323.11 (Section 9.2.5.3)
Please discuss the possibility that a SSE might cause cracking of the concrete liner of the spray pond and consequent loss of cooling water into the previous underlying soil, at a time when the Make-Up Water system, which is not designed as Category I, is disabled.
323.12 (Figure 2.5-56) The use of the upper limit for dynamic moduli is conservative for analysis of stresses, but is not conservative for analysis of displacements. Please provide justification for use of the upper limit in computing settlements.
323.13 (Figures 2P-11, 2P-12) In these figures there is a contra-diction between the caption, " Summary of Damping Ratios for Saturated Silts and Clays" and the notation on the curves, "aange of Damping Ratios for Sands".
4 323.14 (RSP)
We will accept an'SSE using a value of 0.25g as the zero (2.5.2) period limit of the design response spectra input at the fcundations of Category I structures. This position is consistant with the staff position concerning the aseismic design of the WPPS 2 facility.
d 0
l' L-