ML20210C412
| ML20210C412 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1983 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340C148 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-151 P-105-4-839-013, P-105-4-839-13, NUDOCS 8609180328 | |
| Download: ML20210C412 (10) | |
Text
.
.~. _.... m......... _ _...
.g APPewoW 2.
REPORT EVALUATION BY NRC STAFF Interim Technical Report, Diablo Canyon Unit 1, Independent Design Verification Program, Soils-Intake Structure, Revision 0, ITR No. 13, by Robert L. Cloud Addociates, Inc.
November 5, 1982 s
- s
]
l i
I l
l y' 8609180328 860908 l
r I
e i
[
.. ~.
REPORT EVALUATION BY NRC STAFF Interim Technical Report, Diablo Canyon Unit 1, Independent Design Verification Program, Soils-Intake Structure Revision 0, ITR No. 13 by Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
November 5, 1982 IDVP Designation:
P 105-4839-013 Originator:
Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
_ Submitted by: Teledyne Engineering Services NRC Docket Number:
50-275 1 INTRODUCTION Interim Technical Report Number 13 (ITR #13) was prepared by Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc. (RLCA), for the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) ot the Dimble Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP). Teledyne Engineering Services (TES), who is the program manager for this IDVP, issued the ITR (Reference 1).
The following evaluation of ITR #13 has been prepared by the NRC staff and incorporates the review comments of kRC consultantI7 Brookhaven National Labora '
I tory (BNl.). The staff has reviewed one of the references identified in ITR #13, and had telephone discussions with Messrs. E. Dennison and R. McNeill of RLCA in April and May of 1983.
ITR #13 presents RLCA's review of soil conditions at the intake structure of DCNPP. As a result of the IDVP review, several errors and open item (E0I) reports, which identify items in need for review and resolution, were issued.
E0I 1094 identified that the item to be verifiedf ht': ';t;L; f........
the location of bore hole no. 3 that was used in determining the depth to bed-rock. Appendix A of this evaluation report presents a copy of E01 1094. The firm of Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) performed the geotechnical work for the construction of the intake structure at the DCNPP.
ITR #13 presents RLCA's i
07/14/83 2-1 DIABLO CANYON SER APP 2 "M+6k
=
yg g g
.~
resolution of items identified in E01 1094 and a review of a portion of the soils work performed by the HLA firm for the intake structure.
2
SUMMARY
OF REPORT Interim Technical Report No. 13 (Reference 1)
J The intake structure is a reinforced concrete building founded on a grout mud-mat poured directly over the bedrock.
Soil material has been backfilled along three sides of the structure to plant grade. The fourth side of the structure admits water to the pumps.
Several years after the intake building was con-structed (in 1978), HLA drilled borings in the backfill material and also per-formed geophysical inves.tigations in these borings. These investigations were performed by HLA in connection with the "HOSGRI" evaluation of the DCNPP. This soils work has been reviewed by RLCA as a part of the IDVP. The scope of RLCA's review of the[hyk's soils work, presented in ITR #13, was limited to the deter-mination of the bedrock depth and the definition of properties of the backfill material at the intake structure.
i tha 2.1 Determination of* Bedrock Depth RLCA verified the bedrock depth by comparing information from:
HLA geologist's field logs of borings HLA's report on the field investigation Seismic survey data presented in HLA's report Drawings of the intake structure foundation excavation showing the bedrock depth.
The boring location indicated in HLA's field logs were compared with the boring location shown in HLA's report, and were found to agree reasonably well except for the location of hole no. 3 (Table 1 of ITR #13). The error, which indicated offset as west rather than east, was attributed to a typing error on plate 1 of HLA's report (E0I 1094, Appendix A). This error has been corrected. The com-parison confirmed that the location of borings, used in determining the depth 07/14/83 2-2 DIABLO CANYON SER APP 2 k
- 9-a
'*s ee +wn - -
-4
.eg
...e
,-,,-,.-,,-.----n.
-ww-.~----,
s e
of bedrock, is correct. The depth of the bedrock determined from HLA's* field logs, excavation ~ survey, and seismic refraction survey were compared with each other and found to be in general agreement (Table 2 of ITR #13).
Th; ;;ri -
--..:: :, _, -m
,,,on
,,,,,g,,
r :k ;;;ag th;
':t-te^ r af dan +h +n k-d 15 pr--ant nf
+h-
--- r ed d:-t'- +- wed7 -g, 7;,, -
y,,,,,,,,,,,,;,_,, g3 14 4t t by the Inwo ;-~,n +n trigga. -swets 1 ;: ;::ter c ";.;.. The compariso'n,- therefore, has verified that the bedrock depth given in HLA's soils report is acceptable.
2.2 Definition of Backfill Properties HLA's definition of backfill material properties was verified by RLCA by the following procedure:
1.
HLA performed six types of laboratory tests on samples from each of the five borings drilled in the backfill material. The laboratory tests included moisture-density, Atterberg limits, amount of fines, sieve analysis, quick triaxial, and, cyclic triaxial tests. Soil parampters
, _ ware independently calculated by RLCA for each type of test using the actual laboratory test data reported by HLA.
This verification, one for each type of test, included cheking both the arithmetic and the computational procedure used in the data reduction. The cyclic triaxial test data reduction was not verified by RLCA because sufficient records were not available.
The test results reported in HLA's report were then compared with the values independently calculated by RLCA (Table 3 of ITR #13). The difference between the HLA values and RLCA values was within the 15% acceptance criterion established for the IDVP program.
l 2.
The soil classifications assigned to the backfill samples by the field l
geologist on the field logs were compared with the soil classifications assigned to the same samples by the laboratory technicians (Table 4 of ITR #13). This comparison indicated that the field classification and laboratoryclassificationw$Eeingeneralagreementandthatanyminor differences found were of negligible importance to the definition of backfill material properties. The classification by the laboratory 07/14/83 2-3 DIABLO CANYON SER APP 2 o -
m-
--,-.ww
- ----y
s technician were verified by RLCA using laboratory test results. This procedure verified the appropriateness of the soil classifications given in HLA's soils report.
3.
The reported unconfined compressive strengths and corresponding field W
blocount data for.three HLA samples were compared with the compressive t
strengths and blowcount values from published literature. Because the blowcount data in the published literature were for a 2-in. diameter sampler, it was necessary to determine an equivalent blowcount for the 5-in, diameter sampler used in the HLA borings. The published blow-counts were corrected by a ratio of the sampler areas (25/4). This is recognized as an approximate method of correlating blowcount data. The comparison, presented in Table 5 of ITR #13, verifies that the compres-sive strength of the backfill material mentioned in HLA's soils report is of the same order of magnitude as that published in the literature for soils of similar blowcount resistance.
Based on the above comparisons of soil parameter, soil classifications and strength, RLCA concluded that the soils work performed by HLA for definition of the properties of the backfill material is acceptable.
3 EVALUATION BY NRC STAFF 3.1 Determination of Bedrock Depth The methodology and results of RLCA's review of the location of borings and depth.to the bedrock are presented in Section 2.1 of this report. The NRC i
Staff has reviewed RLCA's methodology and the data in Tables 1 and 2 of ITR
- 13. The NRC Staff agrees wth RLCA's and TES's conclusions that HLA's deter-mination of depth to bedrock meets the IDVP acceptance criteria.
3.2 Definition of Backfill Properties The methodology and results of RLCA's review of backfill material properties are presented in Section 2.2 of this report. The NRC Staff has reviewed the 07/14/83 2-4 DIABLO CANYON SER APP 2
s data presented in Tables 3, 4, and 5 of ITR #13 and data presented in Refer-
~
ence 2.
The staff agrees with RLCA's methodology of reviewing HLA's definition of backfill material properties.
However, RLCA's review was limited to check-ing laboratory test data, verifying the description of soil samples and compar-ing the strength test data with the strength values quoted in the literature.
This procedure verified the appropriateness of the soils data used in defining the properties of the backfill material.
As a part of the IDVP, RLCA should compare the design parameters of backfill materials as recommended by HLA with the parameters determined by RLCA to be appropriate for design.
This comparison of backfill design parameters is not presented in ITR #13. Because of the lack of this significant comparison, the NRC staff can only agree in principle with the conclusion of RLCA that HLA's definition of the properties of the intake structure backfill material meets the IDVP acceptance criterion.
4 CONCLUSIONS The unC staff has reviewed ITR #13 by RLCA and conclude:
1.
HLA's determination of the depth of bedrock at the intake structure of DCNPP is acceptable. We concur with the IDVP findings.
2.
RLCA's method of verification of the properties of the backfill material is acceptable to the
.aff.
Due to the limited scope of the verification, l
the staff can only agree in principle with RLCA's' conclusion that HLA's definition of properties of the backfill materials at the intake struc-ture of the DCNPP is acceptable.
REFERENCES 1.
Interim Technical Report, Diablo Canyon Unit 1, Independent Design Verifica-tion Program, Soils-Intake Structure, Revision 0, ITR #13, by Robert L.
Cloud Associates, Inc., November 5, 1982.
3 07/14/83 2-5 DIABLO CANYON SER APP 2 e
~
2.
"Geotechnical Studies, Intake Structure, Water Storage Tanks, Diesel
)
Fuel Oil Storage Tanks, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant," Report by Harding-Lawson Associates for Pacific Gas & Electric Company, April 12,1978.
e G
e I
I 07/14/83 2-6 DIABLO CANYON SER APP 2
, - - ~ - - - ~
.,---e w
w w-w--
w
~-w-
---w-me en------.-
ww-
- --w-w
- - --=+*-+~
~~w-vn-~em o -
-s-~w---+-
--~----n-
- ~ ~
I 9
e e
b 6
=
F 4
I S
APPENDIX A
/e I
1 e
a r
I e
G t
O
(
- p
- se e * =
=e G*
9
- ge e e
+,.
p e-g l
l
'~
l
~
OPEN ITEM REPORT File No. 1094 File Revision No. 4 1.
Date reported to PG&E and RLCA 820927 2.
Scheduled for TES (Originator) Semimonthly Report No. October 3.
Responsive to PG&E Technical Program:
Task (if applicable) 4.
Prepared as a result of:
a.
QA Audit and Review Report of b.
Field Inspection beficiency c.
Independent Calculation Deficiency d.
Seismic Input Deficiency e.
Design Methodology Deficiency f.
X Other PG&E Corrective Action.
5.
Structure (s), system (s) or component (s) involved:
Intake Structure - soils Review.
-t 6.
Descript, ion of Concern:
E01 1094 Revision 3:
Intake Structure - Soils Review.
The location of borings 2 and 3 as presented in "A Geophysical Invgstiga-tion of Compacted Earth Fill at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, March 8',
1978" is not consistent.
Plate 1 shows boring 3 to be west of boring 2.
Plate 6, which agrees with the field boring logs, shows boring 3 to be east of boring 2.
7.
Significance of Concern:
8.
Recommendation:
Based on PGandE resolution sheet, a correction to plate 1 was made.
TES and RLCA will reconsider this file.
I l
9.
Signature:
820927 (Originator / Organization)
~
1 l
-!f 07/14/83 A-T.
DIABLO CANYON SER APP A L
t BPPEdDit-3 7intPAcE Simi'*8 T A PP'"" "
'k*
e 4
h O
l
- -,. -