ML20210S980
| ML20210S980 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1974 |
| From: | Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Deyoung R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1718 NUDOCS 8605290548 | |
| Download: ML20210S980 (4) | |
Text
~
~
g' n # %.M.M__ W :W:y.en.W h_&Y< K.,= W. W...&. ;.?y:
W
_.-,.u__
wway
- m. i, W - g.
- l. ~ l 4
ev r
+-
i CCT 18 34 3
j
'~. R. C.'DeYoung, Assistant Director for LHRs, Group 1. L
- g 1,
s,,
. J',, t M
t
(' '
j, ~?.y gq;.:g yq;;;p 9,9k g.M f y];.@
3
- 4; ;O m::
- . + - y
- f
?- EEQUEST POR ADDITIONAL IEFORMATION
. 'L9
lb d. : ~ ~.
.' - (,. : 2 y'
.Q.a ? v : n, '.
~ Mi ' d W ' ? sFLAwr NA30tt ', Washington Publie Power Supply-System Wuelmar Projecta 3/5 "G
?.'3 / LICIESInc STAGE: CF- $ %. r..,:.T1.,3
'%T,.
~
n
?
m
)
A.C ', DOCKER Nos. STF5&508~ and STW50k-509
,, IISPONSIBLE REAMEN ' LMR 1 3. 4 - :M: '7
- 7 j
h REQUESTED COMPLETION DATIt' October 10, 1974
~ ~
A 1
r e." APFLICANTS RESPONSE DATE WBCn.anny P0g
- c. t i' e
NEIT ACTION FMIDIED ON PROJECT:
11/29/74 L.h DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE: Amendment to PSAR REVIEW STATUS: Waiting Information
.~
s Enclosed are our round,ces qusstions and ecuments regarding geology, r
' seismology, and fotsidation engineering for the Satsop site. The questions were prepaeed by.D.iR.' Budge, J. Greeves, R. Jackson, 3 b, a
. and J. C. Stapp.,
enclosed, request for infornation was informally 7,
h provided toothe joet Manager on 10/4/74. -
~
Ji i.
DISTRIBUTION:
D L-Docket File J
0@aN W
' (i,.t.Destes
~
g bRdg
~.
t_Su e.
s L-AD/SS
[,'
c, = t Barold R. Denton, Assistant Director for Site Safety
~
d' Directorate of Licensing J.
i e
e l.
~
^.
As stated c'.
i..
-6,;*:
c u c ; q' y. '
.. ', y; i.
.,.h(;
l 3IJ.W yd;. ;.'
>.y
. e-et. w/o. -;" 'eneleeure A. cimaaseo.q,c2th,34J Q.' d y" d $;f'N.
p:,.
s
-(q.:
e?'. 't.
, N d4 2
[
. [-
G. 5%. A, (
.p::
a.,c -
+
W. non ala >
. r %.
e a" t.
~
'_J, pansarella'*; W '.$ ?,O Y'? J'Y'O...:$!N' 2
,. w p g.,,W"i:f.g-W.fy,M 'ilt2 9 M TU ' '.$.. ^
' M*S '
+
-)
l
- m. / - Oct..w/enelosure y.> p.,.:y)),,.,~[,a: Q,, e,, r;
, ' y 4
g s
...s
~i
C
~ :..
'3. Banauer
?"m f(
F. Schroeder
..[
A. /manske PDR ADOCK 05000500 M
~
- 0. Parr A
(
P. O'Reilly t.SM L:SAB
~
D. Budge JGree-ves RJackson J. C m m 10/.
/74 10/
/74 i
R. Jackson c
'.,,$s *
. Stepp g3 g,
p g,
I Daud a.
6f WPadil HRDeKton 10117774 L0uf/74 10/) 4 /74 10/
74 L. _r ac.m in m_acu om..
._..m..
u,.
.,.,., y.gg i.
.e
l
\\
j
(-)
j 323-1 fa l
i 323.0 SITE ANALYSIS - GEOLOGY /SEISMOLOOY 323.1*
Based on the information presented rescrding inndslides in (2.5.1.2)
Section 2.5.1.2.1.2 and slope stability in Section 2.5.5 (see Item 323.6), the staff cannot for=ulate a pcsiti.on on the potential for landslides on slopes a: 'the plant location.
The lack of evidence of landslides at the plant location does not show that landslides cannot occur.
Absence of subsurface disturbance at the plant location is not an indication that future landslides will not occur.
~
Investigate the landslides noted in Section 2.5.1.2.1.2 and provide plans and profiles showing their covecents.
Compare the results of the investigation with conditions in the pl?.nt area (i.e.,
lithology, fractures, and weathering).
Show that conditions in the plant area are not similar to the existing landslide areas, or that grading will be such that a landslide in the plant area will not affect the category I structures.
323.2 (RSP)
For all safety-related fill matarials, in-place densities shall (2.5.4.5) be equal to or greater than the design density compaction require-ments.
323.3 Provide values for static and dyna =ic lateral earth pressures for (2.5.4.10) design of Category I structures.
Discuss the effect of hydrostatic groundwater pressure and backfill cethods on design values.
Structures adjacent to Category I structures will add a surcharge to lateral pressures.
Evaluate and discuss surcharge pressures on Category I structures.
323.4 (1)
The design criteria for co puting the static lateral pressure (2.5.4.11) due to bedrock is not conservative. Provide information on the evaluation of conservative criteria for static lateral pressure design.
(2)
Discuss hydrostatic and surcharge loading.
Describe the cathod used to establish conservative parameters.
323.5 Describe and reference the proposed dynamic analysis for determining (2.5.4.11) dynamic lateral pressures.
- Site Suitability Input
'l a = 4 **
.= ~
~j
/
'1
.l T.
y 1
323-2 I
d 323.6 As noted in Section 2.5.5.1.1, the Category I structures could be affect
'(2.5.5) cd by the stability of, natural slopes and by can-made s~1 opes.
Clarify i
the statement (see Section 2.5.2.5.2.2.1) that the nature of the natural slopes to the north and south of the plant indicates stable slopes.
All analytical procedures should be considered for safety related slopes.
The information presented for natural slope stability is not adequate.
Provide the location of.the slope shown in Figure 2.5-72.
Discuss the material properties used in this figure.
Show how this slope is representative of expected conditions.
Explain the external lateral force shown.
Provide details for individual slope stability sections and note the minimum factor of safety obtained.
Provide the results of the Pseudo-Static Analysis.
Document the use of vertical seismic c'efficients in the ICES program.
o Pro' vide'the results of the Dynam c Analysis (Section* 2.5.5.2.2.3.3).
Evaluate the residual soil slides in the slopes above the plant grade.
Consider sliding along the top of weathered sandstone.
Specifically, provide the factors of safety for slopes west and south of the Category I structure.
Consider sliding along the j.
, contact surfaces.
323.7 Discuss whether Rau's recent unpublished mapping in the Taholah, (2.5.1.1)
Destruction Island, and in part of the Fork Quadrangles alters any of the statements in the PSAR concerning the "Quinault Shear Zone" or other such zones shown in these areas.
323.8*
In view of the recent interest in the United States for the develop-(2.5.1.1) ment of new sources of petroleum, provide a detailed discussion of the oil and gas reservoir potential and gas storage potential of the structure and stratigraphic units underlying the site and the surrounding region.
In the event any of these potentials are realizable, outline uhat provisions would be made to evaluate and monitor any regional subsidence and local curface tilting effects uhich may jeopardize the plantc.
323.9 Provide justification for the state =cnt in the second paragraph, (2. 5.1. 2) on page 2.5-54, that "no major uncapped fcults c:-:ist" in the site locality in view of the fact that the bedrock cover is extennive and you are dealing uith thick conolithic rock units which cake faulting difficult to recognize and evaluate.
'#Sito Suitability Input I
-i^
c
- .b (3
~
323-3 323.10 Provide a discussion of the apparent anomaly seen in the (2.5.F.3) development of si=plh fault plane contacts in the site area (absence of gouge or other entensive damage) in light of the indicated compressive stress regime which existed during faulting and the postulated displacements of up to several thousand feet along these faults.
This discussion night include considerations such as pore pressure effects, clay nineral content, and the possibility of displacement along multiple fracture planes.
323.11.
Concerning the antiquityof faults, provide information on (2.5.F.5 )-
saprolite formation rates to quantify the neaning of the terminology, " ancient".
A
'2 Provide a discussion outlining the causes and development of u..>.F.5) the slichensided surfaces observed along the joints (t/cich have not been visibly offset) in the trench exposing the weathered tuff bed.
323.13*
Compute the response spectrum frc~m the Olppia, Washington, (2.5.2.10) acceleration record of the April 29, 1949, cagnitude 7.1 l
Compare with the proposed design spectrum.
i i
l
- Site Suitability Input 1
l l
i I
t
.. gm ei g.
.w a
L