ML20214G917
| ML20214G917 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1978 |
| From: | Heller L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lynch M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0214, CON-WNP-214 NUDOCS 8605230038 | |
| Download: ML20214G917 (2) | |
Text
~
DIjprRIBUTION:
JUCKET FILE (50-397)
NRR RDG GBRDG DSE RDG MEMDRANDUM FOR:
M. D. Lynch Light Water Reactors Branch 74, DPM FROM:
L. W. Heller, Leader Geotechnical Engineering Section, G3, DSZ SU3 JECT:
ACCEPTANCE REVIEW QUESTIONS - GEOTECID!ICAL ENGINEERING PLANT NAME: WPPSS Nuclear Project #2 LICENSING STAGE: Acceptance Review of FSAR DOCKET NUMBER: 50-397 MILESTONE NIDGER:
RESPONSIBLE BRANCH:
REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE: April 19, 1978 RESCRIFIION OF RESPONSE: FSAR Acceptance Review and Request for Additional Information REVIEW STATUS: Awaiting Applicant Responses A review has been made of the FSAR Section 2.5 and its appendices as tendered in March 1973 by the Washington Public Power Supply System for an Operating License for the Washington Euclear Platn #2. Based on the review by O. Thompson, Geosciences Branch, it is recosamended that the geotechnical engineering aspects of section 2.5 of the FSAR be accepted for detailed review. The information requested in the attactunent should be provided in the docketed FSAR.
ti L. W. Halllor, Leader Geotechnical Engineering Section 97 Geosciences Branch D
PDR Division of Site Safety and A
Environmental Analys f.s
Enclosure:
As stated cc: w/ enclosure W. cames411 R. McMullen J. Knight T. Johnson i
J. Stepp J. Ka11eher L. Hul::nn O. Thorspson L. Heller S. Varga l
W. Bivins i
md(Ln1e tHMa 773080367
. DSE! T ! f'R
.DSE ! ST!:C
- s....
f.6
_ 4[2D[78
- _,,,4, dl y
cate >
NRc FORM 3ts (9 76) NRCM 0240 W u. o. eovemme.sme amiariae opresse sete-eas ene
O REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ACCEPTANCE. REVIEW - FSAR WNP #2 362.1 Provide summaries of field test results which justify the (2.5.4.5.3 &
2.5.H2.2.3) statement (page 2.5-137) that "....the relative density values l
l were within the specified limits..."
l 362.2 Provide details of quality control and assurance inspection.
(2.5.4.5.2 &
2.5H.2.1)
Specifically, on page 2.5H-2, third paragraph line 10, correct the sentence to read "A void ratio of less than 0.25 was specified." Show the justification for this specification and, if possible, its relationship to liquefaction potential and/or t
settlement potential, That is, show that the top of the Ringold gravel was adequately dense prior to fill construction.
Include in the discussion reference to the excavation testing procedures recommended by the Foundation Engineer in Appendix 2.5F.4.11, page 33.
36 2.3 Provide references 2.5-126 and 2.5-127.
(2.5.8) 14 7. /.
Provido the reference (c) used to develop the dynanic coefficient (2.5.4.10)
(K = 0.3) shown on Figure 2.5-69, or show how the coef ficient D
was obtained. Also indicate how the effects due to compaction are included in the lateral earth pressure determination. Compare the calculated lateral earth pressures with the values used for l
design under SSE conditions.
I l
l l
l l
i l
- -