ML20235X570
| ML20235X570 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, San Onofre |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1977 |
| From: | ARMY, DEPT. OF, CORPS OF ENGINEERS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235X376 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-462 NUDOCS 8710200044 | |
| Download: ML20235X570 (4) | |
Text
.
=
e
.-l i
l
(
)
REVIEW OF SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT i
1 1
i
. J l
t l
i
.E U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES CORPS OF ENGINEERS 8710200044 871014 PDR FOIA JUNE 1977 SCHARA87-462 PDR v-
..j
1
.j.
4 s
I 1
REVIEW OF SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR CENERATING STATION UNITS 2'AND 3
/
FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 1.
Applicable portions of the subject report have been reviewed to evaluate the adequacy of the subsurface investigation, field and
~
laboratory testing, engineering analysis and construction quality. control.
The following comments are submitted for additional consideration
'o r-re-evaluation.
a.
Volume 3. Chapter 2.5.
(1)
Incorporate into Appendix 2.5C " Soil Borings," details concerning borings, trenches and drilling procedures (including logs). Presently, only the switch yard slope boring logs are presented. Appendix 2.5C is cross referenced several times but presents little clarifying or supportive da ta.
1 (2)
Revise Appendices 2.5C and 2.5D to.present supporting data to
-I the main report.
(3) A presentation of the construction control data pertinent to in-situ soil or structural fills and backfills,is necessary;for a complete review. The data should indicate type of tests, locations, elevations, ll gradations, density,' percent compaction, etc..
(4)
Section 2.5.4.2. paragraph 2.5.4.2.1.2. Terrace Deposits.
Correct discrepancies in the terrace deposit description between the above paragraph-and Appendix 2.5A.
I
(5) ' Paragraph 2.5.4.2.2.4 Dynamic Stif fness and Damping.
Clearly label Table 2.5-12 as terrace deposit soils.- The percent axial strain, 1
in column 12, ranges from 0.2 to 10.0 percent; define the failure criteria used and present test results pertinent to soil strength evaluation.
l Strength, damping and stiffness test results should be presented separately.
l l
Clearly indicate when double or single amplitude strain is being discussed j
1 l
or used in all figures and tables.
j j
(6)
Paragraph 2.5.4.2.2.5, Dynamic Strength. Expand Table 2.5-13 or
)
provide a new table to present the results of tests on the more predominant l
l San Mateo Formation samples.
l l
(7)
Paragraohs 2.5.4.2.2.4, Dynamic Stiffness and Damping and 2.5.4.2.2.5, Dynamic Strength.
Discuss and justify the predominant use of Ke = 1.0 on test samples.
(8)
Paragraph 2.5.4.2.2.5, Dynamic Strength. A more detailed discussion is required on Figures 2.5-34, 35, 36 and 37.
Indicate percent strain used as failure in the strength cures shown and justify the use of remolded samples in obtaining the in-situ strengths of the San Mateo Formation and terrace deposit soils. Discuss how the samples were remolded.
Present failure curve used in Figure 2.5-35.
Discuss and justify the use of different Cr values in Figures 36 and 37. Present the dynamic strength curves of the fine grained San Mateo Formation on Figures 36 and 37 for comparison.
(9)
Section 2.5.4.5. paragraph 2.5.4.5.1, Excavation Plan and Sections.
Present the "as constructed" excavation plan and section on Figures 2.5-49 and 50.
Should these aircady be as constructed details indicate this on the figure.
2 l
-y i
1 1
i (10) Paragraph 2.5.4.5.3. Backfill. In the report, reference is made to an incorrect paragraph 3.5.4.2; correct this paragraph to indicate
{
i I
correct section or paragraph.
l' (11)
Section 2.5.4.8, Liquefaction Potential Evaluation. Rewrite this section to present a straight forward approach to liquefaction potential I
evaluation. "Recent changes," in the state-of-the-art should be presented by showing the new strength curves along with those developed in the PSAR I
for comparative purposes, rather than by the use of a correction factor.
(12) Paragraph 2.5.4.10.4 Settlement and Heave. Results of the settlement analysis are to be confirmed with as-built data.
Update this paragraph to present recent settlement or heave readings.
(13) Paragraph 2.5.4.14.2, support of S tructures on Backfill, clarify Eigures 2.5-64 and 65 to indicate where the +5 feet elevation control was used.
1 (14')
Correct Figure 2.5-70 soil parameters to be consistent with the i
main report, t
3
___