ML20009E294: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:.
  ..                                                          July 20, 1981 1
f,                "s 2                                                              ,l~        a  m      '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA          '
:.7 3                    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                                                                          ,, 2 msi r k 4            BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD                        7 5
In the matter of                        )                    he            fy. k
                                                                              , g' "''
6                                          )                        N "-
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY        )  Docke  h.
7  (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating
                                                }        D 6-A L
1 Station, Unit No. 1)
                                                )
                                                )        ~3      o1  b7atc  T
                                                                  'h        YI 9
                                                          \D.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM F. MERCURIO ON BEHAkF 10        HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY ON BOARD QUE 8 RELATING TO ACNGS REACTOR BUILDING SUBSURFACE
                                                                  ]W 11                            SOIL MECHANICS 12 Q. Mr. Mercurio, please state your name and 13 business address and describe your educational and 14 professional experience.
15 A. My name is William F. Mercurio, and my business 16  address is Ebasco Services, Inc., 2 World Trade Center, 17  New York, N.Y. I have previously discussed by position 13  and background in connection with my testimony on 19  Biship Contentions 5,    7, 9 and 10.
20        A. The purpose of this testi:t)ny is to address 21  Board Question 8 which requests evfdence regarding the 22  ability of subsurface soil to support the ACNGS reactor 23  building. Soil mechanics rather than subsidence is of 24  concern here with respect to avoiding unacceptable settling of heavy structures.
8107280014 810720 Q303 PDR ADOCK 05000466                                                S T                PDR l[f
 
a -
a 1
2 Q. What types of analyses verify the settling.
3 characteristics of soil with respect to soil mechanics?
4 A. Static settlement analyses are used to estimate 5
the anticipated relative vertical displacements of 6      structures supported by soil. Soil mechanic theoretical 7  ,
calculations coupled with actual soil property test 8      data verify the soil settling characteristics.
9          Q. Would you briefly describe how the underlying 10    materials at the ACNGS site were observed?
11          A. Geophysical surveys and borings were.used to 12    obtain field dsta for the development of subsurface 13      cross-sections. The locations of all borings, geophysical y4      surveys, observai'on wells and proposed excavations, as well as plant structures, are shown on PSAR Figures la-2.5.4-5A, SB and SC. PSAR Section 2.5.4 provides a            ,
detailed discussion of data collection and observations.
17 Q. Would you describe what information the field data provided?
19 A. A detailed description of the subsurface 20 material which was obtained from field exploration was 21 presented in PSAR Section 2.5.4.3. The basic formations 22 of the subsurface materials were identified as Beaumont, 23 Montgomery, Goliad, and Fleming formation. The undisturbed 24
    ~
1      samples extracted from these formations were subjected 2      to laboratory static and dynamic tests to investigate 3      their strength characteristics, compressibility under 4      heavy load and dynamic properties.                                                      The results of the 5      laboratory tests, along with engineering interpretations, 6      were presented in PSAR Section 2.5.6 and indicate high 7      shear strengths and low compressibility.                                                        This data 8
con' firms that ACNGS is founded on soils which are more h
9 than capable of sustaining the loads to be imposed.
Q. Please describe the basic subsurface soil 0
char        =    s and analyses performed for the reactor builc_-3 .vandation.
A. The Reactor building mat foundation will rest en the Montgomery formation of predominately very dense and highly compact granular sand ma*.erial with occasional overconsolidated clay leyers appearing at the lower 16                                                                                                                .
portion of the formation.
17 The mat foundation is to be placed on the                                          '
18 very dense and highly compact Montgomery sand formation 2.9 around elevation 104, which is about 28 feet below 20 established plant grade.                                                      The maximum allowable bearing 21 pressure for the reactor mat foundation design is 10 22 kips per square foot (ksf) under the static loading conditions. The mat foundation has a safety factor 24
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ _                                  )
 
  -    o 1
2    greater than 20.        Normally a safety factor of 1.5 is 3
considered acceptable.        A discussion of the method used and the design parameters for the analysis have been 4
5 Presented in PSAR Section 2.5.4.10.1.
Most of the settlement resulting from the consolida-tion of the granular material under loads will take place during the construction of the reactor building.
Based upon consolidation test results and the effective 9
imposed building load, the total settlement was calculated 10 to be on the order of one (1) inch or less.
11 Q. What are your conclusions concerning this 12 Board Question?
13 A. The Applicant has evaluated the subsurface
          ^4 1
soil conditions.        On the basis of detailed test borings, 15 geophysical exploration and extensive laboratory testing 16    programs in conjunction with the structural requirements            .
17    imposed by the buildings, the reactor building may be 18    safely constructed on an earth-supported, reinforced 19    concrete mat foundation.
20 21 i
22 23 24
                                          -            -    . _ . . - - - - - . _ .}}

Latest revision as of 16:46, 28 January 2020

Transcript of Wf Mercurio Testimony on Behalf of Applicant Re ASLB Question 8 (Reactor Bldg Subsurface Soil Mechanics)
ML20009E294
Person / Time
Site: Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date: 07/20/1981
From: Mercurio W
EBASCO SERVICES, INC., HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20009E295 List:
References
NUDOCS 8107280014
Download: ML20009E294 (4)
v • d • e


Text

.

.. July 20, 1981 1

f, "s 2 ,l~ a m '

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

.7 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,, 2 msi r k 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 7 5

In the matter of ) he fy. k

, g' "

6 ) N "-

HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY ) Docke h.

7 (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating

} D 6-A L

1 Station, Unit No. 1)

)

) ~3 o1 b7atc T

'h YI 9

\D.

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM F. MERCURIO ON BEHAkF 10 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY ON BOARD QUE 8 RELATING TO ACNGS REACTOR BUILDING SUBSURFACE

]W 11 SOIL MECHANICS 12 Q. Mr. Mercurio, please state your name and 13 business address and describe your educational and 14 professional experience.

15 A. My name is William F. Mercurio, and my business 16 address is Ebasco Services, Inc., 2 World Trade Center, 17 New York, N.Y. I have previously discussed by position 13 and background in connection with my testimony on 19 Biship Contentions 5, 7, 9 and 10.

20 A. The purpose of this testi:t)ny is to address 21 Board Question 8 which requests evfdence regarding the 22 ability of subsurface soil to support the ACNGS reactor 23 building. Soil mechanics rather than subsidence is of 24 concern here with respect to avoiding unacceptable settling of heavy structures.

8107280014 810720 Q303 PDR ADOCK 05000466 S T PDR l[f

a -

a 1

2 Q. What types of analyses verify the settling.

3 characteristics of soil with respect to soil mechanics?

4 A. Static settlement analyses are used to estimate 5

the anticipated relative vertical displacements of 6 structures supported by soil. Soil mechanic theoretical 7 ,

calculations coupled with actual soil property test 8 data verify the soil settling characteristics.

9 Q. Would you briefly describe how the underlying 10 materials at the ACNGS site were observed?

11 A. Geophysical surveys and borings were.used to 12 obtain field dsta for the development of subsurface 13 cross-sections. The locations of all borings, geophysical y4 surveys, observai'on wells and proposed excavations, as well as plant structures, are shown on PSAR Figures la-2.5.4-5A, SB and SC. PSAR Section 2.5.4 provides a ,

detailed discussion of data collection and observations.

17 Q. Would you describe what information the field data provided?

19 A. A detailed description of the subsurface 20 material which was obtained from field exploration was 21 presented in PSAR Section 2.5.4.3. The basic formations 22 of the subsurface materials were identified as Beaumont, 23 Montgomery, Goliad, and Fleming formation. The undisturbed 24

~

1 samples extracted from these formations were subjected 2 to laboratory static and dynamic tests to investigate 3 their strength characteristics, compressibility under 4 heavy load and dynamic properties. The results of the 5 laboratory tests, along with engineering interpretations, 6 were presented in PSAR Section 2.5.6 and indicate high 7 shear strengths and low compressibility. This data 8

con' firms that ACNGS is founded on soils which are more h

9 than capable of sustaining the loads to be imposed.

Q. Please describe the basic subsurface soil 0

char = s and analyses performed for the reactor builc_-3 .vandation.

A. The Reactor building mat foundation will rest en the Montgomery formation of predominately very dense and highly compact granular sand ma*.erial with occasional overconsolidated clay leyers appearing at the lower 16 .

portion of the formation.

17 The mat foundation is to be placed on the '

18 very dense and highly compact Montgomery sand formation 2.9 around elevation 104, which is about 28 feet below 20 established plant grade. The maximum allowable bearing 21 pressure for the reactor mat foundation design is 10 22 kips per square foot (ksf) under the static loading conditions. The mat foundation has a safety factor 24

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ _ )

- o 1

2 greater than 20. Normally a safety factor of 1.5 is 3

considered acceptable. A discussion of the method used and the design parameters for the analysis have been 4

5 Presented in PSAR Section 2.5.4.10.1.

Most of the settlement resulting from the consolida-tion of the granular material under loads will take place during the construction of the reactor building.

Based upon consolidation test results and the effective 9

imposed building load, the total settlement was calculated 10 to be on the order of one (1) inch or less.

11 Q. What are your conclusions concerning this 12 Board Question?

13 A. The Applicant has evaluated the subsurface

^4 1

soil conditions. On the basis of detailed test borings, 15 geophysical exploration and extensive laboratory testing 16 programs in conjunction with the structural requirements .

17 imposed by the buildings, the reactor building may be 18 safely constructed on an earth-supported, reinforced 19 concrete mat foundation.

20 21 i

22 23 24

- - . _ . . - - - - - . _ .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20009E294&oldid=2336324"