ML20198F360
| ML20198F360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1974 |
| From: | Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Deyoung R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0946, CON-WNP-946 NUDOCS 8605280487 | |
| Download: ML20198F360 (17) | |
Text
- %
JAN 2 4 1974 R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director for LWRs, Group I, L Q-1 GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING PLANT NAME: WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1 LICENSING STAGE: CP DOCKET NUMBER: 50-460 RESPONSIBLE BRAN CH : LWR #3-1 REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE: 1/14/74 APPLICANTS RESPOJSE DATE NECESSARY FOR NEXT ACTION PLANNED ON PROJECT: 3/1/74 DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE: Answers to Q-1 REVIEW STATUS: CP Enclosed are our Q-1 comments regarding the geological, seismological and foundation engineering aspects of the subject site. The comments were prepared by Dr. L.
Heller, Corps of Engineers Waterways Expe riment Station, and S. Coplan and R. McMullen, Site Analysis Branch, AEC-L.
DISTRIBUTION:
L-Docket L-Rdg File- [ 0m.
d.li. Dacu 2 3y L-SAB Harold R. Denton, Assistant Director L-AD/SS for Site Safety Directorate of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: w/o enclosure A. Gianbusso W. Mcdonald J. Panzarella A. Kenneke SS BCs 8605280487 DR 740124 cc: w/ enclosure ADOCK 05000460 PDR S. Hanauer J. Hendrie K. Coller R. Elecker T. Cox D. Eisenhut R. McMullen J. Carter S. Coplan S. Varga / nil 4}ld
,y ,,, L:SAB L:SAB L ;SA( L:AD/S) ,
c.6i, p7 p + t. - 9 oven e, RMcMullen 1 c: Renn1en Uf> W 111 Mpnn I_f n n__. .. __ ,
we, 1/23/74 1/23 /74 1/'/u/74 1] f74 ,, _ _ _ ,
p anc.ns es, m ascu one see cas se ==***i***-=*=
L-
UPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT N9. 1 DRAFT Q-1 CEOLOGY AND FO UN D AT IO:: E: CINEERlNC i
liASIC GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC INFORMATION 2.5.1 Section 2.5.1.2(2)(K) page 2.5-13, 3rd paragraph. It is stated that Taubeneck (Ref. 20) does not believe the Rattlesnake-Wallova Lincament is a zone of crustal rotation because the Grande Ronde-Cornucopia dike swarn is not offset. Cite the specific evidence and discuss the extent of the field investigations that were carried out to reach this conclusion.
2.5.2 Page 2.5-22, 6th paragraph nentions sliding caused by, among other things, adverse dip of bedding planes. Uhcre are these located and what accounts for the adverse dip?
2.5.3 Page 2.5-41, last paragraph, and Fig. 2.5-12. Uhat technique was used to deternine the acount that BH-1 deviated from the vertical.
2.5.4 Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, "Scisnic and Geologic Siting Criteria," requires the selection of an 03E. Deternine
and provide the basis for an OBE.
2.5.5 Page 2.5-57, paragraph 2.5.4.5 states that all Category I structure excavations will be logged and mapped.
Additionally, the Regulatory staff should be notified when excavations are complete and a field map has been prepared so that geologists can examine the geologic features exposed in the excavations.
2.5.6 Page 2.5-24, 1st paragraph. Discuss the seismic significance of the evidence of tilting of interbedded volcanic ash within the past 10,000 years.
2.5.7 Page 2.5-39, paragraph viii discusses Kettle-like depressions which appear to have been formed by the subsidence of gravel into holes left by buried melting ice masses. Do any of these features lie under or adjacent to Category I facilities.
If so, discuss the seismic s tability of the near surface gravels.
2.5.3 Page 2.5-23, parcsraph (ix). Discuss the slaulficance of the clastic d i k e .s which occur in the Pasco Gravels with
respect :o their p o s s ib le formation by the upuard inj ec tion of grouncuater due to earthquake shaking.
2.5.9 Page 2.5-47, sectibn 2.5.2.3, and page 2.5-23, para, i:
Discuss :he conclusion stated in this paragraph in light of the possible origin of the clastic dikes suggested b*,
Jones and Deacon. tiav e clastic dikes been encountered on the site?
2.5. 10 Page 2.5-29, first paragraph, states that fanglomerate naterials that is correlated uith the Ellensburg formation lies undisturbed across breccia zones of the Untanua Fault.
Show the location of this zone. What is the basis for correlating tha fanglomerate with the Ellensburg formation?
2.5.11 Discuss :he naximu,. earthquake which could be associatac c f
.e i th tha Rattlesnaka-Valluis lineament in the context the length of the structure, its relationship to region al tectoni: structures, and the nature, anount, and geologic history of displacementa along the structure.
2.5.12 Iages L.I-50, 2.5-51, and 2C-2 _hrough 2C-22. The a5 re
e of conclusive evidence for the age of last movement of the Saddle Mountain faults, along with the possible relationship between this structure and: (1) the 1918 Corfu earthquake; (2) several microcarthquake epicenters; and (3) the October 25, 1971 earthquake, suggest that the Saddle be Mountain Faults could/ regarded as " capable" as defined by the AEC Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria. Either provide evidence demonstrating that it is not capable, or evaluate a maximum associated earthquake in accordance with Appendix A to 10 CFR Par t 100.
STABILITY OF SUBSURFACE MATERIALS 2.5.12 Page 2.5-59, last 2 paragraphs. Describe the dewatering s y s t e t.' during c ::c av a t i o n . Lowering the water table only 2 feet belov foundation levels may not be adequate.
IJhy was 2 feet selected? Provide assurance that f o unda tion soils will not be disturbed.
2.5.13 is Gibbs Holtz relationship / relative d e n s i t y /a t best good only where determined. A new rela,tionship needs to be developed for each site and for each type of uuterial.
'i a s the SPT/RD relationsh'ip checked by other L echni q ue s ?
2.5.14 Was intake structure designed for er against uplift forces in event of PMF?
2.5.15 Figure 2.5-40. What kind of relative density would be achieved by 97% cinimum compaction.
2.5.16 Sec'. ion 2.4.8.2, page 2.4-13. As there is no Category I reservoir planned at the site, dis:uss the, availability of safe shutdown cooling water in the event that the Columbia River is blocked or dive r:ad by landslides or faulting.
2.5.17 Section 2.4.11.2 and 2.4.11.3. Dis:uss the seisnic design of redundant equipment at Priest Rapids Dam that ensures a continued supply of water to the nu: lear service water intake in the event of an SSE.
2.5.13 Figurc 2.4-22. b'e question the adequacy of placing redundant Category I nuclear servita water pipelines in t h.e same trench. Demonstrate tha: :he scismic capab i li t y
of both pipelines vill not be inpaired by mechanistic ,
type failures such as leaking, missiles, etc.
2.5.19 Figure 2.5-18. What are expected groundwater levels at maximun flood on the Columbia River? Discuss how these levels were used in.the design of the foundations and wells of the Category I structures.
2.5.20 Fig. 2.5-40. The " relative compactien" definition is often called " percent compaction." Demons rate by test fills that soil to be used for backfill can be compacted to the required degree of compaction with a vibratory compactor.
2.5.21 Figure 2.5-47, Note number 3. Were aximum, average, or minimum elastic moduli used for settlements estinates?
2.3.22 Fig. 2.5-50. Discuss the lateral earth pressures developed by the vibratory compaction of the 'ackfill
- against structures.
2.5.23 Section 2.4.5.7, page 2.4-11. De s c rib e the analyses that predicted the stability of the 2 or _ slopes that support
the rip-rap placed on the wing ualls of the Category I intake structure.
2.5.24 Table 2.5-2. Ideu~.ify hole or holes from which data have been derived and in which there is variation of data from
+200 -
average (i.e. 850 -100 fps).
2.5.25 Section 2.5.2.4, page 2.5-47 and 2.5-47a.
a) Table 2.5-3 is an Illi intensity scale, not the properties of various soil units.
b) Compare settlement and differential settlement es t ica tes based on selected elastic moduli values to settlement computation based on soil penetration tests.
2.5.26 Page 2.5-48.
-2 a) Is 10 percent strain considered an. average range for the soils at the plant site under the SSE carthquake?
b) Show that the assumption of the smooth variation in shear modulus with depth, as presented on fig 2.5-19, will result in a conservative dynamic analysis.
2.5.27 Fig. 2.5-20. Give soil classification of s arap l e s tea t ed.
2_.5.28 Page 2.5-54. Can changing water _svals at the site saturate the sands and gravels well above :nt base of the Category 1 mats? If so, w il,1 these materials :1rtially or whole]y liquefy during an SSE. Discuss t 'n e affects on Category I facilities.
2.5.29 Section 3.7.1.3, page 3.7-2. Add
- a r c e n t" to the bracketed
-1 ~?
shear strain values (10 to 10 i.
2.5.30 Appendix 2F, fig 2a. Identify Apperiix, Table and page on which the log of the upper 536' of ::rehole Bli- 1 can be found.
2.5.31 Appendix 2F, Figs Sa-e. Micaceous : nes are present. Discuss settlenents and soil strengths of ri aceous zones.
2.5.32 Appendix 2K. Discuss and interpre: :he geophysical logs with respect to the variability o'f Engineering properties of the near surface and glacioflu.-iti deposits.
2.5.33 Appendix 20. Shou on Figures 12 ::: 13 er an additi_nal I
.s
_ 9 _
figure the fill and backfill plans for Category I nuclear service water conduits.
2.5.34 Appendix 20, page 20-A-2D. Were the crosshole exploration holes cased with steel casings before the crosshole tests were conducted?
2.5.35
. Appendix 20, page 20-A-21. Describe how representative samples uere obtained from the test pits and the methods used to determine in situ densities of the materials in these test pits. If in situ densities were not measured, give justification for omitting these measurements.
2.5.36 Fig. A-4. Indicata compression wave velocities and shear wave velocities on the same fig. List values of Poisson's ratio.
2.5.37 Section B.l.5, page 20-B-2. Discuss the nathod of obtaining the in situ density of the soils.
_2.5.38 Section B.4, page 20-1.-6 Disce s and tabulate the < tats
9 and evidence on which the " sand and gravel test specimen, uere rec:=pacted in the laboratory to relative densities believed :caparable to the in situ densities."
2.5.39 Section 2.4, page 20-E-7. Are the given values for shes strain equal to the maximus or average shear strain?
2.5.40 Figs 3-2: to B-30, c) Disc;ss the intent of the designation (DRY) and
( S A r U R.\T E D ) for these figs. Most figs indicate back pressure values for the tests, b) Prev'le plots of pore pressure versus deviator strea=
for saturated specimens, c) I!ou rany loading cycles were applied per second?
d) Only four loading cycles cre represented on these fi gs .
How many c/ cles of loading are expected during the SSE?
Section 3.7.3.1 indicates 20 cycles.
e) What is the basis for the chosen cyclic deviator strasses applied to the s p e c i.ne n s ?
2.5.41 -
Section 3.7.1.4, paga 3.7-2.
a) , Dis:aas the : s u ".1 site nnplification effects that ;: 5
expected for this site, b) Identify the locations in California, and the ;rrong-notion records obtained at these locations, where the soil and geological conditions are similar to those at the WPPSS site. Show that the response spectra for these locations fc11 below the Newmark, Blume, Kapur design spectra.
2.5.42 Section 3.7.1.6, page 3.7-2. Discuss the range of clas tic nodull that will be used in the lumped mass or finite element analysis of interaction effects.
2.5.43 Section 3.7.2.13, page 3.7-5. Discuss the dis t rib u t ic a of soil pressure acting on the Category I structures during overturning. Discuss raximum soil pressure deter-ninations.
2.5.44 Section 3.7.4.1, page 3.7-13. Connent: A th re e-c oap o n en t accelerograph should be located on the nearest rock out crop in order to determine the transmissibility of the so il at the site. The Gable Mountain on the Saddle Mountains ..l i g h t
~
be an appropriate location.
l
- 12 l
2.5.45 Section 3.8.5.1, page 3.8-75. Comment. The bottom of the e::c a v a t io n should be proof-rolled with a vibratory to11cr; in situ densitica before and after rolling should be measured and interpreted in light of the Category I foundation design.
2.5.46 Section 3.8.5.3, page 3.8-77. Discuss the expected settlements and differential settlement due to seismic loading during 03E and SSE earthquakes.
2.5.47 .
Section 3.8.5.4, page 3.3-78. Identify and describe the specific computer program (s) that will be used to a s s e .s s soil-foundation interaction during the SSE.
2.5.48 Section 3.8.5.5, page 3.8-79.
a) The safety factors against overturning and sliding are low considering the analysis assumptions and variability of the soil materials at t'h e site. Provide justification for these factors of safety.
b) Discuss the integrity of underground Category I piping and conduits 't h e n the sliding and o'verturning lords produce the stated safety factors.
l 13 -
2.5.49 '
Section 3.8.5.6, page 3.8-79.
Discuss or reference the quality control measures that will be taken for backfill soils.
2.5.50 Section 3.7.2.4, and 3.7.2.5, page 3.7-4.
Identify and describe the finite element programs that will be used to analyze rocking and translational motion and soil-foundation coupling for the Category I structures.
2 5.51 Section 3.7.2.13, page 3.7-5. Show that the resisting moment of the soil can be confidently determined to an accuracy or 10 percent.
2.5.52 Section 2.5.4.7, page 2.5-59a.
a) Fo r soils below the anticipated water table, reference data to show that the measured shear strength of these foundation soils, during repeated loading tests that simulate the environment imposed on these soils during the SSE, are conservative values , based on static soil tests.
b) Confirm the " dense character of the sands and gravel
o soils" by reference to in situ density measurements at the plant site. Give the range of measured densities. Gi ce the range of measured relative densities and describe 'r reference the nothod used to determine maximum and mininua densities. -
2.5.53 Section 2.5.4.8, page 2.5-60. .
a) Reference or discuss the laboratory tests which were performed to confirm the hypothesis that site soils within the gradation shoun on fig 2.5-44 are not liquefiable.
b) Discuss the reliability and conservatisn involved in using the Gibbs and Holta sand data for the soils encountered at the plant site. ' Shou that average in situ relttive density acasurecents above 50 ft depth are greater char 90 percent; also show that the average in situ relative density neasurements below 50 ft depth are greater t h e. r 90 percent.
2.5.54 Section 2.5.4.10, page 2.5-61, a) Comment: Plate bearing tests night be used to advantage in the excavations to confirm assuned modult.
and streagth values in these soils.
E=
b) Discuss the method of enlculating the settlement due to the SSE.
2.5.55 Section 2.5.4.10, page 2.5-60a. Des: ribe the method which will be used to determine soil pre s sures to evaluate safety factors against overturning.
2.5.56 Section 2.5.4.11, page 2.5-62, a) Since repeated loading triaxial :asts were performed on the foundation soils, discuss the reasons for using shear strengths based on static tests.
b) Did the it e r a t i ve procedure ussi to assess the dynamic lateral earth pressure take into a;::;nt the lateral dis-placements of the rigid structure due to coupled rocking and sliding? Was resonant rigid b.: dy mo tion of the structures considered?
c) Uhat are the lateral pressures dereloped on the structures due to overturning?
2.5.57 Section 2.5.5.2, page 2.5-63, a) What is the peak ground veloci:*; :orresponding to
~
the acc:lerogran shoun on fig 3.7-;
s b) Discuss the aciamic stability of the Category I intake structure. Ilo w much will it move during the SSE?
c) Discuss the seisnic safety of the nuclear servic e water conduits.-
2.5.58 Fig. 2.5-40. Type A and type B backfill should be compacted to a relative density of 85 percent or to the relative compaction criteria given on fig 2.5-40, whichever results in the greater dry unit tr e igh t of the backfill.
.