ML20141H188
| ML20141H188 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1997 |
| From: | Sorensen J NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9707220073 | |
| Download: ML20141H188 (2) | |
Text
__
Northern states Power Company 1717 Wakonade Dr. E.
Welch, MN 55089 Telephone 612-388-1121 July 10,1997 10 CFR Part 50 Section 50.90 U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Docket Nos. 50-282 License Nos. DPR-42 50-306 DPR-60 Supplement 10 to License Amendment Request Dated January 29,1997 Amendment of Coolina Water System Emeraency intake Desian Bases This letter transmits the Prairie Island responses to the NRC Request for Additional Information (RAI) dated April 11,1997 in support of the subject license amendment request. Attachment 1 contains the responses to the RAI questions.
A revised Safety Evaluation, Significant Hazards Determination and Environmental Assessment have not been submitted since these evaluations, as presented in the original January 29,1997 submittal and Supplement 5 dated March 11,1997, continue to bound the proposed license amendment as supplemented by this letter.
If you have any questions related to this supplement to the subject license
/
amendment request, please contact myself or Dale Vincent at 612-388-1121.
oel P. Sorensen Plant Manager, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (Attachment and copies listed on page 2)
$.$$.$$Nb.
9707220073 970710 ia DR ADOCK 050 Gg2
i USNRC 7/10/97 Pags 2 of 2
)
Attachments:
Affidavit 1.
Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Dated April 11,1997 c:
Regional Administrator-111, NRC NRR Project Manager, NRC Senior Resident inspector, NRC State of Minnesota Attn: Kris Sanda J E Silberg I
q O
I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET Nos. 50 282 50-306 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO OPERATING LICENSES DPR-42 & DPR-60 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST DATED January 29,1997 Amendment of Coolina Water System Emeraency Intake Desian Bases Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, by this letter dated July 10,1997, with Attachment 1 provides supplemental information in support of the subject license amendment request dated January 29,1997. Attachment 1 contains the responses to the NRC request for additional information dated April 11,1997.
This letter and its attachments contain no restricted or other defense information.
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY By Ak dotsi P. Sorensen 0
Plant Manager Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant On this IO day of
~3 u I l9C before me a notary V
public in and for said County, personally appeared, Joel P Sorensen, Plant Manager, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, and being first duly sworn j
acknowledged that he is authcrized to execute this document on behalf of Northern
)
States Power Company, that ne knows the contents thereof, and that to the best of j
his knowledge, information, and belief the statements made in it are true and that it
{
is not interposed for delay.
ht kA1A1 a
i i
i DALE M, VINCENT h07ARY Pgetec.htmetSOTA j ;
DAKOTACOUNTY LI....... _ f,Cemmestee Egbes Jan. H.
l ATTACHMENT 1 l
SUPPLEMENT 10 to LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST DATED January 29,1997 Amendment of Coolina Water System Emeraency Intake,Deslan Bases Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Dated April 11,1997 Question 1:
In the staff's first request for additional information (RAI), you were requested to explain why the Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) were not extended to the depths approximately 43 feet (EL 645) to 46 feet (EL 648) below the grade, and how you are certain that there are no liqueflable soil layers below 46 feet (EL 648). You provided a reason (e.g., high refusal at the cone of the CPT device) during the meeting on February 24,1997, and indicated you are certain that there are no liquefiable soll layers below EL 648 based on the CPT. However, a figure (Drawing No. 216197)in the Prairie Island Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) shows a liquefaction level from EL 645 (West) to EL 620 (East) under the intake canal. Because of this, you installed the intake pipe line from EL 637 (West) to EL 618 (East) below the liquefaction level. Explain the basis for identifying the liquefaction level in the FSAR and indicate whether you have recently performed j
enough SPT borings to identify liqueflable soll below elevation 648 under the intake canal and embankments.
Response
To determine that liquefaction potential does not exist below El. 647, we have performed additional SPT test borings since our meeting on February 24,1997. We have collected the following information which demonstrates non-liquefaction susceptible material below Elevation (El.) 647.
STS reviewed and corrected SPT blowcount data from 23 borings performed along the canal slopes, crest and canal base. Corrected (Ni)w data in natural soils beneath El. 647 (close to El. 648) show an average 15.2 blows per foot. See attached Fig. 43 showing (Ni)w data for natural soils i]eneath and adjacent to the intake canal.
STS reviewed and corrected Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blowcount data from four (4) borings located along the floor of the canal. Corrected (N )w blowcount data i
in compacted fill soils from El. 664 down to approximately 645 show an average of 51.6 blows per foot. See attached Fig. 44 showing (Ni)w data for compacted fill soils beneath the canal versus depth for the 1997 SPT explorations.
i 1
STS and Dr. Kenneth H. Stokoe,11, Ph.D., P.E. of the University of Texas at Auetin performed four 100 to 190 foot deep Spectral-Analysis-of-Surface-Waves (SASW) shear wave velocity profiles along the north, east and west sides of the landside canal. Computed minimum shear wave velocities below El. 648 were in excess of 850 feet per second indicative of medium dense sands. This compares with measured shear wave velocities in the range of 500 to 600 feet per second in the less dense sands from El. 671 to G74.5. The SASW test data is presented in the intake canal dynamic analysis report prepared by STS (Supplement 9 dated June 30,1997).
Northern States Power Company (NSP) has a design drawing (NF-38607-3),
construction photographs, letter reports and technical specifications which demonstrates that the excavation beneath the canal was backfilled with compacted granular soils. This data is incladed in Appendix N of the dynamic analysis report (Supplement 9 dated June 30,1997).
Our analyses indicate that soils beneath El. 648 have a factor of safety greater than 2.0 against seismic liquefaction using a Magnitude 5.0 earthquake.
STS reviewed the FSAR Appendix A report prepared by Dames & Moore, circa 1967 and understands the criteria for defining liquefiable sands at the site was based on converting standard penetration test (SPT) blowcounts to relative density (D,) using Gibbs and Holtz (1957) and Terzaghi and Peck (1960) correlation procedures. Dames
& Moore compared blowcount converted Dr values with an average computed cyclic stress ratio of 0.21 using a 10-second,0.12g acceleration,6 to 10 significant cycle design basis earthquake. Using this cyclic stress ratio, minimum required relative densities were computed using the equation t/ov = D,/200, assuming 10 cycles of eartnquake energy. To avoid liquefaction, Dames & Moore recommended that natural sand deposits from zero to five (5) feet should exceed a Dr of 31 percent and sands
]
should exceed a D,of 46 percent from 5 feet to approximately 50 feet below grade or El. 645. Figure 4.1 illustrates this concept on page 4.19 in the Dames & Moore (1967) report. Since 1967, there have baen many advancements in soil dynamics and soil liquefaction assessment. The use of relative density is no longer used by itself to define soil liquefaction potential since sands and silty sands have unique steady state strength relationships. Liquefaction evaluation is currently based on earthquake magnitude, state of stress, void ratio, grain size distribution, silt content, mate.ial angularity, SPT boring and CPT testing. To continue to use blowcounts co,verted to D,
)
as the criteria for predicting liquefaction would be an oversimp ification.st the current state-of-the-practice in liquefaction assessment.
2
l l
Question 2:
In the investigation of the intake canal embankments, two Standard Penetration i
Tests (SPT) were performed near the two CPT locations (i.e., B-3/C-3A and B-7/C-
]
7 borings). The results of N values obtained from the SPT and those calculated from the CPT data agree reasonably well for the B-7/C-7 boring although the CPT shows an unrealistically high N value at the depth of 12 feet (EL 682). However, the results of the SPT and the CPT do not agree very well for the B-3/C-3A borings. Particularly, the SPT results show smaller N values (i.e.,4 to 7) for the soil layer in the depth range of 10 to 20 feet (EL 684 to 674). The staff raised a concern about such low N values during the interaction meeting on February 24, 1997, because the soils may be susceptible to liquefaction. You indicated that there would not be a liquefaction problem since the soll layer b above the water table at EL 673.5 and the soils r te not saturated. However, you informed us during the conference call on March 3,1997, that the normal water elevation of the canal surface is at EL 674,5 and that you will be using that water level for a j
calculation of the water volume in the supplementary amendment.
The staff still has a concern about the liquefaction susceptibility of the soil layer considering: (1) the soils are already partially saturated due to the capillarity phenomenon, (2) possible full saturation due to the upward propagation of the pore water pressure from the bottom soll layer (below El. 674.5) during the seismic cyclic loading, and (3) full saturation of the soil layer due to a higher water table.
Response to the auestion thus far:
STS has performed a dynamic finite element and liquefaction analysis using a water level of El. 674. Based on U S. Army Corps of Engineers'(COE) data (1972 through 1995) for Lock & Dam Pool 3, the El. 674.0 is close to the average year round pool level, and only exceeded 45 percent of the year. The El. 674.5 pool, will be exceeded only 18 percent of the year, based on 23 years of historic river flow data. A copy of the COE Pool 3 headwater duration data is attached as Fig.10 to this response.
STS and NSP have excavated three (3) test pits (TP-1,2 and 3) along the north side of the canal slope to log soil stratigraphy, measure water contents and in-situ dry densities, collect soil samples for testing, and advance dynamic cone penetration tests. To address the capillarity question, we have reviewed the natural moisture contents measured in sampled soils from the test pits compared to the void ratio measured in the sands using sand cone and nuclear density test measurements. We conclude that capillarity rise effects will be less than 0.5 feet.
We have measured void ratios of the natural sand deposits between El. 673 and 674. This has allowed us to estimate the amount of excess water that could flow
(.
3 i
c.
upward into the partially saturated sands after a DBE event. We have performed i
one dimensional consolidation, triaxial shear and vertical permeability tests on sands recently recovered from the test pits to allow us to compute compression and re-compression ratios and thereby predict the amount of void ratio change and l
vclume of water available to raise the water table. We estimate this water rise to be less than 0.5 feet over and above capillarity rise.
. Based on May and early June 1997 temporary well (B-104) and piezometer (PZ-7) _
records over a five week period in the sandy soit next to the canal, the natural groundwater level generally match the Mississippi River and intake canal water level, with perhaps a 0.3 to 0.5 foot lag between the canal and well water level due to 1997 river flooding after the snow melt. See Figure 9 for a record of ground water levels next to the canal. To use a higher water table for seismic analyses would not be required based on the draft September 1977 Regulatory Guide 1.135, Section B i
that states the following:
'Since the design basis events have a very low probability of occurrence, the water table (or discharge) used in combination with the design basis event need not represent a condition with low probability of occurrence. As used in this i
guide, the term normal water level (or discharge) means that water level (or I
discharge) that has a probability of approximately 0.5 of occurrence at the time of interest."
For example, if we were to raise the navigation pool and groundwater level to El. 677, recognizing this would occur only 4.0 percent of the time during the year, the combined probability of a design basis earthquake at a sur,harge pool level would result in a return period of greater than 100,000 years, assuming the Magnitude 5.0 has a conservatively assumed 5,000 year return period.
Question 2. Continued.
... Provide a rationale for using the N values calculated from the results of CPT, using the relationship developed by Harza Engineering Company, instead of using the SPT N values actually obtained in the field, as is commonly accepted practice.
Response
STS is exclusively using SPT blowcount data for liquefaction studies and using CPT data only to stratify soil layers and water levels used in our dynamic analysis of the canal slopes. Therefore, the Harza relationship is not utilized in the current dynamic analysis.
4 i
'O Question 3:
In view of the discussions above in Questions 1 and 2, indicate whether you have a plan to do additional SPT borings, possibly with a small spacing interval between the borings and near the toe of the embankments and/or away from the toe on the floor of the canal to identify a liquefiable layer.
l
Response
l From March through May 1997 STS and NSP investigated the bottom, side slopes and foundation soils along the canal alignment using test pits to log stratigraphy, measure in-situ void ratios, advanced dynamic cone penetration probes to define zones of loose soil, and perform mud rotary SPT borings to obtain additional blowcount data to complement data from the 1967 and 1996 exploration programs. A total of twenty three (23) test borings have been advanced along the abutments, crest, side slopes and bottom of the canal. Three (3) excavated test pits along the canal side slope have allowed us to determine in-situ void ratios, dry density, water content and gather and test bulk soil samples for grain size, specific gravity, maximum and minimum densities and triaxial shear strength testing. Recent exploration locations are shown on Figure 1.
We have also performed four (4) deep penetrating SASW shear wave velocity tests to establish soil parameters for the finite element and slope stability models. Our recent program of subsurface investigations complemented the 1996 and 1967 exploration programs and enhanced our local SPT data base which was used to complete this dynamic analysis.
Question 4:
Your submittal (Reference 2) shows that there are two submerged guide walls in the intake canal near the screenhouse. Provide the following:
a)
The dimensions and the locations of the walls.
b)
Discuss the functionality of the walls with respect to the flow rate.
c)
The effects of the walls on the water flow if the embankment slope fails and fully or partially closes the gaps between the walls.
Response
j a)
The submerged guide walls shown in the March 10,1997 submittal ( Reference 2 of i
NRC RAI dated 4/11/97) have been relocated in a diamond shaped pattern on either side of a recently installed (June 1996) divider wall located approximately along the centerline of the canal. The new wall and relocated barriers are shown in the attached Barr Engineering Company drawings (Sheets G1, S1, S2, and S3). These drawings show the locations and dimensions of the barriers and the new wall.
l 5
i b)
The basic function of the new wall and the relocated old guide walls is to facilitate a
(
thorough mixing of the different streams of circulating water (turbine-generator l
condenser cooling) with varying temperatures so that the flow to each of the two l
Units is uniform and with same inlet temperatures. The divider wall and barriers have only a small influence on the flow rate to the extent that they occupy a small volume of the intake canal and provide slightly higher resistance to the flow.
c)-
The results of the dynamic finite element analysis of the canal embankment slopes show that the extent of soil movement during and after a Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) is less than one inch. Based on this result, there will be no blockage of the flow of cooling water to the screen house. The guide walls will have no significant effect on the water flow.
Question 5:
l In the meeting on February 24,1997, you indicated that the Prairie Island design basis ground motion is equivalent to a magnitude 4.5 earthquake. We have checked the relationship between earthquake intensity and magnitude which the NRC has used in licensing nuclear power plants and found that the Modified Mercalli intensity VI used for determining the Prairie Island design basis ground motion is equivalent to a magnitude 5.0 and not 4.5. Does the characterization of the design basis ground motion as a magnitude 4.5 earthquake rather than a magnitude 5.0 earthquake have an effect on your analysis?
Response
As a result of our meeting on February 24,1997, we adopted a Magnitude 5.0 earthquake for the dynamic analysis. The results of the analysis shows that the canal will not experience DBE liquefaction flow slides that might impair the functionality of the q
intake canal.
Question 6:
i Discuss how you could compensate for the entrainment of uebris and/or fine siltylsandy soil particles in the water when the embankment stuffs off and the bottom floor of the intake canal boils due to soll liquefaction, and the effect that would have on the cooling water pumps and heat exchangers.
Response
The results of the dynamic finite analysis conclude that there will be less than one inch displacement of the canal walls and no boils off of the canal floor. Therefore, the i
volumes of material, if any, that could be introduced into the canal waters following a 6
w-.
l i
j seismic event are minimal. However, to address the NRC question, introduction of embankment and/or canal bottom material into the canal will be assumed. For this i
response, it is also assumed that the embankment slide volume is not sufficient to render the canal inoperable.
j The first part of this response will address the likely embankment or canal bottom material that could reach the cooling water pumps. In order for material to be entrained in the canal waters, the particle sizes must be small enough to have not settled out or.
i of a size that can be transported along with the canal flow. Information on particle i
settling velocities in still water is provided in References 1 and 2. The information in these references was used to develop a relationship between particle size and still j.
water settling velocity. Particle sizes are classified according to the Unified Soil
[
Classification System (Reference 3). This information is summarized in Table 1.
!e
-Table 1 Particle Settling Velocities 4
k 4-Diameter of Particle (mm)
Particle Type Still Water Settling Velocity (fps) i l
> 4.75 Gravel
> 1.5 2 to 4.75 Coarse Sand 0.6 to 1.5 i
0.425 to 2 Medium Sand 0.15 to 0.6
.I 0.075 to 0.425 Fine Sand 0.02 to 0.15 r
< 0.075 Silt
< 0.02 i
1 l
For a canal depth of flow of 10 feet, settling times for the particle classifications used in
]
Table 1 can be estimated. Also a conservative (maximum) estimate of the distance along the canal that the particles would travel before settling out can be estimated using the canal water velocity of 0.065 fps. This velocity is based on a cooling water flow rate of 32,000 gpm and a canal cross sectional area of 1,100 ft'. Using the settling velocities provided in Table 1, the time for the particles to settle 10 feet and the maximum distance the particles would travel (based on a water depth of 10 feet) while settling are summarized in Table 2.
7
c I
Table 2 Particle Settling Times and Distances 1
I Particle Type Time to Settle 10 Feet Maximum Distance (seconds)
Traveled While Settling (feet)
Gravel
<7
< 0.5 Coarse Sand 7 to 17 0.5 to 1.1 Medium Sand 17 to 67 1.1 to 4.4 Fine Sand 67 to 500 4.4 to 33 Silt
> 500
>33 Based on review of Table 2, it is concluded that medium sand and larger particles will settle out within a short distance from their point of introduction into the canal. This conclusion applies for either the embankment slide or liquefaction mechanisms for i
introducing material into the canal. For the range of fine sand particles, the larger ones will also settle out and the finer ones could remain in the water column. Some portion of the lower end of the fine sand range and the silt, if dispersed into the water column, can reach the cooling water pumps. These conclusions are based on settling velocities in still water alone.
The canal velocity, at some material particle size, is sufficient to transport some of the particles. Based on information from Reference 4, particles below 0.25 mm in diameter can be transported by a canal velocity of 0.065 fps. Referring to Table 1, these size particles include the fine sands and silts. This information corroborates that presented in Table 2.
In order to resuspend settled material, flow velocities above about 0.7 fps are required (Reference 4). Since the velocity in the canal is well below the minimum required resuspension velocity, this mechanism of introducing soil material into the canal waters will not occur.
Grain size information on the canal embankment material is available from Boring B-3 which is located adjacent to the Intake Canal. Review of the grain size analyses for samples from this boring show both fine sands and silts are present in the soils.
Therefore, given the introduction of soil into the canal through slope failure or liquefaction, canal water containing these size particles can reach the cooling water pumps.
8
i g
4
[
i i
l Concerning embankment failures into the canal, the amount of material dispersed into the water column.would be only a very small fraction of the total slide volume.
i Furthermore, as discussed above, only the fine sands and silt portions of the dispersed material could reach the cooling water pumps'. Liquefaction of canal bottom material j
would be expected to disperse less material into the water column than an embankment slide. For this scenario, again, all but the finer sands and silts would settle out after a l
short trave _I distance. Any increase in suspended solid content of the canal cooling i
water reaching the cooling water pumps would be limited to a relatively short period of l
time..
i l
[
Organic material introduced into the canal due to'an embankment failure would be
[f
. expected to mostly remain with the embankment slide. The root mass and attached soils would tend to preclude migration of this material away from the embankment slide.
Given the size and number of the traveling screens, no more than a small fraction of the surface area would be expected to clog following embankment failure due to introduced organic material. No significant organic material would be expected to be
{
introduced into the canal waters for the condition of liquefaction of the canal bottoms.
The fine sands and silts which reach the cooling pumps are the same particle sizes as those which are routinely pumped from the Mississippi River, although the concentrations of suspended solids could be higher than normal for a short duration.
The cooling water pumps are designed to pump watar at the design flow rate assuming l
the water is strained through a 3/8" opening. The fine sands and silts will be within the design assumptions. (There is additional discussion of debris entrainment in j.
Supplement 5, Dated March 11,1997, Section 1.E.)
i I-In conclusion, the amount, if any, of entrained soil material in the canal cooling waters following a seismic event is still under assessment. However, the impact of this material l
on the cooling water system performance can still be assessed. The results of the assessment show that only the fine sand and silt particles would be expected to reach the cooling water pumps. Little organic material or other suspended debris would be expected to reach the traveling screens. Given the size and number of the screens, clogging due to this organic material should not be a problem. For a short period of l
time, the suspended solid levels in the cooling water could increase over those typically l
in the water. This increase would be due to introduction and dispersion of soil into the E
cooling water due to embankment sliding or canal bottom liquefaction. The cooling l
water pumps will not be adversely affected by this increase in suspended solids.
i Cooling water system flow velocities are much higher than those in the canal and i
therefore, any material reaching the pumps will settle out at an even lower rate in the cooling water system components. Therefore, no compensatory measures beyond those currently in the procedures are required during the period when the plant reduces heat load and transitions from the canal to the pipe in the river for plant cooling water i
requirements.
1 W
i
References for Response to Question 6 1.
The Water Encyclopedia, Data from American Water Works Association, Second Edition, Lewis Publishers,1990.
2.
Water Quality and Treatment, A Handbook of Public Water Supplies, prepared by The American Water Works Association, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill,1971.
3.
An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Holtz and Kovacs, Prentice-Hall, 1981.
4.
Stratigraphy and Sedimentation, Krumbein and Stoss, Second Edition, W.H.
Freeman and Company,1963.
5.
NUREG/CR-5210, Technical Findings Document for Generic Issue 51:
Improving the Reliability of Open-Cycle Service-Water Systems, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, August 1988.
6.
Tuthill, A.H., Sedimentation in Condensers and Heat Exchangers: Causes and Effects, Power Engineering, June 1985, pp 46-49.
Question 7:
With respect to the ongoing dynamic analysis for the slope stability, you are requested to consider the following:
a) if a single artificial time history is generated from the design response spectra defined in the FSAR, demonstrate the adequacy of the artificial time history including a calculation of power spectral density function of the artificial time history.
b)
If multiple (at least four) time histories are generated from the design response spectra defined in the FSAR, develop four response spectra using the four artificial time histories generated and demonstrate that the response spectra envelopes the licensing basis design response spectrum.
c)
Provide the four response spectra developed from the four artificial time histories, and compare with the design response spectrum of the FSAR.
Response
For the dynamic analysis, we have used two artificial time histories, with a small cross arrelation factor (0.22), developed from the design response spectrum for 5% damping 10 l
l
=.
o l
l defined in the FSAR. These two time histories (time step = 0.01 seconds and duration of 10 l
seconds) have been appropriately scaled to simulate the DBE ( 0.12g horizontal ZPA and l
0.08g vertical ZPA) in the horizontal and vertical directions.
l Power spectral densities for the above two time histories were developed based on the l
procedure described in the Standard Review Plan 3.7.1, Appendix A and the calculational procedure is described in the intake Canal Liquefaction Analysis, Appendix P (Supplement 9, Dated June 30,1997). The NSP submittals, Supplement 3 dated March 7,1997 and Supplement 8 dated April 29,1997 to License Amendment request, include the PSD curves for these two time histories.
l NSP has not utilized multiple time histories in the dynamic analysis of the canal slopes.
Therefore, in our opinion, parts b) and c) of this question do not apply.
l Attached Figures and Drawings:
1.
Figure 43, SPT Corrected Blow Counts, (Ni)w 2.
Figure 44, SPT Corrected Blow Counts, (Ni)w for Compacted Fill
~ 3.
Figure 10, Annual Pool Elevation 4.
Figure 9, Canal Surface vs. Groundwater Elevation 5.
Figure 1. Soil Boring Location Diagram 6.
Dwg NF-172458-1 (Barr Engr Dwg Sheet G1) 7, Dwg NF-172459-1 (Barr Engr Dwg Sheet S1) 8.'
Dwg NF-172459-2 (Barr Engr Dwg Sheet S2) 9.
Dwg NF-172459-3 (Barr Engr Dwg Sheet S3) 11
e STS Interpretation - Stratigraphy A>, rage 680 (N ).= 6.8 j
co o
i
~U
^
El.674' 670 o
El.671' a
e
,4 D
A X o
660 Averageo j Medium Dense Sand (N ).= 12.7 l l
8 i
a is
- A 0
l 650 d '
E'*
e oi 6
+
El. 647' fsp a
- {6 Ak 0 **
j 640 S
a l Average A
x g %,0 3
O P 630
.' (N')* = 15 *'
O b
4m ;a oOCA [
Medium Dense Sand E20 I.
b O
S0 go.g x
3o a-El. 6F
- K) m 4 +
U, 610 a*
{g x'
b
,600
+a m
, x !x x, { e x SPT Borings:
i 590
+
rr--
580 i
C 570 a7
+
Medium Dense To
+
[ Average Dense Gravelly Sand
@llE 560 8::
550
! ~
e$$
i C;
540 I$$
i U
l U~
530 j
I 1
520 I
f.
El. 515' 510 l
Weathered Sandstone 500 I
l l
0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 CORRECTED ELOW COUNT, (N,),,
Notes: 1. (N )eo values in fill from CF Borings between Elev. 663' to 645', CS-101 between Elev. 668' to 671' i
and B-6 between Elev. 669' and 674' are not included and are summarized in Figure 44.
1 1
- 2. (N ),o values > 30 not included in calculating Average (N,)eo.
i l
) SRAWN BY LMP 5-30 97 i
SPT CORRECTED BLOW COUNTS,(N )60 i
CHECKEo BY TAK 5-30-97 illTAKE CANAL LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS APPROVED BY WHW 5 30-97 l
A PRAla!F ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
ilG43 PPT kTS STS Consultants, Ltd' STS P" T No. FIGURE No j
Consulting Engin+ers WELCH, MINNESOTA 28723-A l
l l
1
l STS Interpretation Stratigraphy l
680 i
O El.674' 670 g
o 660 "I +
A
+3 Am!
8 I
650
+
5 a
i El. 645' 640 Average (N,).= 51.6 630 Medium Dense Sand 620 610 600 590 SPT Borings:
2
-~, CFf00-f
' s CF101 W 580 CF102 A,CF103 o B-6 570 x CS-101 Mediurn Dense To 560 Dense Gravelly Sand 550 540 530 520 El. 515' 513 Weathered Sandstone 500 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 CORRECTED BLOW COUNT,(N,),
DRAWN BY LMP 6-1-97 SPT CORRECTED BLOW COUNTS,(N )so i
CHECKED By TAK 6 1-97 FOR COMPACTED FILL APPROVED BY MlW 6-1 97 1
PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT
"$1G44. PPT YTs STS PROJECT NO_
FIGURE NO.
sis Consultants, Ltd.
WELCH, MINNESOTA Consultina Enaineers 26723-A 44
681.5 -
681.0 680.5 680 0 679 5 679.0 678 5 Ea
% 678 0 Q
.* 677.5 i5
- 677.0 af cf 676 5
.9 y 676.0 e
G 675 5 oo 675 0 g,
PINGP NMP Elev. 674.5' 674.5 674 0 _._____.*._._.....___.._.___._
STS Analysis Elev. 674.0*
e 673.5
........l.
....t.
.....A 673.0 i
I I
672 5 I
672.0 I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Annual Percent At or Above Pool Elevation, %
3 9
,o e g
ANNUAL POOL ELEVATION DRAWN BY LMP 6-1-97 a
a Cf E yy $j INTAKE CANAL LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS CHECKED BY TAK 6-1-97 o
z r- '
g gy yy A
PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT APPROVED BY WHW 6-1-97
~
z C
iF o sTs con.unant, tid.
WELCH, MINNESOTA CADFILE consuitina Enain.r.
S
. m o
a a
m m
7 7
7
=
9 9
9 m
0 0
0 r
r 2
2 2
e e
t t
5 5
5 e
e c
m m
m s
o l
o4 P
K W
a z7 z0 iZ a ie1 M
A H
- n e
L T
W PPC PB 79 Y
/
Y B
5 B
D
/
Y 6
B D
E E
V N
K O
W C
R i.
A E
P R
H P
D c
A u
7 m
9
/
1 3
/
5 N
O T
w I
N
=
T S A 7
A I
L 9
V S P
/
6 E Y 2
L L G
/
N 5
E A I
m R N T E A A T N R A A O E T WI N O T E S 7
D C G E 9
N A N
/
U F R 1
N 2
O E A I
/5 R U E M G Q L E
I C H T
L U C S
A V L N L D
A E
E N D 7
C N W A
9 A
6 F C A
/
4 L
R E I
1
/
S 5
U K E
S A I
m L T R A N IA I
N R
A P
7 C
9
/
1 y
1
/
5 I
._ L e
S E
S Y._ V 7
d.
_E 9
r i
L t, n
.L
/
A_R 6
s
/
ten N.E 5
na n A_T A
itE ua S
_A
.n T._ W n m o
S c us sn To sc 7
=
9 "y 5
/
"y m
1
/
0 9
8 7
6 5
4 3
2 5
=
8 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 gg
=
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 a
'm<, '3
$P<gJw gE zg gkz
=
=
y e
5 z
gel-4,
- f* A!.4 j
s E 2.355.500 d
B i.l.j!q!
.h R$
1 i Hf ll ge g
y ga fr 1
l
\\\\
sc
(~
f--c?
s
=
re.
7
%= Ei k.
k u
9 k T*y Q
- ~1.
s
,..I y
..y 1(
s 0
j r'
y w
/
h Sh h.?
~~
'b
~y 1L g
c --
L 5
si E 2.356.000 h
m Ns
's
?
1 C 33 k
1=
T'
'[
' ills */
~
c37,OiSLOPE3d 3
I Q
..; 5 k
1 E5 s I
Pj f
/[w s
P
[
$$ b r
,/
co l
f I
/
\\
w I
og a- -- "-
"/
ESg l
+.
\\
,_I g,
~8 I
4
)l\\il\\I%
1
==-
~
}
h
-~-
x'm M l
4 Ayk
(
d ;i
% w
_=w=_
k E 2.336.300
~~~
~
j
'~~~~
( ;
I
- y-a
\\...'
l\\ hg i
w i
~~~
{
,w
- \\
- v:
+s
++,
..s
/ ~\\
fl $\\
Y r
\\
' '\\.
- . Q A t s; a- -n 5 5kS5
!!!?
5555 5 kyg* k V$'hk g
1,%i !!l'-
y,
,nIla !, !,l
- -se,,,-,,_
IF5 I
2Ey inTAptc,o,REuSN!"oE*AE^ths ste 6
w f
6-2-97 PRAIR!E ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERAtlNG PLANT O
8, >,j gg a
E g
WELCH. 2NNESOTA m
m,,,w.g
,; 3 g.,,
.,,.g2,
a e%
ww i
i i
=
i NF
.h l'
l N
. g~ g i
yg ip g
Ej r[
l3l u
8-
=! g ;,
Tri 2
i 1.;;
e li y li l,mm p 8.,
l-)i g..:, -li s;i
- l li laE w
i r-l It gj l
g:
g i
+
..a ll l
,/ j l
.}i g~
'il'~""
1 i, Ltd d
h li,
'g
&r k e n \\e se L
5,1>
i d
d, Eg I
/
4 h
l l
n\\
((('
A l.~a x
i l
g Q.
q% "
/j::
~g
!l'N\\)y "llh
![,
N 4 iL') ) ;!I
,hl li
?
'h p;
t 1
hI ', !. l...
I i
.i
. m.
]
i 1
i
.t\\\\!@it/ h
, k i
"f 11 a
i 9
A
\\, i.
,m, ii m
. s.
- u) i
.jf.
I 0
1
!!!!!I
. ~%%
x
. -=
N
- s L.._!
x i
o j
u l
w o
l u
I e
I e
l
$?[
nt.,
.$ e l:< 3 yp 3. '
j r.
e I
w I
I W
w t
w I t get.m t
m f
bb I
Jll
- .1 g
g I
}.
l al l J I
lds -
1 l
I ln fik
~~
jdf,. d l l
Tc i
[
'iffa gj s
k i
si e'
s r,,.
e i
1 l
f
.a 3
g
\\'
I e
i Ii l
1 g
/
i s
n i
t h
I
[j~
W i
p s
E e
l 3
1 i
u l
I M$
8
!: '- \\
', i Ol ?.'
d
_3' -Ilh'!
t..
i y
i g3 lisi V
o s
i i
\\
e 8
e-i
- 4 i
l-1..'
?
I
- li 1
i e
E3 l
i
)a li n0 I
-1 8,s i
g i
i r
i Ei' l
1 O
i l
t I
1 g
i f:[,{l.
d l
e g
g I
l q,
i lp u
e I
i; i
t.
i 1
I t
- i %
\\
f l
s '
N,.
~
\\
[h.yd I
l g[i
- '::I s
l
\\
l Ef s
pl s
pffK
""'j
-i GN yy.[ i z
l o
l w
I w
o I
u 1
m i
e
$[.
c.9 l
t' Shi!
l
- - - -. ~
l
~.. _
se
- )
. ~.....,,
- l 1 l}l[!g j
.f l't
~l y
g I
tb k lh'!!lI y' Ii! j \\i 'i j !
l1
'liI a
I!nlii.!!kl l lig%
N j ll-l k;li[k.g!
.! bit[u!!l Ii i
h; IIh!lll!!--, el!l, fj;,lllI I a...,,w,,,, ' W llilat i
i i
y@g
--...='
y) inq p,
p y
,i,,
s l
l
.,j al l
l
~
l,
- g<
~
.J' uj n I
a W
%U s
1 J
1:;
ili p' J,
g s
y-d 1
/
g.-! nlM o; ;
v
- =?=========Q g::t tt aljus g:.I J
,f M1 g -'
s x
qlg
- I g
l
- 9w;; g
]
3 e
is lgl j
l w 9(lf E.. p I
li Rs g
g.,
N,
j
- l. aN g.
l
. g..:a g-i '::::i 2 2%
g l.. fm
- 3 j2
=:
b, tr" /
' N Il M
kl I
DI
- i gj
- --__l i
- lR
.In 1
i
+
o I
a l
.., _.. ~ ~., _,....... -
pk y
^
I l
1:
i 3._
j[u I-
,g'N INi$)
V \\ *"
g I lt.l\\.-. r b
"%-> %,l :i i
u,g
-c..
.ij
]
lgl
[
l 4-
- Sj 5.iO_
E.:
l gl 4
gj i
p 3
Y
,d 69 h.
j.:.
9,T3;,
"?
i I
l 5
lii
- j -
w (ad u n,,} lh g
-i 5;<:
ii i
i ll b@d bi 1, y fM
,y ' ~: *;i33 n
r hi
,ILh
-4 lll
.k g' j l 1,,
84 r ">
gf>I1}l..
- J :i t
l-F g
l j
8; s
l l
~
i i
i T_
1l
+
e
,n.
1
,% - y lpi
.g g,
r
+
!s {$ )
g 3
s.
y
!s G is- --9 tip je*
f,::
8 3
e e 4
,r/
vg 9.:
- 4g f
g.:
!!j,g4 ig
,f.'. T.
4 vv I
, n l
i
~
r ipL i
g g
jl mr__ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ r 3
p.
. u.a I
l J
I ql 5..
l 3
4 _ _ _~ ~ ~ ~_ _-~ ~ ~
~ ~ - ~ ~
r g,
g..;
t r
__i ig';
1 i
7 g..
- i 17 gg I N l-i i; 5
J E
% _ _ _ _,z _ _ _m 7;;
e D
I k
f f[
lg p'
I>
-e I
f I
g i
I' m
i i
i
y H
a l
a
/
j o
d
/
..a.
m ao *_
m e
Q F
W T
l
-._--J -
g :-:
l'
, \\p 1
4 o
4
-p i
E
/
{~ )
~-
~~
/
T a
,- /
{
g f [
t
\\
e g
swtirr lacetuL l
8 l
4p#
l ky 0
I f
\\
or oust unit A
2"L% *,
}
~ ~.
N W CEE'BS PFT l
E'II!n Wuo i
c
= lP.mW N
~~
k.
w h
h PLAN: O x
3CMI L B
a wm p.
---g E2?S-s vsw
,wo min _
Gaiurht Quemy the. us A
.-w 8
l 7
l 6
l 5
,JLL,
- =..
M.
4-t
/ sooc or muni
==
iri arcuesa
/
/
/
L l \\
tf e
/
I I
\\
l'~
~i7 i r on-uun== m x
E =y mm ElEVATIO.N: RP. RAP AN.D F1LTER
==L L hn" i
C
/
\\
Il
, w, s 11 s
e y
Emaiu u rwn V gQN ll irinnarcusex l
g rest A ir incor enusua no soumet
@ EIVAV,ON: CU,DE WA,U. UM RPRAP F
u--
.m FR. tut 99f4TDtIA4.
m -
,'[ /
I s
- ---,/-
I(
ir imear cues s
~ F l-g
/
Te oran===== 7
= =-
_1x i
Ew @ azvp0N: RPRAP,AND F1LTER
- w, -
~_
ANSTEC s
iAPERTURE m___. --
i
- v. x
__ CARD
~
% Avellable e
-~___-
~~
mac w==
g Aperture Card
,R ~~
s
_. ~.
(
. = =,==
x
~
m
=,=r.:
~
~
l mm mam i
n c
==
=
L 97072LCC73 C1
~
ni l
F ENVIRONMENTAL & MARINE SERVICES GRADING PLAN AND RIPRAP G1 DRIT SAY N00FICAll0NS 99CWOf r-use - rwa:isuum Nuctra coaATING PUNT i-
= =. "
! -!. !-!? MW m a m -,a e
een m"am"me 'u"msm enemme nas 7,."Mi
- - = -
4 I
a l
7 I
i
H w w mem 4
,==
""** =-
.-=-
[W W H l
/
/
G
/
(
I I
i T H T W gC h 0 h (
YE G I
1 l
T I
o aa,,a on n
n nn
~
wwdLU M i
_=
+
g A-etwW I
i g
3r coces Pqrt 0
'N
" man
'~~ ~
g gag sGUEDI taunt C
ll l
I h
h PLAN: GLN B,
I a nmme prrvuin asummes
.=====wr**==*====-
, me e omha M eeason W t[ Y ~_-
m a'n d.,e ti1,
H Ol@ey HWW m
A w~
8 I
7 I
e I
s
/
/
s--
- = a
/
r
/
/
/
/
I e
\\_
ANSTEC
=--
g,w APERTURE CARD F
cu m =
Also AvaltaWe on Aperture Card j
s N i r s
N'n mLJ4t_3 L
-h, a-smw E
.i ;
E=r
.am
.u.
).'
- ggg.
I I
r=" 1"lflll'"
/_____
EDGE W WAf1ER
[
T Z
T s
y O
\\. n a = =
\\
U e
-__m g
3 O
i s
~
\\
U t
FALL AND CUTomS
\\
s W
?
W
~
nonudnOL
-i
_v- -
$3T-ENVIRONMENTAL & MARINE SERVICES GUIDE WALL & FLOW CUT 0FFS S1 d%--
ne _ muu: mue nuctra comum m PLAN LAYOUT
=t!-"
-==
e ouma.u..gcunm
=E.
w-tS45
~~
4 l
3 l
2 l
1
r-e s ur r vr_=
H ratr-
-rstr
[
1
-Il en
. r-rk""u"'.N g
r j ?
If
- "3 n
h.[
I:4::,a a:::::t__ f 6,2 II L _
{__('
' /
l
()
s
- ===q
' e
<=
7 l
H 5
...r...,
rte ar i
[A
=
A }.
N" mxmuo ka t/r ccc
"[g ***"
h SECTION: GU
- =
PLAN: GUIDE WALL UNIT
? ?
- f ur m mt
- e..i s e s e
i e
== g
==
E n E. tw m:
[
Hon
. '-r li
==i
..l --.L<
+
y
-y y
e nE 5
= = =x
-~,
C" ""'
D 8=
= non-
- a=*
y
=>
M%
V-0 C
f-7N f
\\-
\\-
@ ELEVADON: GUIDE wad. UNIT h ELEVAVON: G 8
suau mr wa o. r<
A IW/u M wronD Omfence g ens em sem g
l"l,'.l1.
Wr' *""
-1
% g/ et se --
,@/n
.,igrn Egiurhpampey Winneapol*s, Mn.
e om
=
e om n
.o.o A
8 l
7 l
6 l
5
m u
c m
E e"a+"m mu.
,. =
p f
unumse j
pt:= = = =
===q imescat s,'rcsemn
/
= = = = ::A
===x.
m
-- q
, y _, u.o io - w ra.=
mi mi.i, 1 : vr i.
a ma.o me.o stuo. sea. cow.m to a.s ou.tre.
vr. i.e.m4 a.n.w.ns.ist m,
. E As. Cos.E m.us A.,W A33
(
b V, DETAR.: UNIT INTERLOCK manwa. m.un.c - ca.
...a
. - -1.
s.o.
-,.a
<"" (
- :. ner. =w"--
x
- = = - r:
-g i am, can,~.. -,.
r. /N,,,
- =. =. = a _w.
F
,.,g,,
,w-
,_ I_, J
" m.u,m, a. nam,_ a.m.,a,,~. ma,:.,m x,.,
m,,,.
, UNIT DETAIL: TIE ROD i
,,,,,2,,,,,,,,,,_,,,,
y,,
. r.t r
- ~ = r w
=,,. m r. a.
,,,,., _,3
_"=,.
c u,
o.
ANSTEC sn APERTURE L.'
- =
CARD r",,
Eh F
2", "c.'.,3" '" **
=j illllll"
3 Also AveNeble on c
Apertwo card
=
g,g.,,.,,.,,, _
ums vameni, eu, maammmmen annu PUfl. M U.SN f M ALL UNIT 0
J f7o 7zzo075-l
~
BG.ET BAY WOOFICA110NS 90CWOI ENVIRONMENTAL & MARINE SERVICES PRECAST CONCRETE GUIDE WALL S2
~
~
NWB - NME M MEM MAWG "
PLAN, ELEVATIONS, AND SECTIONS
.m,
i = i. i.w.,
E NE r CSWET I
l pu n a.suru.a..E. WEE,ffu e escism mmmen a unsuamen-anamm ni a
'"""""""'P."""" IF-172499-2 4
l 3
l 2
l 1
p#
r-e se j-1 FUM VfD A357,OLF d
N til S pgg/r 33/g 4 t/r ye G
,,,,,,"g, \\* c["
'N#
1--
[maMmew s
f
~%
II I
- e. '
1 k
lll l
v NN F C,,,
b
\\
r i
R 1/4 Yam E h PLAN: F1.0W CUTOFF UNIT DETAll.: TOP CONN
?.
' ? ? ? t
- s. t.r u
~
M NIMT m
i io, comac==
1*-4 1*-4 1+4 1*-4 1*-4 E
g i-
- r. - r.
r-i
_f 5
4 a
u 3
\\- a: /
),
,, o g 3,,
i iji i
n -
' 1 1
I F-l i
I I
I I =14 l l
f l
I I
I I
I I
- -=== l 1/f pg, g/rg
~=x lllllll 4
m-4r 0
I hl l
l l
l l W ia
- yg l l
l I
I I
I I
s i
l 1
1 I
I l
l w
s
==C I
I I
I I
I
.n if, h_.I
'___L_J___L J__1
$5=gll",Jl=
M* - i
/:
-M/C '/
= =88t =
=r
c
, k.._..
..J DUAIL: 80TTOW Coe
[
,ru i
ELEVA,TIO,N: F, LOW CU, TT,0FF UNIT 8
seu =rur i
A&
M
- ORWEIE gg ** a= gg
~
E se
% t) c_ t M -
=
ha,nN., me r e 7_ ligheshr Quper Minneapolis, Mn.
A
("
- 8 l
7 l
s l
5
.n m: M
- ll,* "*
Ei~
r f n 1/#
e-i T **
e ( Q,a~a m Y~i
/ I
- 2_..s
- Cut Q
u_c c
hd g g g.
fh'N Y
M
~*
q p it Q,1,/,#
n t/r /
w,r eaz j
fa,g n 1/# /
A BOTTOM
--p@
_ s=c r =
F s ur h SECTION: TOP CONNECVON DETAlbhANNO. SHOE I
e..r r.r.t t
,.c r.t r
was
,ea E
ANSTEC
.,J APERTURE
~~
CARD m ue evt NN
- N - -
--r['/ ", "ur i
(
Also Available on Nq Aperture Card y,,..
n t/c-
-n tg 4
w in
. u.
b h SECTION: BOTTOM CONNECTION e..u.r t r
eas 7D72240 75-I DUT BAY MCORCAGCNS 98CWD1
! ENVIRONMENTAL & MARINE SERVICES WARM FLOW CUTOFFS S3 l
Nu*- M M MMCamAM N PLAN, ELEVATIONS, AND SECT!ONS
_ - i,, i,w i.
,,,,. i_
Au MWMM 6
.w - -
w m e.s 4
l 3
l 2
l 1
"""