ML20010C567

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Draft Response to 810630 Request for Addl Info Re Geotechnical Engineering.Info Will Be Discussed W/Nrc at 810902 & 03 Site Meeting.Response Will Be Incorporated in Amend to FSAR
ML20010C567
Person / Time
Site: Perry  FirstEnergy icon.png
Issue date: 08/13/1981
From: Davidson D
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
To: Tedesco R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8108200198
Download: ML20010C567 (53)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:IliE CLEVELM!D ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANY ILLUMINATING BLDG. e PUBLIC SOUARE e CLEVELAND. OHIO 44101 e TELEPHONE (216) 6231350 e MAIL ADD RkSS : P. O. BOX 5000 Sewing The Best Location in the Nation D Iwyn R. Davidson VICE PRESIDENT SYSTEM E NGINE ERING AND CONSTRUCTION August 13, 1981 v.1'L / \\- G[QLi,4hh rh e T AucyO Q v,7pj;"e,1931.s 1 a Mr. Robert L. Tedesco Assistant Director of Licensing 0; C%[ 8 Division of Licensing W '@\\ U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission 'to /) <\\ Washington, D. C. 20555 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos. 50-M0; 50-M1 Response to Request for Additional Information - Geotechnical Engineering

Dear Mr. Tedesco:

'Ihis letter and its attachment is submitted to respond to your letter dated June 30, 1981, concerning geotechnical engineering. The requested information is provided as draft responses for discussion with your staff in a meeting scheduled for Septem-ber 2 and 3 at the Perry site. It is our intention to incorporate these responses in a subsequent amendment to our Final Safety Analysis Report. Sincerely, Dalwyn. Davidson Vice President System Engineering and Construction DRD:dlp Attachment g/ cc: D. Houston .5 G. Charnoff NRC Resident Inspector / [ D108200198 810813 DR ADOCK 05000440 PDR

241.1 In Section 2.4.5.5.1.4, you have stated that widespread slumping (2. 4. 5. 5.1. 4) of the upper bluff materials (which includes the lacustrine (2.5.5.2) deposits) is caused by groundwater seepage and frost accian. (RSP)- Demonstrate how this fact has been incorporated in the stability analysis (Section 2.5.5.2) conducted to determine the amount of bluff recession which can occur before the emergency service water pumphouse becomes endangered. In this connection, indicate, in Figure 2.5-174, the location of the groundwater table used in the analysis. The staff requires that.the stability of sliding wedges, for both the static and seismic case, within the lacustrine deposits, be investigated, utilizing methods such as the Morgenstern-Price method of analysis.

Response

The response to this question is provided in revised Sections 2.'5.5.1, 2.5.5.2, Table 2.5-49, Figure 2.5-174, and new Figure 2.5-175. i i i

l Based upon the results of the testing and analyses, the following ' conclusions evolved.-.The infiltration of-silt which occurred in localized areas of the then existing ~ portions of the porous concrete blanket would have a negligible effect on the future performance of the underdrain/ pressure relief system. Laboratory testing confirmed that significant pore pressures cannot build up in'even highly contaminated porous concrete. -2.5.5 STABILITY OF SLOPES The plant is constructed'on an essentially level site and the final grades are similar'to the preconstruction grades. All excavations for Seismic Category I plant structures have been backfilled and, hence, there are no man-made slopes which could fail and adversely affect the safety of the plant. The only natural slopes which could affect the safety of the plant are a bluff along Lake Erie which is described in the following sections. 2.5.5.1 Slope Characteristics i A steep bluff which forms the shoreli_ of Lake Erie is located approximately 305 feet north of the emergency service water pumphouse. The lower portion of this slope is' periodically subjected to erosion due to wave action. In addition, some slumping of the upper bluff materials due to groundwater seepage and frost action has been observed. The resulting estimated average s' ~ recession rate is two feet per year, as described in Section 2.4.5.5. The ya bluff is about 45 feet in height and has an average slope inclination of about 2 horizontal to I vertical, as shown in Figure 2.5-174. 2.5.5.2 Design Criteria and Analyses Stability analyses have been conducted to. determine the amount of bluff recession which can occur before the emergency service water pumphouse would ~become endangered. The subsurface stratigraphy of the bluff was determined ~ from observations of the exposed bluff slope and from nearby test borings. [} .The soil properties used in the analyses are described in Section 2.5.4.2. 2-4 The_ stability, analyses were. conducted using the LEASE-I and LEASE-II computer 2.5-176

programs, whichlutilize the simplified Bishop circular arc method (193,194)and the Morgenstern-Price method ( 23,224), respectively. For the seismic condition, a seismic coefficient of 0.15 was used for pseudostatic analyses. The groundwater level was taken to be elevation 615' near the emergency service water pumphouse, exiting the bluff slope at elevation 590'. To stablize the bluff slope against wave action and against slumping in the zone of groundwater emergence, a flattened slope with rip-rap slope protection is required. The results of Bishop method stability analyses with bluff slope inclinations ranging from 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) to 3:1 are shown on Figure 2.5-174. It was determined in this analysis that a 3:1 slope was required for the minimum desired factors of safety. However, the presence of the rock rip-rap slope protection materials were not considered in this analysis, which would add to the overall stability of the slope. A morgenstern-Price stability analysis was also conducted on the 3:1 slope. .The results of this analysis are shown'in Figure 2.5-175 in comparison to the Bishop method results for the same slope. The Morgenstern-Price analysis yielded somewhat higher factors of safety than the Bishop method for failure ~; s . surfaces passing through the upper till (note that only the most critical 0-01 failure surfaces are shown out of many trial surfaces). Failure surfaces passing only through the lacustrine stratum were also evaluated, and resulted in considerably higher factors of safety than those also passing through the upper till. Additional stability analyses have been conducted on the final slope protection design configuration, which is shown in detail in Figure 2.4-39. The results of this analysis, which incorporated strength characteristics of the rip-rap, indicate that the stability of the final design is satisfactory, with a minimum factor of safety of 1.45 foESSE conditions. The results of the various stability analyses determined that the toe of the bluff could recede about 220 feet before a potential failure arc of the bluff would approach within 40 feet of the emergency service water pumphouse. 2.5-177

However, as discussed in.Section 2.4.5.5, if the shoreline recedes approximately 130 feet, protective measures will be initiated. ? A monitoring program has been~ established to measure the bluff recession. N .This program is described in Section 2.4.5.5. 2.5.5.3 Logs'of-Borings . Boring logs are presented in Appendix 2E. Figure 2.5-53 shows the locations of the borings. 2.5.5.4 Compacted Fill There is no compacted fill associated with the Lake Erie bluff. 2.5.6 EMBANKMENTS AND DAMS There are no Seismic Category I embankments or dams associated with the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. b h L l l 2.5-177a. w

m. ,e I -REFERENCES 223. Dawson, A.W., 1972, LEASE'II, A Computerized System for the Analysis of Slope Stability, Thesis, Department of Civil En'gineering, Massachusetts -Institute of Technology. s b 224. Morgerstern, N. and Price, V.E., 1965, The Analysis of the Stability t4 of General Slip Surface, Geotechnique, Vol. 15, pp. 79-93. l t 2.5-200a I l-

TABLE 2.5-49 MATERIAL PROPERTIES AD0PTED FOR DESIGN Saturated Undrained. Shear - Uait Weight Shear Strength (I) Strength Stratigraphic y I S Unit (tsf) (g[f) sat ( eg) 0.12 + 6 tan 33.{2) 0.75 Lacustrine 131 0.12 + d tan 31* a Upper Till 130 0 + 6 tan 35 1.0 Y 0.12 + o" tan 31* (2) d Lower Till 142 0.60 + 6, tan 35* 5.5 130 Chagrin Shale 152 NOTES: e. Effectivestressbasis;I=E+6, tan 5 1. where: E = Effective cohesion, tsf n = Effective normal stress, tsf 5 = Effective friction angle, degrees 2. Strength paramters used for the Lake Erie Bluff Stability Analysis are shown on Figures 2.5-174 and 2.5-175. '2-d. 2.5-271

5o Y't WTE:/3ANGLEOFlilCLINAll0N OF TME Stuff Storf 20 wlTM TNE HORIZONTAL SYMBOL AVEaAGE FACTOR of SAFETY MAX. @-@ SLOPE STATIC DYNAMIC

  • DISTANCE (Ft.)

% 4.s y STAllC e 1:1 0 73 0.56 46 5 a 2:s i.n o. a6 E i.o t 3:1 1.68 8.00 136 DYNAHIC o.S o.2 c.4 o.6 o.a 1.0 1.2

k. - c.15 Tan. /3 EXISTING TOE OF BLUFF SLOPE FUTURE BLUFF 10E
... go)

MAX. LIMIT OF CRITICAL SLIP SURFACE ,,,,,,,, g 3 3 e ROUNDWATER LEVELS 320' / _f

  • 1 P__sHTT Nq lN l 10P Of BAseN f L 618 O 620 4'

A 3%.w.an e:.-h. 2%... t. , ii..3,- t i x x m-ggggy } ^ ~_ ~%E2 ~ no{ 10P 0F BEDit0CE EL. 655 0 ~3'---- ~~n:a vam misr- ~~ ~~- m mnum sk ~~ ~ p sivn em =l

FAILURE SEISMIC FACTOR OF SURFACE METHOD NO. 8 0.00 1.68 B O.15 g .09 M-P O 00 1.69 M-P O.159 1.18 M-P O.00 2.66 M-P O.15 g 1.45 NOTE: B s BISHOP METHOD M-Ps MORGENSTERN - PalCE METHOD 620 U\\ N 600 LACUSTRINE g-(g \\ STR AT U M w UPPER TILL I 580 N LOWER TILL STABILITY ANALYSIS OF LAKE ERIE BLUFF flGURE 2.5-175 4 _n, v

m 2.4'.1.2 Figure 2.4-72 is purported ts show piezometric devices installed (2.4.13.5.3.d) through each of.the building mats of the auxiliary buildings, the control complex,' the intermediate building and the radwaste ~ building, to measure the hydrostatic uplift pressure acting under these structures. However, the tip of the only piezometer shown on the figure is founded in relatively impermeable Class B fill. Is this an error in the figure? If not, discuss the function of the piezometer in the context of measuring the hydrostatic uplift pressures acting under the structures during the life of the plant, or otherwise define its purpose.

Response

-Yes, the wrong figure was referenced. A new Figure 2.4-76 will be added to the FSAR and will be referenced in Section 2.4.13.5.3.d in lieu of Figure 2.4-72.

P I l 82 l 11 l 13 l l 9 11 14 I .i d ' v.m. ~. - 1 ' '. ~ i 4 i ? 1 4 e TL- - $h LUS g" d ot A't 4 S AW

1Lncr--- -- - br--s _'.; a c

"' r-L -- '"N-m _%N c-m, e. C ' {';'1

  • T rw= I'[ i b.o..o C# F GAS T u g 4*.C 3*t A4 E403 PC =L4 f av*.E s TLtsts

'ee eI e .un....., [ ...,e. o .A ] "4

    • 'T*

le l nao.,wster ,y .4 ma w: v s' at s es 3, e Sw 63

  • 0 1

l

9

',4 G-o I OESEw ,%'t4vE; att atw CC %t a 36 4, % so n s is s a. rwa tu ~> 't

  • e 44 f

.v *1 S E 4 W' CE gg g g _ a am F s ama t we LQ e ae 3 _q,_,--*,*"3 .q' l i e i L-J .i

h. s. 4 4 v k.s>%3 l

g 3 I o'* oss % m B'*E s* t au f BLOG pcota CCestig . w3. g I i uwT

  • 1 W 451*E ks0 %3

,M i H l ( 1 w e.~o I urta - 'n<nec"sh k r~ smase $ tutt's*e==ws mr> J .a a m. ages es ereg G *e 0 0te m K I 4 f m.o.ep t i 4 i g & L i 4 g _ _., ( _. g F-w g s g s ;, j

w L -{-. i S i i J 1 I l t. i r c r r t A .a ,,..,s,..,s.~, g,, ..s u...t .. s ...t 4,.. _f.,,..., ,r. .s s...... .. s ,3 ,,.a,..,.,,s.., y.; ' c b7 .p, 3 auctum% uat. 9 i *

l. ? p

[ * *$ 5 6

  • i'.
4. re a r ce,..e

.j j..,...t I. cc=<aeee ~ p t

  • 8

[' t '* E .*'t***:gr.**wi.m.t

  1. no t e (Y..t p-nyng f

4 M4 0 Wm- 'r,t g ce%;ng,g 1~ .=reeras,;r vewes we /.Q y,, ~ i g,, C cas te, * .a. c.

  • 2. m 2us canc et f

c TY Pir AL_,w r icN _1yricA( preT. g MONITCnfNS IN5TN.lMNI ATION MONiiggiNS sN5i% ws;Aie0N SLEDE S -i. 2. 3. 4.11.12 j 15 SLEEVE 5-5.5 & -) i uo sewt ~3 sc se .NeA TO Pbt ~ es%sva.c re o c s, s ec. ce.v t rt s ua i ( rf %S *% - h ' IL III I I 'Jn,,,, .cr.,sn.e e s.,:sso c^a [,n,, g,,,n,,,,,, .* dess s sv.at.na = 'ca a.a i 9%.vt%tst. s St ua M. e,a, e,3 .,g. v., D mstav c i.e o= nes.4 p, _,,., '](,e. :..,g, 6 sto s ee sta e [.e. . e g. 'e., l-.'a 8 l., v avC r e % 6. A* w v sf 4uf fv4AL M At -., ,.e j . '.4 r,. .. r.:v e : r.. e awa: se g cc%at rs --...)... ,.,.. - h 95 0 (c=:st's r_ , - et *A. s et J stem..::r etwie=%e - " 7 ~ % ma*ts,4::*.<tec,4.s! - P ] . :.q,, 3 (N:= e'. ce%:nste 2 4-4 i - I t T* PIC A..

  1. SCTCN

{> TYPr( A( __ jf(Ti'N MONI TO A.N S IN$ N g N W ;N MONTO%NJ N5* A, vin

  • AT.;N j

SLEEtES-G!T SLE D E S -4.r5..e,67. i$.d IO ( Z i i j hs0 St%t 0 SC%E l l ,e a es.e.e ".7..Q g s as. 7.wi f,~TI1. f' d.i sf."w.*I.<.<. 7 8 4T h

  • Iie.f e.'.

coe.a.i.r.a. g

  • we u4.u.

.s. ,,, i,.. i.. ....m. ,o, e6,,.,. g ~~...~~..,..T".,.. n, e ..s, n. .4. 4,.

s. >=== ew=; g._

s .. s e n. n. 1.... _....,. s .,...... _n._ _n. .. _ g.y. _ ......s4 g,, ..- r n. e.. n. n. _v. ..... j.) i s r. < t. a s.,. ,,..q., n. n. '_...... m r_...n- ..nt,,.-* L,.**. ._ = mv i8 4 .d. .r -8...8 r_...$ _n. _ M ". c .~ .a se s. Nh.*u f taas.te:.:e e. -+**.. ~. f644, 0

  • (_

g = ... r n. 1- .. e-.c r... ~ -.n .--..~* ~ ~. " ~. ". - fu, - \\ a 1 .r.. _ n c__. _3-. .~* ea - cce =e ve [ .. _ _ _~.2. . -....-r _--f._.._x~~._.. r,, p,c at. c.1,.. N, l ) .m. . m. N McNiremNo m w.m: 'y SLR$fic .~ F.., __ ? l~. ~. ' ~ L* E. F. 1.. _ t,c,g,,,_ .~. -- t . - ->.x t

t. c

_ - _.e. .-.t .~t ..~,.~-.r_ p ...o....a.... 7 b .a.-. .e..<. w... 4.. ~. . r~ .,w - .n -...- - r_... - 2 L B.E Giftleet itittit ttts. stag grg.ast .es '""**..'.a.'6*' .e.......n.,...... . - ~ ......s....wg...... ge .~.=...e -e g~..t w -.. -... ~.. .:: n:::'3. ;- - "~-" ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ -.-ms?r'=...*a~c. *..e ,,) d, is

p. u 9..c t

...e.. e -i , a-.. ~ i ., 1 m.. 1 f,... 1-ca.s, -4 u.c.. ~. i m til' nutt u ill'i'ii.IL 2=YN inLL t L1 U 11 Figure 2.4-76 m e.e.i. 5 A. 1,..' v F-g n, i

..~ ~ ~ 241.3 Provide single grain size dist ibution plots for each of the (2.4.13.5.5.C following materials, showing.the lower and upper bounds (rangei .4.b) - of the distribution. ~ (2.5.4.5.2) a) Class A fill during construction (one plot each for i construction materials from the Bestone and R. W. Sidley Quarries). b) Class B fill during construction. c) Upper till, d) Lower till.

Response

The response to this question is provided in revised Sections 2.5.4.2.1.1, 2.5.4.5.2, 2.5.4.5.3, and new Figures 2.5-179 through 2.5-183. 1 5 i h i y r r -

"was overexcavated ar.d backfilled with lean concrete having a 28-day compressive strength of at least 15'J0 psi. Figure 2.5-55 delineates the areas overexcavated and treated as such. 2.5.4.1.4 Residual Stress Refer to Section 2.5.1.2.5.J. 2.5.4.1.5 Unstable Rock and Soil Composition The lower till and the Chsgrin shale units supporting plant foundations are not susceptible to detrimental consolidation, densification or liquefaction under either static or dynamic loading. 2.5.4.2 Properties of Subsurface Materials As described in detail in Section 2.5.4.3.3, four stratigraphic units were encountered by subsurface axploration at the site. In descending order, these units are identified as lacustrine sediments; two distinct glacial ground moraine deposits which are denoted as upper till and lower till, and finally, an Upper Devonian shale identified as the Chagrin shale. The properties of these materials are described in the following sections. The test methods used to determine the properties are summarized in Table 2.5-16. 2.5.4.2.1 Properties of Soil Materials 2.5.4.2.1.1 Physical Properties [ Physical property tests conducted on representative samples of the soils at the site include natural water content, Atterberg (liquid and plastic) limits, unit weight, specific gravity and grain size distribution. The rec:lts of these j tests are presented in Tables 2.5-17 through 2.5-19 and are summarized in I-Table 2.5-2C 1 rain size distribution curves are presented in Figures 2.5-94 i l through 2.5-96. The range of gradations of the upper till and lower till ni q_ are shown in Figures 2.5-179 and 2.5-180.

r-N 2.5-113

areas outside of building lines. Minimum and maximum density tests were performed for each 4,500 cubic yards of fill placed, and in place density and grain size distribution tests for each 150 cubic yards or once per lift, whichever was more frequent. However, in confined areas, where the volume of each lift was less than 50 cubic yards, in place density tests were performed b once every third lif t or every 50 cubic yards, whichever was more f requent. 2 s Through the end of July, 1981, approximately 437,000 cubic yards of 3-N safety-related Class A fill have been placed, and approximately 6,170 m in place density tests and grain size distribution tests have been performed. 4 The gradation range of the Class A fill which has been placed is shown in j[ Figures 2.5-181 and 2.5-182. A summary of field density tests obtained for quality control during the placement of Class A fill is shown in Figure 2.5-184. A total of 181 laboratory constant-head permeability tests have been performed on material removed from the fill with the lowest coefficient of permeability -3 -2 obtained being 2.16 x 10 cm/sec and the average 1.69 x 10 cm/sec. Also, 51 in place falling head permeability tests have been performed with the -3 lowest coefficient of permeability obtained being 9.45 x 10 cm/see and the -2 average 3.77 x 10 cm/sec. The minimum required coefficient of permeability is 2 x 10~ cm/sec. 2.5.4.5.3 Class B Fill Class B fill was used for nonload bearing backfill around Seismic Category I structures as shown in Figure 2.5-151, and consists of lower till soil which was removed and stockpiled during plant excavation. A typical c action curve is shown in Figure 2.5-156. The maximum dry density (ASi 1537) has been found to range from 128.6 to 137.5 pounds per cubic foot and the optimum moisture content from 7.4 to 13.0 percent. Class B fill is compacted to not less than 92 percent of the maximum dry density, at a moisture content not less than three percentage points below nor four percentage points above the optimum moisture content. Through the end of July, 1981, approximately b) 286,000 cubic yards of Class B fill have been placed and approximately 380 Sa 04 cr-2.5-150

i l ,,[g **, '- vt:i] " i SILT CR CLAY C088LES ,im t c:aasta riwt U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE NO. s* di 14 a io ao 2% i ' W/////////////// / / / ix' ? I' t ! ?i !

  • 1 v i n' ' / / /// y/////y//////A i i-

.a. i a, i i .N//////s////////\\ ' u ' > + t'* ibr i i.i i. v///// // ///// A .5* 6: N ////////////7% c v. C ii. i i ite.i *: p. v///////////A g v ////////A, 5 i+>. i, i n M/ ////// A i aet 6 i 6 e i is, i i e i 1., N/////// A D 66 i i ,a i itir N /////A e i,t e ' e i la, ii.e. t' N/ / / / / A-l* l-c 2 W//// A, 6-C

a

i i e ie.. i si. i V/////A ti, i .. * - i e is-l yj //// A j, i = i. si. j,4., i, te. Y/// //, 6. ti>, y i. V-/// i -,. i e a + i le-is.i a e i g w/ 4 i, i.. ,- i e, ii. ii,, 4 4 .X 6: i,i : s i e

sei, las... >

> i i.e i i 4 a.5si ~ . i,... .i.. g.... e. i. i t e i i .IGC io io as w coca GRAIN $1ZE IN MILL 1M ETERS NOTE: RANGE REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF 44 TESTS RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIOii TE. RESULTS FOR UPPER TILL, FIGURE 2.5 179

1 i C088LES ) ::aast !c:aast, SILT OR CLM aims w t oiu sist U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE No. 5* th. h. N 4 to 40 2CC

    • s' n'+*

af i s' s X//////'//// / n' /

  • X/Mfi/c///////V'//X I it i n t
  • n'**

\\ >,g//////V// ///M!; t N~ v s * * '//// / V/ / //////h t n5* ( V//// // //V ///// // / // A e' V/// / // /s/ /////// /////h t ~, o:

  • + < s n,

S . Y/ // // / /V / / / // / / // /// //JW 1- '~ f; W // / / /////// /// /// //////K i - c. vc ! W / /////// /// / A/ // //// //N -s* N/// /// /V////i/////// ///1/% i * ,s 1

n

\\** M / / / f/ / // // / // / / /b //i//h $ ~ M/ /// //// / / //////h C c -n

  • a.

s

lse, n.

t e.. N //J/// //// / ///A 1 .t.. > e ts, to: i w //////////A n.>,* 2 O s Ji ee... si W //fi////// y .4. w i :.., i ti. i n. n.. W //////f g g,, 7.j f, 2,. 6 l X /// t i; r ise-i !.ei g. N e: i 6 a i ia.p i e.:,, s q. I i e i ls e s i i+.i'. 44 no .O Gs 4;,a

,GOs GR AIN $1ZE IN MILLIMETERS F.0TE: RANGE REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF 56 TESTS RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST RESULTS FOR LOWER TILL FIGURE 2.5-180 l

t i I

i 3# [c,,gg [eg,,gg, silt OR CLAY C088LE5 o g 3,y, '"****^***(*Ma*s'"*= SIEVE $1ZE NO. g g* g ,U.S. STANDARO 0 'o too ,f,',,',,' too *** M////Att vi s i g,.: ii,, si,i, - i,g. V //// Alii I go i t;i. N// ///X i*- i 'd ' ' Y/J#ri//A so i Y//////Ai ti. V/'//// /A n., i, yx ' ' ' ' ' ' Lf//////h sr.. ,((' j, I V/// // // eNi i. i"' y ec ' V'// / /// / /K..

j,3 h i V/ /// / // A.

i 5 so 6 ' i h'ii e v pffj.jffy, j, ,l t M////////h. E e i.,,,,,,, g ' N/ // ///\\- } ] ' ' ' ' i V/i// //,5 i ..a i.,, M g 3e V/./ / / A A : ,' i N '/ / / / / N 8 1... I z 4, i:,W//. yg,,,, E 2C f D' 'e o i , i i,,,,,, t ' ' ' ' WY ///N. i'' ' ' { t ' N /// A < i,,,,,,,, ic i,,;,, 6' 6 e

  • N / 4 A.i i.

(,,,,,,,, WLU M Cfgg3 M' GR AIN SIZE IN NOTE: RANGE IS ESTIMATED BASED ON A RANDOM SAMPLING OF APPROXIMATELY 1500 TESTS l i l RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION j TEST RESULTS FOR CLASS A FILL (8ESTONEQUARRY) FIGURE 2.5-181

j 1 t 14avfL i SaNO SILT OR CLAY CO80LES ,,3, ,cc,,,,, ,, c,u, U.S. STANDARO $1 EVE SIZE NO. s, ik. k. 4( 4 io ao zeo 6til i i%*i e i liisi ii i iii.. i e t i.... e e VA i is ii e e i e i i i l '.i e i i e it i+e i.. e si e i i e i si..:. i 46:16 te, I .,. t i i ti.i V / A l..' 5 i E. ll e i i Vf /K t.<* i i r li g it.,, . i. - .i.. i i e a !i s i e..V / / A i. e 3 + i e 6i, t. G ,l i ' i 4 ji e i i d +V / /A e i. 5 ti: I edi - t i i i e,ii. T/ / / f\\ree i 1 1:. .ii

.i. 1 i e
i 6i*.id.

. T/ / f,,\\.. i. ti.i i e i 6 i. i eiir e ii V f/Ae E t, e i e g i,. i i lt ii I i e i jlij C t4ee t i e i (s.t i ,e 1 l Y///T;4 i e i e-i. Vf fijg i i s..ei z llJ i b : t y fl/ Ai a a ii, t i i 5 i is i f i. e i ii1 i

  • i i e i

p, i i si: i i wf1 i , i i=.. i... see ,,, e , e j,, g y 7.A; z , :e e i, is.; i,e i e is Xfr/\\ i e 6 e .... i y 1,q e

  • i5.i'.,.

6,,,y/A. ,,.a i s. ii i. w

i......

e 4I i i e r i si: i. i )i Y/X i i sii#. i, a l i,,e i.,. i lit i e .i4 i i ti,ie iY/A, 6 i.: e ., i e tie 6 i e, i ge: ..S VA i., e,. iii, i,,, .dt fi. i i

  • i je: i ;i r is i e e e i %g, y 6i e i e i

e e i 10 0 iQ iQ ai W GR AIN $1ZE IN MILLIM ETER$ i NOTE: RANGE IS ESTIMATED BASED ON A RANDOM SAMPLING OF APPROXIMATELY 4700 TESTS l i I RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION j TEST RESULTS FOR CLASS A FILL t (SIDLEY QUARRY) 1 FIGURE 2.5-182 1

G $'L LY C088ti$ coansE i riNe cosassi w s ciUM i FINE U.S. STANDARD SIEVE $1ZE No. y i 'a. h. ?4 6 io ao 200

00

s I 8 ' i sie ' i il 4 i N ////4M/Vry i e. .4 e M' A_ri/ v' / / A / f / / () r i A / */ !/ /e/ / 2

  • i
  • it' i

iese i e e M f / r ie f / / / ri r1/ Vl/V / / / f'/h i - t i e is' i I si e i e i + li i :Nr Af / / / vi p4 P i/1/ //f / / I'/i. I i e ii: 'i e I i '{iii i s ~/ */i tiiee I i 4 jiiii. M /,/ / / / / /I/l/e/ M f'/ l i t ieie i e i e II 8

  • W / i/ '/ i/i i / '/ / / / [/I i '

it s i t! l / e ' Q p ;l e e i e N/ /./1/,/ / / //fi f I I i e ieii i i 3 i,! e i i e q i i i i.i ! i i e, M ////./Mi

  • i i e'

' i i it4 e i i i ii? i a i i i >E a 774,,, 9,, e ,t, 9,,,,,,, iii QC e is i.. i i is. . + i eii ie i e i Ni r i e i T . i - e siiI ' i i essi i. i i i s i s.4 z I,e.. i i i i.iiai C-i.41 i i i 6 i Ieii i .I e i i 66 i i i I e i: i i i4iei i ' C ~ it. e i i .i. ii.,= i ei s i r.i i i e i.i', i i Z 9.. i

sei,

,e e i i i:,i W 3c iasii i i i isi i i e i i e ii e i e i,i - e i is i i i i g e ,,ei 1 it.o. iii.., i eI i,,i, , i e it,.

  • EC ipi i

p i i i i ei i i i .isi i i

siil, i e sei!

i i i e is e i i I

eei,, e e e

iei6 e i e e ii;ai e lii.. i i. , i gai,. . i 9 i e i sisie.i e i i sei... g.., i i i e ietsi e, e i tie i e i s.,ie i i i air. i i i s i l}}i eif.C iG 4 0.i Ma 000: GRAIN SIZE IN MILT.lMETERS NOTE: RANGE IS ESTIMATED BASED ON A RANDOM SAMPLING OF APPROXIMATELY 200 TESTS I l i l l RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST RESULTS FOP. CLASS B FILL FIGURE 2.5-183 l

m ' 241.4" You ctate in section-2.4.13.5.5.c.7.d that " Falling head ~ (2.4.13.5.5. -permeability testing conducted at the Perry Site reported in c.7.d) Section 2.5.4, further shows that the velocity and transport capability of groundwater to erode either the Chagrin shale or lower till are negligible." However, you have not addressed this aspect in the mentioned section; please do so in quantitative detail. The Staff is concerned that possible erosion of the till and shale by flowing water could contaminate and/or clog the Class A filter. This phenomenon could seriously impair the intended use of the filter.

Response

The response to this question is provided in revised Section 2.5.4.6.3. 0 e

f 4 During-construction, the seepage estimate described above was confirmed. The . seepage collected in the peripheral ditch from the lacustrine stratum was sl o estimated to be less than ten gallons per minute. No seepage was detected in ae the till strata or shale, and the excavation bottom was dry. Seepage into the a plant underdrain system after the excavation is backfilled will be essentially the-same as that experienced during construction. As described above, no seepage was detected in the lower till stratum of shale and ** plant excavation bottom was dry. The estimated mean coefficients of -7 permeability for these materials are 2.0 x 10 cm/sec and 8.0 x 10" cm/sec, respectively. The corresponding seepage velocity in these materials is less g_. than 4 feet per year, for gradients as large as 4. This amount, which is s: 7 consistent with the lack of observable seepage, is far too small to cause N erosion which could contaminate and/or clog the Class A filter. 2.5.4.6.4 Radius of~ Groundwater Drawdown In order to monitor the long-term effect of the plant dewatering system on the local groundwater levels, four lines of well-point piezometers were installed as shown in Figure 2.5-157. The piezometer lines extend 1000 feet from the plant in the east, west and south direc*. ions and 550 feet in the north direction. The average monthly readings for each piezometer are shown in Figure 2.5-158. Groundwater drawdown profiles along the piezometer lines are shown on Figure 2.5-159. (Some of the piezometers were removed and replaced at various times due to construction activity conflicts.) It is concluded that the groundwater level within the lacustrine stratum is not affected beyond a radius on the order of 500 feet from the plant, as anticipated. In most piezometers,.the groundwater drawdown appears to have already (March 1979) stabilized to a steady-state condition. The piezometers sealed within the lower till and shale (sce Figure 2.5-159) generally indicate piezometric levels within about three feet, above or below, the lacustrine level. However, in piezometers E-3B and N-4B, both in shale, the piezometric levels (March 1979) are 7.0 and 4.3 feet below the lacustrine i. 2.5-155

241.5~ -Provide a summary of field density and moisture tests obtained (2.5.4.5.2) for: quality control during construction of Class A and Class B fill. The results may b, presented as a st.atistical distribution plot showing low, high and average values. This would help the staff to conclude that suitable compaction has been obtained.

Response

The response to this question is provided in revised Sections 2.5.4.5.2, 2.5.4.5.3, and new Figures 2.5-184 through 2.5.-186. i l

areas outside of building lines. Minimum and maximum density tests were performed for each 4,500 cubic yards of fill placed, and in-place density and - grain size distribution tests for each 150 cubic yards or once per lift, whichever was more frequent. However, in confined areas, where the volume of each lift was less than 50 cubic yards, in place density tests were performed once every third lift or every 50 cubic yards, whichever was more frequent. D s Through the end of July,1981, approximately 437,000 cubic yards of y et safety-related Class A fill have been placed, and approximately 6,170 s m in-place density tests and grain size distribution tests have been performed. g_ The gradation range of the Class A fill which has been placed is shown in [ Figures 2.5-181 and 2.5-182. A sammary of field density tests obtained for quality control during the placement of Class A fill is shown in Figure 2.5-184. A total of'181 laboratory constant-head permeability tests have been performed on material removed from t' fill with the lowest coefficient of permeability -3 -2 obtained being 2.16 x 10 cm/sec and the average 1.69 x 10 cm/sec. Also, 51 in place falling head permeability tests have been perforr.:d with the . lowest coefficient of permeability obtained being 9.45 x '.,-3 cm/sec and the -2 .verage 3.77 x 10 cm/sec. The minimum required coefficient of permeability is 2 x 10 ' cm/sec. ~ 2.5.4.5.3 C1.ss B Fill Class B fill as used for nonload bearing backfill around Seismic Category I structures as shown in Figure 2.5-151, and consists of lower till soil which was removed and stockpiled during plant excavation. A typical compaction curve is shown in Figure 2.5-156. The maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) has been found to range from 128.6 to 137.5 pounds per cubic foot and the optimum moisture content from 7.4 to 13.0 percent. Cla:.s B fill is compacted to not less than 92 percent of the maximum dry density, at a moisture content not less than three percentage points below nor four percentage points above the optimum moisture content. Through the end of July,1981, approximately k< 286,000 cubic yards of Class B fill have been placed and approximately 380 4 (V 2.5-150 [-

k; d in place density! ests have been performed.L The gradation range.of.the Class B t filliwhich has been placed is shown'in Figure-2.5-183. A summary of field k7 . density and' moisture tests taken for quality control during placement of the jf-N -Class-B fill ~is shown in_ Figures 2.S-185 and 2.5-186. i 2.5.4.5.4 Field Testing of Backfill An onsite testing laboratory was established to perf arm all field. testing. A defined Quality Assurance Program and approved pracedures were implemented to assure that proper testing methods, procedures and equipment were used in field testing. s ( e I 2.5-150a E

i A I 283 1 49 - o w. I 9a Igp m a, I w ,n., I 9, e I w n d in l (29 - O w o H I in o e <a m -DD cy> l 111 %4" I m3 U 2 l 178 - b !! d o o l 136 H . 5, 9, i 1;u m -: u.- l 233 p I 179 mU vy l 225 - or g h l P% p: l i., 24 A ,'/ _ m g i__ __ _ __ __ E w l 248 h l'} I FA I p a,h g 30a ' 'aj g g I a70 u. 3. I m ':t i g o. .. i i uw pas <o d I f'- aus l e i scf e I 5 229 1 154 -8 I l ',1 l 6t i w Iw - !^ \\ >L A I I I I I I I T r. O O O O O O O N w N W 2 M N N N H e-4 l-e U; E*I e Ite O UJ h Figure 2.5-l%

+ 001 3,' 3 0 3 2 3 3 5 s 1 1 = n o s i t t s a 8 e i 1 T % v 3 f 4 e 9 r o 59 d ) r r R 4 e = a O 3 b d 3 T m n n 9 C u a a O S N e t R T M S P S E D T E Y 7 7 I T 3 9 F I I D S O N M E ( L 4 D 4 6 Y L 4 9 T I E 5 S I 9 N F 6 E N 6 D L A 5 L 2 3 Y I F D 3 M U S M S I A 2 4 X I 6 3 A. C I 3 _3 9 2 2 ~ i 9 2 1 2 1 9 I 9 0 F 3 0 o 0 2 7 6 C 5 4 t-2 1 RE S 9 TS 'JF ET d m* k v L

vm -t + in a e4 O H u) - .m n s. o ri e p 42 4 _t M rt ni e-t m vlt 04 in e o O H

  • ts It g

O N e .o os c a d c3 e 4) M e CO M F. W e f4 P* i t-a E4 H H m H H .. k O [:-e. o b>j m a H,. d %9. O 'Q H l'. n

  • ~ I n,

ew r g,4 LfT O LO m o H 24 A o at L18 ei3 ),* In t ni w f) teh a e l I I I I I I n O ?> "} c O a: r m F IGII:R P. '>.U'6 [q'1 t -4 t'J e3 b, d A

7_ 241.6 In'Section 2.5.4.10.4.1, justify the use of 0.54 as the value of (2.5.4.10.4.1). the coefficient of earth pressure at rest. Provide =a plot.of maximum earth pressure vs. depth used to-design' subsurface walls .un er stat c.and-dynamic loads. ~ Include and-distinguish the added d i. latera1' pressures _ due to compaction of the backfill and the effect of compaction equipment.

Response

i The response to this question is provided in revised Section 2. 5.10. 4 ~.1. b

For both the combined one-dimensional plus elastic and the plane strain, finite element analyses of foundation deformation, the time dependent compression and swell characteristics of the shale were estimated using the results of oedometer tests,_ presented in Section 2.5.4.2, and the records of monitored excavations in stiff clays and' shales, reported by Moorhouse(1 ) Selection of the amount of swell occurring before backfilling of the emergency service water pumphouse was very conservatively chosen to be one-third of the predicted ultimate swell of the excavation (the maximum possible) by assuming an interval of only 1 year between excavation and backfilling. Both theoretical and case history considi: rations predict from 1/2 to 7/8 of this ultimate swell would be expected. within the 1-year Iseriod. This was confirmed by monitoring of shale movements during construction, as described in Section 2.5.4.13. The drained and undrained volume change characteristics of the shale chosen for the deformation analyses were conservatively weighted towards the properties of the surficial shale zone. Because utsuitable shale has been excavated and mat foundations have been used, no attempt was made to model any localized variations in the properties of the competent shale which might be attributed to random differential weathering effects. 2.5.4.10.4 Lateral Earth Pressures The magnitude and distribution of lateral earth pressures were formulated for application to the desige. of both nonyielding and yielding walls, the former typified by restrained substructure walls and the latter by cantilever retaining walls. The typically massive foundation walls of the Seismic Category I structures indicate that the nonyielding assumption is appropriate for these elements. The formulationc in the following sections are conservative because the properties of Class B rather than Class A fill have been used throughout. 2.5.4.10.4.1 At-Rest Earth Pressure Earth pressure, such as would be imposed against nonyielding walls, can be conservatively expresseo above the groundwater by Equation 2.5-16. [. m el 2.5-165

p, = 69.1 Z + 0.54'p, (2.5-16) k.ere: p, = Lateral earth pressure at rest, psf Z = Depth below horizontal backfill surface, ft 'p, = Surface surcharge loading,; psf i-The~ value of 0.54 used for the. coefficient of earth pressure at rest was determined from the formula: K,.= 1.0 - ein 4' Where : K, = Coefficient of earth pressure at rest $' = Effective angle of internal friction The value of 4' was assumed to be:27 degrees, which is a conversative value for the effective friction angle of Class B fill and totally ignores any contribution of effective cohesion for the fine grainhd Class B materials. I The 27 degrees friction angle results in a higher at rest earth pressure coefficient (0.54) than would be determined for Class A fill, which has S a minimum design C' value of 35 degrees and an equivalent at rest earth 3 6 pressure coefficient of 0.43. 4 l The groundwater level is elevation 590.0' for normal operation and 618.0' for massive spill conditions for all structures except the Emergency Service Water Pumphouse; for this structure the groundwater level is elevation 557.0'. A surface surcharge loading of 100 psf was used for the construction loading condition to account for pressures due to construction equipment. ~ Eelow groundwater level, the effective weight of the backfill ~ soil is reduced by-byoyancy and a hydrostatic pressure component also acts on the wall. The two components of wall pressure are calculated in accordance with equations 2.5-17 and 2.5-18. 2.5-166

-1 J p- = 69.1 Z" + 35.4 Z + 0.54 p (2.5-17) o w. o s p,= 62.4.Z, where: Z, =. Depth below groundwater level,.ft Depth from surface to groundwater level, ft Z = L y p, = Water pressure, -psf It is likely that compaction of the backfill adjacent to walls imposed pressures on the walls which were initially somewhat greater than the at-rest condition. However,.the additional pressure would be expected to have dissipated within a relatively short time and, thus, is not a design condition. The conservatism in the design soil parameters and the various combinations of temporary loadings, as discribed in the next paragraph, would provide adequate reserve for any residual long-term compaction-induced earth pressures. Plots of the maximum earth pressure vs. depth used to design rigid subsurface walls for static and dynamic loads are provided in Figures 2.5-176 and 2.5-177. Diagrams in Figure 2.5-176 are applicable to all Category I g structures, except for the emergency service water pumphouse which is s; shown in Figure 2.5-177. Each structure was analyzed to determine the f[ maximum design stresses resulting from the following earth pressure loading conditions: (1) construction loading (2) normal _ operating conditions, (3) normal operating conditions plus the SSE event increment, and (4) massive spill conditions. Additional loadings due to surcharge from such items as cranes, railroads and adjecent foundations were added as necessary, on a case-by-case basis. 1 2.5-166a b w n

620 - 540 PSF

  • - l -

- 138 PSF t; [ 600 3 2073 PSF E Ey 580 'l d 4110 PS F 4 892 PSF j _g49 p37 4996 PSF 560 CONSTRUCTION LOADING NOR MAL OPERATING SSE MASSIVE SPILL CONDITIONS DY N A M IC CON DITI ONS INCREMENT NOTE: 1. DYNAMIC INCREMENT ADDED TO NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS FOR SSE EVENT

2. ADDITIONAL LOADINGS DUE TO SURCHARGE FROM CRANES, RAILROADS OR ADJACENT FOUNDAll0NS ADDED AS REQUIRED
3. FOR LOADS APPLICABLE TO EMERGENCY SERVICE WATER PUNPHOUSE SEE flGURE 2'41. 6-2 EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAMS FOR RIGID SUBSURFACE WALLS FIGURE 2.5-176

-540 PSF !-956 PSF 620 -

  • 600 Uw' 580 5

5 5 560 4353 PSF I Uw 540 6275 PSF 6309 PSF d PF 520 CON ST RUC T ION LOA 0i*G NOR MAL OPERATING n DYNAMIC CONDITIONS NOTE: DYNAMIC INCREMENTS ADDED TO NORMAL OPERATIONS CONDITIONS FOR SSE EVENT EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAMS FOR EMERGENCY SERVICE WATER PUMPHOUSE SUBSURFACE ' FALLS FIGURE 2.5-177

241.7 Provide construction details of the settlement monitoring points. (2. 5. 4.13. 4) Update'the time.vs.-settlement plots for all Category 1 structure. where settlements are being monitored.. Discuss any deviations from anticipated settlements assumed in the analysis and design of these' structures and components. Evaluate all deviations for-their impact on the design and construction of these structures and components. Response-The response to this question is provided in revised Section 2.5.4.13.4 and new Section 2.5.4.13.5. Also, see revised Figures 2.5-162, 2.5-171, 2.5-172(2 sheets), 2.5-173(5 sheets), and new Figures 2.5-173(Sheet 6), 2.5-173a and b, and 2.5-178. s ' ' v + ~w

2.6 and.1.:2 inches of immediate rebound, followed by 1.2 and 0.7 inch of time-dependent heave, respectively. These two gauges were located within a bedrock deformation zone consisting of an anticlinal fold traversing Unit 2 reactor building, striking northwesterly and bounded vertically on competent rock. Heave of fractured rock in the deformation zone, exposed to extreme climatic conditions, has been attributed to post-excavation stress reduction and. swell associated with shale weathering. Heave gauge HG-5 was destroyed during excavation;.hence, no data was acquired for this gauge. 2.5.4.13.3 Shale Extensometers Six extensometers were installed in the sidewalls of the emergency service water pumphouse, as shown in Figure 2.5-168, to monitor horizontal movements of the shale. A typical installed detail of an extensometer is shown in Figure 2.5-169. Monitoring results are shown in Figure 2.5-170. The shale movements measured by the extensometers ranged from essentially 0.0 to 0.1 inch and were judged to be essentially completed about 10 months af ter the completion of excavation. Although some later movement was detected in extensometers EX-2 and EX-5 during the last 4 months of monitoring, it is likely that at least some of that movement can be attributed to vibrations or other disturbance relating to an increased level of construction activity in the ESW pumphouse excavation during that period. 2.5.4.13.4 Settlement Monitoring Settlement monitoring points have been established in the interior of the reactor buildings, diesel generator building and off-gass buildings, and en the exterior walls of various other Seismic Category I structures. Th3 settlement monitoring points were typically designated by pencil or paint marks on poured concrete or steel frame structural elements. The locations of s the exterior points are shown on Figure 2.5-171. The interior reactor points 7!n are located near the outer circumference of each reactor building, with eight points in each building spaced 45 degrees apart. 2.5-173

r U Figure:2.5-172 shows the recorded movements of the settlement points within the reactor buildings, together with the approximate time history of the percentage of structural concrete which was placed in these structures. It is noted, however, that these recorded movements are with reference to a monument within the control complex which experienced a settlement of 0.64 inch during the period from November 1976 through February 1981. Therefore, the average actual settlement for Unit I reactor is about 0.53 inch and that for Unit 2 reactor is about 0.67 inch, through December 1980. Monitoring of the interior of the reactor buildings was discontinued after December 1980, due to inaccessibility. However, monitoring of the exterior reactor points will continue. Figure 2.5-173 shows the results of settlemert measurements at the six points shown on Figure 2.5-171 on the exterior walls of various structures. Settlement points were initially established at, low elevations when the lower portions of the walls were cast (elevations ranging from about 563' to 574'). As the walls were raised and backfill placed around the structures, the settlement points were also raised to higher elevations. The settlement data obtained is conservative because the settlement of the higher points includes ps the elastic deformation of the underlying concrete walls. Occasionally, s2 7 settlement points were covered by construction activities before the next g higher corresponding point was established. Gaps in the settlement records occur at these times and the settlements which occurred during these periods have been estimated, as shown in Figure 2.5-173. The maximum settlement recorded to date is about 0.9 inch. It should be noted, however, that in some cases substantial amounts of structural concrete was placed prior to the start of monitoring. Permanent brass settlement markers are installed at each location as the walls are extended above finished exterior grade (about elevation 620'), and continuous post-construction. settlement records will be obtained from these markers. Construction details of the settlement monitoring points are shown on Figure 2.5-178. 2.5-173a

r.. ( . Six settlement-monitoring points were extablished on the diesel generator building in June 1979, shortly after the structural mat was cast. Seven new points were established at a slightly higher elevation in J 'ne 1980, and the old. points were subsequently abandoned. The monitoring results, shown on Figure 2.5-173a, indicate that the average settlement through February 1981 has been slightly less than one-half inch. N At the request of NRC, settlement points were established on the off-gas buildings after the st(uctural concrete for these structures had been a completed. Four points were established within the Unit I structure and three points-within the Unit 2 structure. As shown in Figure 2.5-173b, the maximum average settlement of these structures during the period from June 1980 through February 1981, has been about 0.04 inchet and-0.12 inches, respectively. The maximum settlement of any individual monitoring point has been 0.06 inches for Unit 1 and 0.16 inches for Unit 2. 2.5-173b 1

s 2.5.4.13.5 Comparsion. of Actual and Predicted Deformations Figure 2.5-152 shows the anticipated deformation behavior of the Unit I reactor building, as discussed in Section 2.5.4.10.3. The deformation sonsists of three phases:. heave of the shale bearing surface during the following excavation, rapid ccmpression during construction and backfill of the structures and, finally, long-term post-construction consolidation at a very slow rate. The calculated deformation behavior for the reactor building is typical of all of the structures on the site. The computed heave of the shale within the main plant excavation ranged from about 1/2 to 3/4. inch. As discussed in Section 2.5.4.13.2, the actual heave was only about 1/4 to 1/2 inch, except within the area of a bedrock deformation zone which was subsequently excavated. 3 d The computed immediate settlement fcc the auxiliary buildings, radwaste building and control complex was about 1/2 inch in the interior and about 1/4 inch along the edges of the buildings adjacent to the toe of the plant excavation. The analysis method, however, did not account for structural rigidity of the foundation mats which would tend to decrease the interior settlement and increase the edge settlement. The actual immediate settlement of these structures, as measured at settlement points SP-1, SP-4, and SP-6, plus the disk in the control complex, has been about 1/4 to 3/4 inch, averaging about 1/2 inch, through February,1981. Long-term settlement after completion of construction is expected to be on the order of 1/10 inch. The calculated immediate settlement of the reactor buildings was about 3/4 inch in the interior and 1/3 to 1/2 inch along the edges. Again, the structural rigidity of the mat would tend to increase the settlement of the edges. The actual settlement, as measured at the 16 interior points on the reactor mat, as well as settlement points SP-2 and SP-3, has been about 1/2 to 1 inch through February 1981. Long-term settlement, after completion of construction, is expected to be on the order of an additional 1/10 inch. 2.5-173c

L i It is concluded that settlement of the Seismic Category I structures is very N small and of the magnitude anticipated. P0st-construction differential s> . settlement is expected to be negligible. c4 2.5.4.14 Construction Notes 2.5.4.14.1 Shale Deformation The onshore geologic structures mapped and investigated at the site had little ' impact on the plant foundation as designed. To preclude the possibility of - fines infiltrating porous concrete,'the following additional construction measures were taken. Degraded material was overexcavated and replaced with lean concrete having a 28-day compressive strength of at least 1500 psi. Exposed joints, open or filled, were cleaned and filled with slush grout. 2.5-174

l r I t_.. ~ _. _ --4 i n_ -= S 1 + l 9 e'e s I I, gl I 1 3 I l5 e t -1 I V 3 Y t I. 7,I {8 i i 3 I a 3-m l 1 I f li E I' i,. Is l { 1 .I 1

r i

3s [ t 3 .I .. I l i g[ l i 1j 51 ~ ggj { g I

I
  • E tad Ih

~_ 2. W !}! \\ i 9 4 i i ~ r'-.-- ,I 1 s 1 e i I il 3 f f II 1 i I B I I I f'i i E I I I J T' I 1 f T. I L ' f* a 11 i . ss, 1 s,Afj ee. e k N p u. =- g I I I 1 I / 11,/ g aim I i 1,.1 n. g- ,i,s g .n. -u: i =- s = v 1 o x <x 1 x 7 g r 1 1 1 1 u s' I 1 8

  • E

~ _j? . i F l I --__u--._. 1 o ._.._ _ s._ g u. .._.___r _ %_g__. C. d... _.. _ C T ___i.----- o w ~ e e e u o u o o' d o o o o l 113AS - N0lt$33dM03 l $3H3NI - N011VM30330 3013990S FIGURE 2.5-162 l

CQutR SLOG. EutRGENCY rOnSCMaAGE ?uMNEL + SERvtCE natta SERveCE WATER ENTRANCE STRuCTunt euuP mouse Puu# nouSE $p,7 l naTER TRtafutNT UNIT No. I fur 8t NE SulLDING auiLDING hEk" [U TUR8INE PQwtm COMPLEX ayTILARY SLOG. NO.4 ma0 WASTE d BUILDING AtaCTOR BusLDING UNef No.l SP Z / OtSu FOR mtLafivt 1 DEF0n uaTIC-CF REACTon DIESEL 9 CENERaTOR CONTROL - l sNTERutDtaTE SutLDING C0mpbEx ButLDING l RtaCTom SutLDING SP-3 SERveCE SutL0tNG i ums? No.2 i auxtL ART scoG. No.2 SP-4 TunstNC *CwtR Comet.tx ru' itt s " 0[ Gas, FIGURE 2.5-171 u u No.2 TuneNE suiLoiNG

10 0 - d 80 g UU z E5 so-g a. h e M 40 d8 ^ REACTOR NO. 1 g_ 0 0.015 NO.OIO i + d ~.. = t Ee 1: y0.00$-j{ j

s 3

I ' i' g 0 I

o o
m,
E y0.005-5$
2

= N I 0.010 RANGE I, g l 0F 8 . - AVERAGE OF 8 PoldTS - Pol MTSi, g $$$$15115Als 198il5%$ktli n!$$1115kgi$ $$sillt$kgig 19 77 19 Z.lL_ 19 79 19 80 NOTE: MEASURED DEFORMATION IS RELATIVE Td ~ MONUMENT WITHIN CONTROL COMPLEX FIGURE 2.5-172 (1 of 2)

r l ioo a 80 cc?8 'r' EM oc -.J 60 G' o +' $M wo REACTOR NO. 2 M" w 20 0 0.020-0.0:5 - R n y "w 0.0IO-:o _2 o 0.00 5 <:3 g< _ gg_gg m 2

.2 a,

o w 0 .n. w o w

o

[ 0.00S-

g 2_

++

4
3 a
n o$

i$ E LEGEND' O.010 -20 0 RANGE C F 0F 8 5 -AVERAGE OF 8 PolMTS-PolMTS L 0.085 $$$$$$$$h85b bbb$$$$$58$b bb bEb5$hbb bb $$$$$hbbb 19 77 19 78 19 79 l 19 60 NOTE: HEASURED DEFORMATION IS RELATIVE TO HONUMENT WITHIN CONTROL COMPLEX FIGURE 2.5-172 (2 of 2)

100-r 5 80 '7 Oo au 60 a-O L&J ta C OM <a oc 40 AUXILIARY BUILDING N0.1 (SP-1) 58 N 20-t 0 -0. 03' -0. 0 2' f (( -0.01' ~ 2 ['p: d3 / ii 5% i 0 T' oy 7 x 'i 4y 1 g 3 .O.Oi-- x = =v op

  • W L.

Y + 0. 0 2' 5 9 + 0. 0 3' b$$$$$$$h5$Eb$bh$$$$h85$ $$$$$$$$$$h! $$$$$$$$$$jkjfj$$$$$$gjg 19 77 l 19 78 19 79 19 80 19 81 FIGURE 2.5-173 (1 of 6)

10 0 g 80 Go gy 3 5 so y O LAJ Ww 40 E5 REACTOR BUILDING N0.1 W5 (SP-2) we M 20-E O - 0. 01' a O 1 pt. m- ~~t w.J bh \\M-k' '-T- ;N _ + 0.O l' z QW '/~%' 'r l', "" Z "-- 4--ht--- 4Y +' ~ ^ a * +0.02' og W aw 1 + 0.0 3' l T C 00.04' +0.0 5' + 0.0 6' bb5$$$$$h$$ b$$E5b$$h8$5 $$$$$$$$h$$5 b$$$$h$$h$$X b$$$$$$$$$$! 19 77 19 78 19 79 19_1 0 _ 19 8I l l l l FIGURE 2.5-173 (2 of 6)

100 = J 4 GC r So ca - ~ ~ ~< -F " d 60 ow 5!54o WW ME e' REACTOR BUILDING N0.2 U" / (SP-3) 5 z0-m s 0 -0.01' O' L eH m _2 - -[w$A _W m* $ $.o,o,' -\\ _ 8 'y_,/-N "wd -= w i> e 3 i o_ g +0.02, $2 5".i L: o p +0.03' ~ mm O t/3 i M, m. +0.0 4' _.~i 'z i + 0. 0 $' L +0.0 6' N +0.0 Y -

  • 0.08* -
  • 0.09' b$5$$$$$$55 b$ $$$$$$$$E $$$$$$$$h$$ $$$$lk?$hjjy 8$$$lk$$}yjj 19 77 l

19 78 19 79 l 19 SO 19 8t FIGURE 2.5-173 (3 of 6)

4 100 Iz',w 4 m 80 d'. = ug =m Mo , g4 60 w '- QW W$ 40 A0XILIARY BUILDING N0.2 / _ _.._. _t ) (SPI. W5 mo g 20 m a. O -0.02 b l -0.0: W -.- Ed O M M -= Ee Y[wk = h > py *0.01 v. 2m mJ OW $ $ +0.0 2 - fqA o= l .g: .~ x , + 0. 0 3 n +0. 0 4 S + 0.0 5 L' + 0.0 6 +0. 0 7 b$bk$bE$h$$ $$bh$h$$h$$ b2bh$$$$h$$ b$bE$b$$$NbYb$5b55$$h$$N 9 77 19 78 19 79 19 80 19 81 YIGURE 2.5-173 (4 of 6)

IOO a 2 m 80-p- oo mw mu mA 40 a m 6 ow ww $5 " RADWASTE BUILDING gg (SP-6) wo Om 20 w L O' .O.01 A O _ 1.f 's. =m w d ~ 'N m + 0.0 8 ' "3 W ? \\ d 1 -m m w .O.0 2, e .s\\,' wa w,e '. ,r WL J -o = N r. -i

  • G +0 03'

'. p!-\\ l i-w <x i,r-zw mJ o .O.04- + m e-WW -. 2 r. cn +0.05' V ijjlj$17}ijd53}}}$IIl3}} $$5}IIIIl35d5i5II II 355 5$5EI '555 19 77 19__78 19 79 19 80 19 B l FIGURE 2.5-173 (5 of 6)

4 9 ~ ' _ _ _. 7 E y '.] 80 GW / g 60 C w < ac 40 EMERGENCY SERVICE WATER W ji! PUMPHOUSE $8 (SP-7) E 20-a- 0 0.00 p m -a_- E o.oi , m_ - -

8

,"M L H

E:

2 i y 0.02- -w x, m f ', = A O.03 5 0.04-0 0.05-bbb$$$$5h8$ bb$$$$$$h8$5 b8$$$$$Eh8$E $$$$lh$$Ng$5 $$$$lh$$fgjg 81 80 gg 19 77 19 78 gg 79 19 FIGURE 2.5-173 (6 of 6)

IOO-a I so 5S 83 ^/ 5 $ 60 m gg 54o 58 ~-- ~ gu

DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING f

20 0 0.00 g-0.01 \\, gg u. 0.02- - i w 5 g 0.03 b 'x m w 0.04 E 55 0.0 s - 0.06 $$$$EbE$k$5 $$$$EN$$55$1 A$$$ll$$N8$j ff$$$$$1}gjlljjjjf]ff}gjj 19 M 19 80 19 8i gg gg i FIGURE 2.5-173a

s A o.oio - UNIT I ( AVERAGE OF 4 POINTS) b o.cos dd W" ~ o 5 $ $ o.cos gg Ed $Cg o.oio V o.ois-o.olo g 0FF GAS BUILDINGS .,$ o.cos UNIT 2 = bg (AVERAGEOF3 POINTS)-- g= o a z T o_ ij' HH y 3 o.cos-_ _C - 85 W;d

  • b o.olo n

V o.ois-o.ozo o.o2s o.o3o $$45E511584 $$$$15111s11 11jilitiktj! $jjilltl}gjg 32 jig}$l}gjg 19 So 19 Si 19 19 19 1 { NOTE: STRUCTURAL CONCRETE PLACEMENT COMPLETED PRIOR T0' SETTLEMENT MONITORING. 1 1 FIGURE 2.5-173b

r s J f~ a +t hA ^ n _NN 3 t' 3 T j N -j r0 ) &U% )v ( w 1 3I = ERASS DISK DIMENSIONS T Dir.li recessed 4' wall ta avoid jai.[. to face of Hole drilled-then standard ribbed' disk d' amage. ' [- P aced and set with cement grout. l (< f o., g ..m Punch Mark .T. Initial monitoring point' established iN *., with punch mark. i . n. w.,.,*,,+ *,. f ,,,l, 4,,, l .,?* g, d 'g *.V <.i.. -TYPICAL DISK INSTALLATION Building Settlement Monitoring Disks Fig. 2 5 -'178 0

n t 241.8 The Staff requires construction details of the remedial work- [ done in' connection with the installation of 15 double Class B fill'waterstops, inadvertently omitted by.the contractor *(refer to letter from D. R. Davidson, Vice President, System Engineering and Construction, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., to Mr. James Keppler, Director, Region III, Office of I&E, USNRC, Glen Ellyn, Illinois, dated February 29, 1980). Were there other similar omissions? If so, discuss any corrective measures undertaken to resolve the situation.

Response

Where Class B fill waterstops were inadvertently omitted by the contractor from pipelines penetrating the Class A fill surrounding the main plant buildings, the contractor had to excavate down to these pipes and ensure that two minimum 3 f t wide zones of Class B fill were installed completely around the pipe. Where possible, the one waterstop was instailed relatively close to the buildings and the other installed approximately 12 feet away along the pipe. These waterstops were installed in accordance with the original contract documents and under the direction of the Resident Geotechnical Engineer. No other waterstops were inadvertently omitted. - -. _ _ _ _. - _ _ _. _ _}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20010C567&oldid=4648107"