ML20074A400
| ML20074A400 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1983 |
| From: | Swartz E COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 6150N, NUDOCS 8305130001 | |
| Download: ML20074A400 (24) | |
Text
,
[C'D Commonwealth Edison l
) one First N tional Plfza. Chic:go. Ilhnois
( ~~'
"'7 Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 N
/ Chicago, Illinois 60690 j
May 6, 1983 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Braidwood Station Units 3 and 2 Additional FSAR Information NRC Docket Nos. 50-456/457 References (a):
B.
J.
Youngblood letter to L. O. DelGeorge dated January 14, 1983 (b):
B. J.
Youngblood letter to L. O. DelGeorge dated February 1, 1983
Dear Mr. Denton:
The above References requested that the Commonwealth Edison Company provide certain additional information concerning our FSAR for Braidwooo Station Units 1 and 2.
The Attachment to this letter provides our response to Questions 241.1, 241.2, 241.7, and a revision to 241.6-3.
Our FSAR will be amended to include the information contained in the Attachment to this letter as appropriate.
Additionally, in supplement to Question 361.5 Part (a), photographs with identifiable sections of the excavations of the main power block have been sent directly to Ms. Janice A. Stevens as listed in the Attachment.
Please address any questions that you or your staff may have concerning this matter to this office.
One (1) signed orig.ial and fifteen (15) copies of this letter with Attachment are provided for your use.
Very truly yours, f
E. Douglas Swar Nuclear Licensing Administrator Attachment cc:
J. G. Keppler - RIII RIII Inspector - Braidwood 6150N8305130001 830506 PDR ADOCK 05000456 A
BRAIDWOOD-FSAR QUESTION 241.1
" Discuss details of rock excavation by blasting.
Discuss how the operation was monitored and what parameters were monitored to control the damage to the bedrock as a result of blasting."
I
RESPONSE
i The criteria for blasting used for rock excavation at the Braidwood Station is covered in Sargent & Lundy Specification L-2714, entitled " Preliminary Site Work."
A minimal amount of blasting was required for excavation of the plant foun-i dations.
Only eight blasts were used, all occurring between December 31, 1975 and January 22, 1976.
No concrete was inplace for any structures at the time of the blasts.
The blasts were monitored at the site boundaries using seismographic tests to insure that no damage was caused to residential structures.
Blast data for the eight blasts are presented in Table Q241.1 1 The majority of the plant foundations were excavated using i
conventional construction techniques such as ripping and ram-hoe 0 -
methods.
l l
I e
i I
l l
I.
.. ~
w 9
Q241.1-1 L
O O
O TABLE O241.1 1
BLATP DATA BLAST MONITORING DATA MAXIMUM l
DATE BLAST TYPE OF BLAST LOADING MONITORING PEAK VELOCITY, PEAK AIR gfESSURE, BLAST
& TIME LOC ATION BLAST lb/ DELAY DISTANCE, Ft.
In/Sec.
Lb/In A
12/31/75 Unit 1 Presplit 50 to 128 ml800 0.11 0.0006 4:45 p.m.
B 12/31/75 Unit 1 Presplit 106 to 110
=1800 0.12 0.0011 2
4:50 p.m.
l C
01/06/76 Unit 2 Presplit 40 to 96
=1800 0.12 0.0028 4:41 p.m.
h" D
01/06/76 Unit 2 Presplit 40
=1800 0.18 0.0019 8
4:48 p.m.
a E
01/07/76 Unit 2 Production 40 to 280
=1800 0.50 0.0003 g
w
{
4:26 p.m.
& Presplit a
F 01/12/76 Unit 1 Production 120 to 260 m2300 0.11 0.0026 5
4:48 p.m.
& Presplit y
G 01/15/76 West of Production 153 m2800 0.04 Less than wind 4:36 p.m.
Unit 162
& Presplit
& background noise H
01/22/76 West of Production 189 m1900 0.15 4
4:30 p.m.
Unit 162
& Presplit NOTES:
1.
Presplit blasts utilized presplit explosives in the holess individual holes were detonated with premacord surface line to down hole primacord liness blasts detonated electrically.
2.
Production blasts were loaded with conventional explosives, detonated by electric nil 11second (ms) delay firing techniques. All explosive products used were manufactured by Atlas, except for Ensign-Bickford "Primacord."
i i
l i
9 l
BRAIDWOOD-FSAR QUESTION 241.2
" Provide information on the gradation, method of i
compaction, placement density, and mositure content spe-
{
cified for the granular backfill used beneath and surrounding i
all Category I structures and buried pipes.
Furnish plots i
presenting results of the quality control field tests performed to verify that the actual construction is in compliance with the specifications."
8 j
RESPONSE
Category I granular backfill for the main plant and essential service cooling water pipelines has been discussed in detail in Subsections 2.5.4.5.2.2 and 2.5.4.5.4.2, respectively.
Project specifications specified that the backfill material be approved material from previous excavations or borrow areas onsite.
The sand backfill used was approved.
Figures 2.5-261
~
and 2.5-262 give an envelope of 58 grain size curves for the
, granular backfill used in the main plant area and three grain size curves for the granular backfill used in the essential service water pipeline trench also in the main plant area.
Figure Q241.2-1 gives an envelope of 12 grain size curves for essential service water pipeline backfill within the essen-tial service water cooling pond.
Specifications required the Category I granular backfill to be compacted by vibratory compactors to minimum 85% Relative Density.
A discussion of the results of 273 inplace density tests (ASTM D 1556) for the main plant area is presented in Subsection 2.5.4.5.2.2.
These test results indicate compliance with project specifications.
Results of the inplace density tests for compacted granular fill placed outside the main plant area of the buried pipeline also indicated compliance with project specifications.
The frequency of field density and laboratory testing exceeded the minimum specifie.d.
Specifi-cations required the following material testing and frequency.
Material Testing and Frequency Field and laboratory test measurements shall be performed to the following minimum test frequencies.
0241.2-1
BRAIDWOOD-FSAR TEST REQUENCY (SEE NOTE 1)
FIELD DENSITY Controlled Compacted Fill A,B,C,E,F,K,L,M Regular Compacted Fill A,B, (L* )
COMPACTION j
Controlled Compacted Fill D,F, G, (L* ),M j
Regular Compacted Fill
-F,J,D i
MOISTURE CONTENT Borrow C,D,H Controlled Compacted Fill C,H, K, (L* ),M Regular Compacted Fill C,D,H l
GRAIN SIZE l
l Controlled Compacted Fill F,J Regular Compacted Fill L
l LIFT THICKNESS Controlled Compacted Fill C,D,I Regular Compacted Fill C,D,I RELATIVE DENSITY Controlled Compacted Fill L
NOTE 1 - Letter designations represent the following frequencies or areas for the tests:
A = In areas where degree of compaction is doubtful.
B = In areas where earth fill operations are concentrated.
C = At least one for each earth fill shift.
3 D = One for every 8,000 yd of fill for control and record.
E = For record tests at location of any embedded items.
F = Where material identity is questionable.
Q241.2-2
BRAIDWOOD-FSAR G = One for each field density test as needed.
H = Where soil appears too wet or too dry.
I = Periodic surveillance and measurement checks.
3 J = One for every 4,000 yd for record.
3 K = One for every 500 yd for record and control (in confined areas only).
3 L = One for every 4,000 yd for record and control.
M = One for every 500 linear feet of dike for slurry trench cap.
- Indicates a requirement for the Lake Work in addition to the listed requirements.
Results of inplace density tests made for the essential service water discharge structure are discussed in the response to Question 241.5.
s 0241.2-3
r
.=
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 5 43 100
~
2 to e 6 4 3 2 I e6 4 3 2
.t 8 6 4 3 2
.01 8 6 4 3 2 j'.~'
i ICO
'A hs 90 0
3 i
j q
i A
I I
l l
/
I I
/
l 80 I'.
i 0
l 1
I i
i l,-
I I
I Li i
I 70 70
.g g
i x
I i
I o
i I
l h 60 l
60 l
I M
i i
l n
50 0
e i
I I
I 2
i;-
1 I
l l
40 40 F
i i
f, I
z l
l l
8 g
I f
I
.,3 a: 30 i
i W'
I l
i i
e 1
20 20 l
l l
l A\\
g 10 V
-10 l
Y i
I I
i 4
i h
I i
O i
oo?
i i i3,
,o,
,,,,3 a-f
,#_c#
2 223 3
8 sieve opening-ins.l U.S. standard Numbers -
82 a
" ] Size - Millimeters GRAVEL SAND SILT AND CLAY SIZES coarse medium fine coarse medium fine
.g BRAiDWCCD STATION Fir 1AL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPCRT FIGunc Q 2w.2 -i G R Ai rJ S12E EN JEL C P E, SMb 8ACK FIL L E6iA/P h/7 T HIrJ ESC f j
BRAIDWOOD-FSAR QWST/W o?W [ - )90gy.f 4%V/ftcw At the ESW discharge structure interface, the discharge pipes are encased in lean concrete and backfilled with granular fill to minimum 854 relative density.
Cross-sections are given in Figure Q362.8-1.
Backfill has been discussed in response to Question 241.4.
Total settlement is calculated to be 1/8 inch or less since the structure l
and pipeline are supported on Wedron silty cicy till.
See the response to Question 241.4 for further discussion of the ESW discharge structure.
(4) The ESW pipelines are either founded on Wedron glacial till or compacted granular fill within the main plant excavation.
The pipelines are backfilled with bash, concrete, or compacted fill.
The compacted fill was placed to a minimum 85% relative density.
The glacial till and com-pacted fill are not susceptible to liquefaction.
For further discussion, see Subsection 2.5.6.5.2 on liquefaction potential and the response to Question 241.7.
(S) The ESWS pipelines are founded on Wedron silty clay till and are backfilled with bash to the top of the pipes.
Figure 2.5-25 shows a profile along the pipeline alignment.
The top of the till is above the top of the pipes in most areas and in all cases is above the pipe centerline.
The till and bash will not erode if the circulating water supply pipes should break.
(6) Quantitiative and Procedural Details of the Dynamic Analysis of the Seismic Category I Buried Pioing The methodology used to perform the dynamic analysis of the seismic Category I buried piping is described in the response to Question 130.33.
The variability of the supporting soil strata has been accounted for in the dynamic analysis by conservatively choosing the design particle velocity and the apparent shear wave velocity.
The static properties of the in situ soil and compacted fill have been accounted for by conservatively choosing the modulus of subgrade reaction.
0241.6-3
BRAIDWOOD-FSAR QUESTION 241.7
" Provide the following information for the Essential Service Cooling Pond (ESCP) slopes:
"1.
Present a figure showing the critical section of the ESCP slope analyzed for static stability.
Show the critical failure surface and the corresponding factor of safety against failure.
"2.
What was the seismic coefficient used in evaluating the dynamic stability of the ESCP slope by pseudostatic method of analysis?
What are the minimum factors of safety for seismic coefficients of 0.20g and 0.269?
"3.
Evaluate the dynamic stability of the ESCP slope.
"4.
The liquef action study using the SHAKE program evaluated the case with the level ground at elevation 590.0 ft.
Provide the results of a similar study for the ESCP bottom, at elevation 584.0 feet.
"5.
Discuss the static and dynamic stability of the Category I sheet pile wall adjoining the Lake Screen house.
Present a detailed cross section and plan of the critical section analyzed for stability.
~
"6.
Investigate the potential for blockage of the entrance to the Lake Screen house as a result of a catastrophic flow type of failure of the ESCP slopes in the immediate vicinity of the screen house."
RESPONSE
1.
The critical section of the ESCP slope analyze'd for static stability is given in Figure 0241.7-1.
The analysis is for end of construction condition with a minimum factor of safety of 5.9 as discussed in Subsection 2.5.6.5.1.2.
2.
The seismic coefficient used in evaluating the dynamic stability of the ESCP slope by pseudostatic method of analysis was 0.2g.
The minimum factor of safety is 1.3 as discussed in Subsection 2.5.6.5.1.2.
The ESCP slope has also been analyzed with a seismic coefficient of 0.26g and the minimum f actor of safety is 1.1.
3.
The dynamic stability of the ESCP slope by finite element methods was not performed because the pseudostatic analysis used yields conservatiave results and a greater minimum 0241.7-1 i
I
BRAIDWOOD-FSAR factor of safety would be obtained if a finite element method were used.
This is the case because the method -
of analysis employed assumes application of the seismic force at the base of each slice rather than at the centroid.
It should be noted that factor of safety is determined by a comparison of overturning moments and resisting moments and that no consideration is given to the effects of side forces on slices in making the computations.
The seismic
. force is assumed to increase only the overturning moment
.and to have no influence on the resisting moment.
The sail strength properties have also been based on triaxial compression tests rather than plane strain tests.
This is also conservative.
Discussion of the conservative nature of these assumptions can be found in the paper by H. B. Seed, K. L. Lee, and I. M.
Idriss on the Analysis-of Sheffield Dam Failure, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, November 1969.
The minimum factor of safety for slope stability using pseudostatic analysis with a seismic coefficient of 0.2g was 1.3.
With a seismic coef ficient of 0.26g the minimum factor of safety is 1.1, which is considered acceptable.
4.
The liquefaction potential of the ESCP bottom at the Braidwood Station was evaluated by calculating a factor of safety (rg/Td) defined as the ratio of the shear stress required to cause liquefaction Cr g) and the shear stress induced by the SSE Crd).
The shear stress required to cause lique-faction was calculated based on laboratory cyclic strength tests on reconstituted test specimens and corrected for the effects of specimen reconstitution and to adjust for differences in stress conditions between the field and laboratory (refer to FSAR Equation 2.5-14).
The stresses induced by the SSE were computed using the program SHAKE.
The resulting stress distribution induced in 10 cycles for level ground at elevation 590 feet is shown in Figures
~2.5-116 and 2.5-117.
Calculations indicating the various correction factors and the resulting f actors of safety are presented in Tables 0241.7-1 through Q241.7-4.
Factors of safety against liquefaction are calculated and presented for level ground at elevations 590 feet and 584 feet, and " average" and
" low average" relative density conditions corresponding to the development of initial liquefaction (IL),15% axial strain, and 110% axial strain.
Q241.7-2
BRAIDWOOD-FSAR The induced stresses, (Td), and the stresses required to cause +10% strain (Tg) for level ground at elevation 590 feet are compared in Figures 2.5-116 and 2.5-117, and for level ground at elevation 584 feet in Figures Q241.7-3 and Q241.7-4.
Figures Q241.7-3 and 0241.7-4 are plots of data from Table Q241.7-3 which correspond to average relative density conditions.
Based on results of the liquefaction potential evaluation presented, it is concluded there is an ample margin of safety against liquefaction of the sand deposits within the ESCP for level ground surface at both elevations 590 feet and 584 feet. Details of the analysis are discussed below.
Selection of Parameters The following parameters were used to calculate T g/T d Parameter Description and Source T
Shear stress induced by SSE.
T values d
g are plotted with depth of the s5il profile s
in Figures 2.5-116 and 2.5-117.
These were computed based on a SHAKE analysis for level ground at elevation 590 feet were calculated by using a simplified procedure for evaluating stresses using a simplified procedure for evaluating stresses described in Reference 1 (Seed & Idriss,1982).
The SHAKE program has been run for level ground at elevation 584 feet and. verifies that the T values g
shown in Tables Q241.7-3 and Q24I.7-4 are conservative.
( Gh/2 cec)
Stress ratio representative of laboratory cyclic strength of reconstituted test specimens at N=10 stress cycles.
(ad/2a V*1"*8 vs. N are plotted in Figures 2.c)100 and 3 3-2.5-101 for soil type and relative density / fines content properties.
D Correction factor to adjust for effect of c
specimen reconstitution.
D values are plotted in Figure 2.5-110 and are dependent or relative density and strain condition.
Q241.7-3
BRAIDWOOD-FSAR C
Correction f actor dependent on relative r
density or K as appropriate.
The selec-g, tion of C based on D, was made on the basis of an equ5 valent Sacramento River Sand D
= 90% and the curve presented in Figure 2 5-111.
The C value for D
= 90% is 0.75.
E The selection of C was obtained from Figure 2.5-115. based on Kg The value of K was obtained based on OCR from Figure 2.3-115.
The OCR was calculated as shown in Figure 2.'5-114 for level ground at elevation 590, and in Figure Q241.7-2 for level ground at elevation 584..For OCR greater than 4.5 a K value of 0.88 is selected.
For l
K
= 0.98, a value of C
= 0.83 is selected r
fFom rigure 2.5-113.
Calculation Method The calculated factors of safety (FS) are presented in Tables Q241.7-1 through Q241.7-4.
Three FS values are calculated (columns (8), (11), and (14) for each elevation and strain condition considered.
The method used to calculate FS is as follows:
(1)
FS in column (8)
Cr*"v* (# /20 I
d 3c
.FS
=
Td 1
where C
= 0.75 r
(2)
FS (C based on D ) in column (11) r r
FS (C based on D ) = FS
- D r
r c
(3)
FS (C based on K ) in column (14) r g
C FS (C based on K ) = FS (C based on Dr) 0.75 r
r where C btained from Figure 2.5-113.
r 0241.7-4
BRAIDWOOD-FSAR Reference 1.
" Ground Motions and Soil Liquef action During Earthquakes,"
Seed & Idriss, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1982.
5.
There is no Category I sheetpile wall adjoining the lake screen house.
The retaining walls adjoining the lake screen house are reinforced concrete wing walls founded on Wedron silty clay till between elevations 561 feet 9 inches and 569 feet 0 inch.
The walls are designed as Category I and extend as much as 100 feet east and west of the screen house.
Plans and sections of the walls are given in Figures Q241.7-2, Q241.7-3, and Q241.7-4.
6.
The ESCP slopes in the immediate vicinity of the lake screen house are 10 horizontal to 1 vertical and are pro-tected with a 2-foot thick layer of bedding and riprap.
The ESCP slopes have been shown to be stable and have an ample margin of safety against liquefaction during the unlikely event of the postulated SSE as discussed in Subsection 2.5.6.5 and this question response.
A plan of the ESCP slopes in the vicinity of the lake screen house is shown in Figure Q241.4-3.
e 9
\\
~
O O
l 1
1' l
Q241.7-5 l.
a t
i TABLE Q241.7-1 FS Against Liquefaction for Average Relative Density Conditions Level Ground at Elev. 590.0 f t (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
D FS (C C
FS (C
~
Strain d
(2
)
e r
r r
d y
3e
- f (based i
t Condi-o f
based (based T
based g
Elev Soil (psf) tion (psf)
N=10 (psf)
FS on D )
(Psf) on D )
on K )
(psf) on K )
r g
g i
w 4
588 Brown 48.2 IL 134 0.56 56.3 1.17 1.00 56.3 1.17 0.83 62.3 1.30 U
i 13 Fine 48.2
+5%
134 0.70 70.5 1.46 1.19 83.7 1.74 0.83 92.7 1.94 y
C Silty 48.2
~~+10%
134 0.83 83.5 1.72 1.38 114.0 2.36 0.83 127.0 2.63 e
h Sand i
os
)
585 Brown 115.0 IL 335 0.56 141.0 1.22 1.00 140.3 1.22 0.83 154.1 1.34 Fine 115.0
+5%
335 0.70 176.0 1.53 1.19 203.6 1.77 0.83 226.6 1.97
]
Silty 115.0
}[10%
335 0.83 208.0 1.80 1.38 280.0 2.43 0.83 310.0 2.70 Sand 1
585 Gray 115.0 IL 335 0.54 135.8 1.18 1.03 143.8 1.25 0.83 159.9 1.39 Fine 115.0
+5%.
335 0.63 158.0 1.37 1.25 196.7 1.72 0.83 219.6 1.91 Sand 115.0
+10%
335 0.75 188.5 1.64 1.42 266.0 2.32 0.83 296.0 2.58 4
570 Gray 368.0 IL 1340 0.54 543.0 1.48 1.03 581.4 1.58 0.65 515.2 1.40 Fine 368.0
+5%
1340 0.63 633.0 1.72 1.25 802.2 2.18 0.65 706.6 1.92 Sand 368.0
}[10%
1340 0.75 755.0 2.05 1.42 1070.0 2.92 0.65 945.0 2.57 t
I I
.o 4
TABLE Q241.7-2 FS Against Liquefaction for Low Average Relative Density Conditions Level Ground at Elev. 590.0 ft (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14) 8 D
FS (C C
FS (C r
r r
Strain d
c
( 20 3c Tf (based t
Td Condi-o, f
based (based tr based Elev Soil (psf) tion o
N=10 (psf)
FS on D )
(Psf) on D )
"" K (Psf) on K )
y r
r o
o 1
588 Brown 48.2 IL 134 0.53 53.3 1.11 0.99 53.0 1.10 0.83 59.3 1.23 Fine 48.2
+5%
134 0.62 62.3 1.29 1.17 72.8 1.51 0.83 81.0 1.68 Silty 48.2
}[10%
134 0.79 79.5 1.65 1.36 109.4 2.27 0.83 121.9 2.53 Sand h
585 Brown 115.0 IL 335 0.53 133.0 1.13 0.99 130.0 1.13 0.83 144.9 1.26 Fine 115.0
+5%
335 0.62 156.0 1.36 1.17 178.2 1.55 0.83 199.0 1.73 Ej g
,3g Silty 115.0
+10%
335 0.79 198.5 1.72 1.36 265.6 2.31 0.83 295.6 2.57 j
7-Sand a
l' i
m 4
-4 585 Gray 115.0 IL 335 0.48 120.5 1.05 1.00 120.8 1.05 0.83 134.6 1.17 Fine 115.0
+5%
335 0.55 138.0 1.20 1.19 164.4 1.43 0.83 182.8 1.59 Silty 115.0
{10%
335 0.61 153.0 1.33 1.38 212.8 1.85 0.83 236.9 2.06 Sand 570 Cray 368.0 IL 1340 0.48 482.0 1.34 1.00 493.1 1.34 0.65 434.2 1.18 Fine 368.0
+5%
1340 0.55 552.0 1.50 1.19 666.1 1.81 0.65 588.8 1.60 Sand 368.0
{10%
1340 0.61 613.0 1.67 1.38 853.8 2.32 0.65 754.4 2.05 I
i
TABLE Q241.7-3 FS Against Liquefaction for Average Relative Density Conditions Level Ground at Elev. 584.0 ft (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
FS (C C
FS (C Strain "d
c r
r r
(2
)
d y
3e
- f (based i
t Condi-c f
based (based t
based g
Elev Soil (psf) tion (psf)
N=10 (psf)
FS on D )
(Psf) on D )
n K,)
(psf) on K )
r r
g 582 Gray 48.2 IL 134 0.54 54.3 1.12 1.03 55.9 1.16 0.83 61.9 1.28 Fine 48.2 15%
134 0.63 63.3 1.31 1.25 79.1 1.64 0.83 87.6 1.82 Sand 48.2 110%
134 0.75 75.4 1.56 1.42 112.4 2.33 0.83 124.4 2.58 tw h
579 Gray 115.0 IL 335 0.54 135.7 1.18 1.03 139.7 1.21 0.83 154.6 1.34 o
g Fine 115.0 15%
335 0.63 158.3 1.38 1.25 197.9 1.72 0.83 219.0 1.90 g
7 Sand 115.0 110%
335 0.75 188.4 1.64 1.42 267.6 2.33 0.83 296.1 2.58 g
?
"E 577.5 Cray 148.8 IL 435.5 0.54 176.4 1.18 1.03 181.7 1.22 0.83 201.5 1.35 g
Fine 148.8 15%
435.5 0.63 205.8 1.38 1.25 257.2 1.73 0.83 285.3 1.92 g
Sand 148.8 110%
435.5 0.75 245.0 1.65 1.42 347.8 2.34 0.83 385.9 2.59 570 Cray 309.0 IL 938 0.54 379.9 1.23 1.03 391.3 1.27 0.73 380.8 1.23 Fine 309.0
+5%
938 0.63 443.2 1,43 1.25 554.0 1.79 0.73 539.2 1.74 Sand 309.0
~110%
938 0.75 527.6 1.71 1.42 749.2 2.42 0.73 729.2 2.36
TABLE Q241.7-4 FS Against Liquefaction for Low Average Relative Density Conditions Level Ground at Elev. 584.0 ft (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
O D
FS (C C
FS (C Strain d
e r
r r
( 20 y
3c Tf (based
'f based (based tg based
'd Condi-o Elev Soil (psf) tion (psf)
N=10 (psf) FS on D )
(Psf) on D )
"K)
(Psf) on K )
r r
o o
542 Gray 48.2 IL 134 0.48 48.2 1.00 1.00 48.2 1.00 0.83 53.5 1.11 Fine 48.2
+5%
134 0.55 55.3 1.15 1.19 65.8 1.36 0.83 73.0 1.51 Sand 48.2
}[10%
134 0.61 61.3 1.27 1.38 84.6 1.76 0.83 93.8 1.95 x3 579 Gray 115.0 IL 335 0.48 120.6 1.05 1.00 120.6 1.05 0.83 133.8 1.16 E
Fine 115.0
+5%
335 0.55 138.2 1.20 1.19 164.4 1.43 0.83 182.4 1.59 8
7' Sand 115.0 T10%
335 0.61 153.3 1.33 1.38 211.5 1.84 0.83 234.6 2.04
?
Y
~~
U 577.5 Gray 148.8 IL 435.5 0.48 156.8 1.05 1.00 156.8 1.05 0.83 173.9 1.17 Fine 148.8
+5%
435.5 0.55 179.6 1.21 1.19 213.8 1.44 0.83 237.1 1.59 Sand 148.8
}[10%
435.5 0.61 199.2 1.34 1.38 274.9 1.85 0.83 305.0 2.05 570 Gray 309.0 IL 938 0.48 337.7 1.09 1.00 337.7 1.09 0.73 328.7 1.06 Fine 309.0
+5%
938 0.55 386.9 1.25 1.19 460.4 1.49 0.73 448.2 1.45 Sand 309.0 T10%
938 0.61 429.1 1.39 1.38 592.2 1.92 0.73 576.4 1.86 O
O
6.73
&22 s 94 104 4.13 Lses i i i i
,cy s 34 js.e3 c,io L99 I I Les fc.ss 9s s.02
/
[.512_[., /,.
6.34 3.97 4.;t M2 5:
4 /s a
/s9: /s.17
.END OF CO.*lSTF.UCTICf1 7
o 94 07 STATIC LCADtilG F.S. = 5.86
,, 3 f,,
3 37,,,,, jg, 4 EL 590 to 6 8 EL5 4 WT.
V SAND (SP)
I z 125 PCF
/ 340 C=0 EL.571 i
I n 140 PCF GLACIAL TILL
/* 30 8
0 190 PSF EL""5 V/44Lut VEL L i BEOROCK 1
BR AIDWC D D STATION FIN AL S AFETY AN ALYSIS REPORT FIsunc cQ24t.7-1 C fQITICA L SECTIon Fog S TA Tr C.
ESC P SLcrG STARI L ITY A A/A LYST S s
600 -
Ground surface in ECP befcre construct.icn
/s 595-Soil Excavated Minicum water level in Ec?
during operation 590 -'
7.
v Water level -raisea uw v
585 -
f
/
Water level in ECP
/
G before construction 580 -
Sand Deposit 2
Tg = 130 lb/ft yb = 70 lb/ft2 575 -
Bottom of Sand Deposit 570 -
wv/4weXw e-;w/cve4w/q sv/gwm wu Before Construction During Construction
- b
- h Ca el.ft lb/ft2 K
lb/ft2 OCR*
K o
1b/ft2 g
577.5 2085 0.40 834 455 4.5 0.88 575.0 2260 0.40 900 630 3.6 0.75 570.0 2610 0.40 1040 980 2.7 0.70 d
Effective Overburden Pressure
- GCR = Overconsolidation Ratio = -
Be{oreConstructicn
=
Efrective Overburden Pressure
= _. _
3 a
BRAIDV! COD ST AT!Oi4 After Construction FIN AL S AFETY ANALYSIG fi E 83 C r?T FIGucc q 241.7-2
/h1N1r.wnt PRIrJtif2A t.
STREG G SA710 WITHIrd SAWh D E P CC IT-buPJNG C f'E agr lo ra AT EL SM FT
ShearStress(psf)
O 200 400 600 800 1000 El.584 0
f - shear stress required to T
7 cause 10% strain in 10 cycles 5-Gray 7
Fine U
Sand Q
Tg - rheae c4w = m h e!
E 10-Vt to *7**b SSE Y
(SHAKE a nalystS) 1973
'El.57C
'~
d - shear stress induced' T
Glaciil Vill in10cyclesbySSE (cy laece/ preceda'".)
T /T f d 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 I
I I
f O
0 0
2
+
O O
O
~
fi
+ 5% Axial A 10% Axial Strain j
Initial Strain D
Liquefaction i
1 O
O 1
=
BR AIDWCOD ST ATION FIN AL S AFETY ANALYS:G R E-)C n T F C,uRE Q 241.7-3
^
7 1
EVALuATIotJ OF LIQUEF4cne.V Po T c NTTA L ~ LEVLL GRwnh AT El SsH Fr Cr Bases en b,.
Shear. Stress (psf) 0 20 0
600 800 1000 E1.584 0-7 - shear' stress required to T
cause 110% strain in 10 cycles Gray Fine Sand
^
TJ. rhearrhtrr I:clocrc
.c 10-I'l 10 cyc!c: by SQSE N
[.THAYE AA@YIG)
\\
b
./ 9 P3 E1.570 Glacial 15-d - shear stress induced Till I
T in 10 cycles by SSE x (comyfi{jed precedwe)
Tg/Td 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0
O 5-i O
7 t.
O
)
fi Inikial
+ 15% Axial
<- 10% Axial Strain Liquefaction Strain o
I 10 -
l 15 -
BRAIDWOOD STATION FIN AL S AFETY ANALYS;S RE___" ORT Fasuet a 29,.7 - 4 E VA L u.4 T ic N cF liq uC FACTIcN Po7 tiv n A t - LEVEL G RC4rd h AT l
El S84 FT-C,,
BMe b cn k,
Supplemental Information Requested by NRC Following Review of Response to Braidwood Question 361.5, part a Qua.stion 361.5, part a, indicated that 190 photographs of 145 locations have been taken in excavations of the nain power block.
A map of these locations is given in Figure Q361.5-1.
Prints of the above photographs with identifiable sections, control points, and photograph numbers are enclosed (sheets 2 through 34).
Also enclosed is a table listing the photographs, control points, and section numbers (sheets 1 and la).
e i
s I
s
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATiON FOR RESPONSE TO BRAIDWOOD QUESTION 361.5, PART A TABLE OF SECTIONS, CONTROL POINTS, AND PHOTOGRAPilS DATE OF WORK PHOTO NUMBER SECTION NUMBER CONTROL POINT NUMBER 2-25-76 1
1 1
2-11 12 2
no control point No contact in section 13-26 27 3
3 28-38 Photos 37-38=2 Photos each 39 4
4 2 photos 40-50 Photos 40-42=2 photos, photo 44 is a polaroid duplicate, photos 45-50=2 photos 51 5
5 2 photos 52-61 Photo 52=3 photos, 53=2, 54=1, 55-59=2, 60-61=3 62 6
6 2 photos 63-70 Photo 69 = 2 photos, photos 63 & 64 =
2 photos 2-26-76 71-72 7
7 73-74 75 8
8
'hoto 75 = 2 photos 76-86 Photo 76 = 2 photos, Photo 77 = 3 photos 87 9
9 88-93 Photo 93 = 2 photos 94 10 10 95-100 101 11 11 In excavation mapping report 102-111 Photos 101, 103,& 111 in excavation mapping report, photo 108 = 2 photos 112 12 12 In excavation report 113-119 Photo 113 in excavation mapping report 2-27-76 120 13 13 Control point 5-13 was destroyed by construction.
121 122 14 14 123 124 15 15 125 126 16 16 127-128 3 photos 129 17 17 130 Sheet 1 131 18 18
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR RESPONSE TO
\\'
BRAIDWOOD QUESTION 361.5, PART A i
l TABLE OF SECTIONS, CONTROL POINTS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS (Cont'd)
DATE OF MORK PHOTO NUMBER SECTION NUMBER CONTR,0L POINT NUMBER 2-27-76 132 19 19 133 134 20 20 2-28-76 135 21 21 136 137 22 22 138 23 23 soil section, 3 photos, one photo in excavation mapping report no photos no sections 24-27
- T.O.R control points; control point S-24 was destroyed by construction.
1 3-1-76
'139 28 28 T.O.R. soil section, 2 photos no photos no sections 29-30 T.O.R control points, control point S-30 was destroyed by construction.
140 37 37 2 photos 141 38 38 4 photos 3-1-76 & 3-2-76 142 31 31 T.O.R. soil section, 2 photos, control i
l point S-31 was destroyed by construction no photos no sections 32 T.O.R control point, control point S-32 was destroyed by construction.
143 39 39 T.O.R 144 33 33 T.O.R. Soil section, control point S-33 was destroyed by construction.
3-1-76 & 3-3-76 no photos no sections 34-35 T.O.R control points 145 36 36 T.O.R soil section, 3 photos Note:
T.O.R.= Top of Rock Sheet la h.
m