ML20096F759
| ML20096F759 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1984 |
| From: | Woolever E DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 2NRC-4-136, NUDOCS 8409100204 | |
| Download: ML20096F759 (15) | |
Text
.
2NRC-4-136 (412)787 - 5141 Telecopy 2 8-Nuclear Construction Division August 31, 1984 Robinson Plaza, Building 2, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15205 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
Mr. George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch 3 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412 Response to Draf t SER Open Item No.172 Gentlemen:
The respons e to the NRC Geotechnical Engineering Section's Draft SER Open Item No. 172 is provided in Attachment 1.
The associated revi-sions to FSAR Section 2.5.4 are provided in Attachment 2.
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY By
' /[ ~
E. (,1. Voolever Vice President JD0/wjs Attachments cc:
Ms. M. Ley, Project Manager (w/a)
Mr. E. A. Licitra, Project Manager (w/a)
Mr. G. Walton, NRC Resident Inspector (w/a)
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
)
SS:
COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY
)
On this J /c) day of WuM
/97 before me, a Notary Public in and for said Commotiwealth and County, personally appeared E. J. Woolever, who being duly sworn, deposed and said that (1) he is Vice President of Duquesne Light, (2) he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing Submittal on behalf of said Company, and (3) the statements set fo rth in the Submittal are true and correct to the bes t of his knowledge.
NO l
L
\\
Notary Public 8409100204 840831 ANITA ELAINE REITER, NOTARY PUBLIC i\\
PDR ADOCK 05000412 ROBINSON TOWNSHIP, ALLEGHENY COUNTY E
PDR MY COMMISb9N EXPIRES OCTOBER 20,1986 L
w
, s:
L i
ATTACHMENT 1 i
I Draft SER.Open-Item No. 172 (Sections 2.5.4.1.2 and 2.5.4.5) - Longitudinal Sections and Parameters of Category I Buried Pipelines:
-Section 2.5.4.1.2:
The applicant has ' agreed to' furnish longitudinal sections of all.
Category.I. pipelines (1) from the Valve Pit No. I to the main plant
. structures, and (2) from the main plant area to the Emergency Outfall structure. ; These sections ~ should show the soil profile and the - static and dynamic soil properties used in the pipe stress analysis, such as i
the subgrade modulus, shear wave velocity, shear modulus, etc.
l' Section 2.5.4.5:
l The major items that need - to be addressed by the applicant in the forth-coming amendment of the FSAR are the following:
1.
Furnish longitudinal sections of Category I pipelines and ducts not already provided showing therein the soil profile and the elevations st which the pipes are laid.
Locations of manholes and their foun-l ~
dation configuration should also be shown in these longitudinal sections.
2.
Provide the actual values of the geotechnical parameters such as subgrade modulus, shear wave velocity and soil modulus, etc. used in the static and dynamic analysis of buried pipes.
Response
Longitudinal sections along Category I pipelines and locations of duct-lines on soil profiles were provided in response to FSAR Question 241.2 in FSAR Amendment 6.
Static and dynamic properties of in situ soils and compacted fill are L
provided in FSAR Section 2.5.4.4 and revised FSAR Sections 2.5.4.5 and 2.5.4.7.
The revised FSAR sections are provided in Attachment 2 and will be incorporated into FSAR Amendment 8.
The ef fect of these revi-sions on FSAR Section 3.75.3.12 will be addressed in FSAR Amendment 9.
t
ATTACHMENT 2 s
BVPS-2 FSAR Soil Properties
]
s
,i dry unit weight of compacted structural fill was taken as The 130 pcf, corresponding to 95 percent of the mean maximum dry density from 115 moisture density tests.
The specific gravity was taken as 2.65.
The void ratio was computed to be 0.27.
The saturated unit weight below the ground-water table was taken as 144 pcf from the equation:
T"G+Se.y" Y
1+e (2.5.4-4) where:
Yr = total unit weight (pcf) o = specific gravity S = degree of saturation, decimal (100%)
e = void ratio-Tw = unit weight of water = 62.4 pcf Above the ground-water table, the total unit weight was taken as 136 pcf assuming an average water content of 5 percent.
The angle of internal friction of compacted structural fill was conservatively assumed to be 36 degrees.
Low. strain shear moduli were estimated using Equation 2.5.4-5 as follows (Hardin and Dren ich 1972):
V 0 (2.M-e) 2 g,)o,s G=
1+e (2.5.4-5) where G
= shear modulus (psi)
= effective octahedral stress (psi) o, 2.5.4.6 Ground-water Conditions Regional and local aquifer characteristics are described in detail in Section 2.4.13.
O v
Inter ~f.2.G 4.S A 2.5.4-9 (pages.2.s.4.9 s a,A 2..s. A- %)
4 Insert 2.5.4.5A.
' The vertical coef ficient of subgrade reaction for buried pipe was computed according to the following equation (Vesic 1961, 1961a):
12 4
E (2.5.4-Sa) k = 0.65 Eg Do p Ip De E
3 where: k = vertical coefficient of subgrade reaction (1b/in )
y D = outside diameter of pipe (in) o 2
E, = Young's modulus of soil (ib/in )
2 E = Young's modulus of pipe (1b/in )
p 4
= moment of inertia of pipe section (in )
[I = Poisson's ratio of soil An average, low strain value of shear modulus, G, was estimated using equa-tion 2.5.4-5 for two ranges of pipe embedment depth, H
- e He < 15 ft; G = 2250 ksf
'15 f t I He < 30 ft; G = 4350 ksf Using ~ these values of shear modulus, Young's modulus, with a reduction to account for strain, was estimated as:
E = 2(1 + V )G_
(2.5.4-5b) s 3
Vertical coef ficient of _ subgrade reaction is shown in Figure 2.5.4-62 as a function of depth of embedment and pipe diameter.
The horizontal coefficient of subgrade reaction for buried pipe was deter-mined according to the empirical procedure described by Audibert and Nyman (1977).
An analytical procedure was developed to determine the horizontal load-displacement (p y) curve for any size pipe embedded at any given depth.
Considering the horizontal coefficient of subgrade reaction as the amount of soil pressure reaction generated by a given amount of horizontal displacement (that is, as a secant to the py curve), the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction can be expressed by:
kg=y=
1 (2.5.4-Sc) y A' + B' y 3
where: kh = horizontal coefficient of subgrade reaction (1b/in )
2 p = pressure (Ib/in )
y = displacement (in) 3 A' = 0.145 y (in /lb) qu 2.5.4-9a
=
B' = 0.855 (in /lb) 2 9u l-
_yu = ultimate displacement (in)~
q, = ultimate soil resistance (1b/in2)
Considering the buried pipe as a horizontal footing, -the ultimate soil resistance, qu, is computed as:
qu = Y ZN (2.5.4-5d) q 2
where:
qu = ultimate soil resistance (1b/in )
3 y = unit weight of soil around pipe (ib/in )
Z = depth to center of pipe (in)
N ' = bearing capacity factor q
The bearing capacity factor is given on Figure 2.5.4-63.
The ultimate dis-placement, yu, was evaluated. from Figure 2.5.4-63.
The iterative procedure used to calculate. displacements assumes an inital value of displacement in order to compute an. initial value of k.
Then, using this initial value.of h
k, an actual displacement is computed.
This procedure continues until the hiterative. values converge at a final displacement.
l 2.5.4-9b
BVPS-2 FSAR resistance to liquefaction of the in situ sands and gravels at the site was investigated by two methods:
1.
Based on dynamic triaxial tests on sands susceptible to i
' liquefaction (DLC 1972e), and 2.
Based on the observed behavior of sand deposits in previous earthquakes (DLC 1976).
The results of dynamic triaxial tests upon Sacramento River sand, considered to be extremely susceptible to liquefaction, are presented on Figure 2.5.4-28 (DLC 1972e). The figure shows the relationship between shearing stresses, expressed as a ratio of shear stress to effective stress, to the number of cycles necessary to cause initial liquefaction for this sand at'several relative densities.
It was evaluate the liquefaction potential of the soils withi'n the used to main plant area as described in Section 2.6.5.2 of the BVPS-2 PSAR (DLC 1972e).
This approach was conservative since the Sacramento i
River sand was considered especially susceptible to liquefaction in
, comparison to the sands and gravels at the site.
After the discovery of the loose zone in the main plant area and its subsequent tiensification, a liquefaction analysis was performed for soils within the densified zone (DLC 1976).
The shear stress required to cause liquefaction of the in situ sands and gravels was evaluated using Figure 2.5.4-29..This figure presents a lower bound envelope for sites where liquefaction has occurred during earthquakes of Richter Magnitude 5.5 or less, correlated with corrected standard penetration resistance, Ng, of the sand deposit.
This figure was evaluate the resistance to liquefaction of the soils in the used to vicinity of the intake structure as well.
Further discussion is presented in Section 2.5.4.8.
.5.4.7.4 Relative Displacements The procedure used to evaluate the relative displacements between two structures during a seismic event is discussed in this section.
It f
was assumed that the relative displacement will result from the horizontal propagation of seismic waves with little or no change in l
wave form.
It was further assumed that the maximum particle motions produced by each wave will occur simultaneously. The procedure only i
determines the magnitude of displacement without consideration for direction.
For soil sites such as BVPS, relative displacements are caused by Rayleigh waves and Love waves.. The particle motion for the Rayleigh wave occurs in the vertical plane and is elliptical and retrograde with respect to the direction of propagation.
By their nature, Rayleigh waves cause horizontal push-pull (Rx) and vertical (Rz) displacements. The particle motion of Love waves is transverse to the direction of propagation and as a result, they are the cause of translational (R ) displacements.
y 2.5 4-13 Insert.2.s.4.7 A (me 1.s.4-/sa.)
i
a.
Insert 2.5.4.7A.
- The : maximum Rayleigh wave velocity used in the analysis of buried pipe was determined to be 3000 ft/sec, using the procedure described below:
Ewing et al. (1957) presented data, produced on Figure 2.5.4-31, which showed th'at Rayleigh wave velocity in a layered system was a complicated function of
- the. depth of soil, the shear wave velocity of soil and rock,- and - the fre-
- quency/ wave length of the Rayleigh wave.
Using Figure 2.5.4-31, fo r -
C /Cp = - 4.5, the variation of Rayleigh wave velocity with frequency for the.
2
. in situ soil ~ conditions in the main plant area was determined and is shown on
' Figure 2.5.4-64.
Rayleigh : wave velocity is seen to vary widely depending on frequency.
Since an earthquake is likely to produce Rayleigh waves of many frequencies, the. selection - of a control value of - Rayleigh wave velocity was based upon a -
consideration of the predominant frequency likely to be produced by an earth-quake occurring near the site.
The peaks of Fourier spectra for earthquake time histories represent freque n-cies at which large amounts of energy are released by the earthquake. Housner (1970) compared Fourier spectra with velocity response spectra and found that the peaks occurred at about the same frequencies. Accordingly, a predominant frequency o_f 2-3 Hg was determined from response spectra presented in SWEC (1984).
These response spectra were computed.for real earthquake time his-tories, with magnitudes corresponding to the BVPS-2 SSE, that were amplified through the BVPS-2 soil profile.
From Figure 2.5.4-64, ' a frequency of 2-3
- Hg corresponds to a Rayleigh wave velocity of about 3000 f t/sec.
l t
J 2.5.4-13a
BVPS-2 FSAR profiles begin to level out, the period between readings will be increased.
Leveling loops run for settlement monitoring must close to one of the permanent bench marks with a maximum error of 0.005 foot.
-2.5.4.13.4 Data Processing Data processing is accomplished-using a SWEC computerized data storage system entitled Settlement Monitoring System (IS-233).
The settlement marker elevations are input into the computer storage files and a computer printout providing the complete settlement
~ record _ ofs.each marker is' produced. A specimen page of output is given on Figure 2.5.4-49.
For each~ settlement marker, settlement versus time plots have been prepared using arithmetic and log time scales. These plots are not included herein but are provided in the report on Settlement
.!!onitoring Program (DLC 1980). A summary of tne observed settlements to date is provided on Figure 2.5.4-46.
The Ohio River elevation and piesometer data is included in Appendix 2.5A.
2.5.4.14 Construction Notes The removal of uncontrolled fill placed during the construction of a
SAPS and BVPS-1 is discussed in Section 2.5.4.5.
The removal of a lens of stiff silty clay found during the reactor containment excavation is also discussed in section 2.5.4.5.
of loose granular material was discovered in the BVPS-2 area A sone during the~ excavation for the reactor containment e'xcavation.
It was t
J densified using the pressure injected footing technique.
The densification program and its evaluation are fully described in the Report on Soil Densification Program, (DLC 1976).
2.5.4.15 References for Section 2.5.4
- Bowles, J.
E.
1977.
Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y.
- Bullen, K.
E.
1963.
An Introductior. to the Theory of Seismology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Christian, J. T. 1976. Relative Motion Between Two Points During an Earthquake. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol.
102, No. GT11. November, ASCE.
Dravo Corporation 1974. Subsurface Investigation Routing of Sludge Blue Transportation Pipes kround Beaver Valley Power Station, Little 5
Amendment 4 2.5.4-32 December 1983 l
" Imer+ A,, (pnp. 2.s.+ -na.)
a q
.LI2rf 8 -
BVPS-2 FSAR (pge,2.5 4 -35a.)
- Gibbs, H.
J.
and Holtz, W. H. 1957. Research on Determining the m
Density of Sands by Spoon Penetration Testing. Fourth International
)
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Volume 1.
Conference on Butterworth, London.
- Hardin, B._ 0. and Drenevich, V. P. 1972. Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils, Design Equations.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, Vol. 98, SM-7, ASCE.
Jubenville, D. M. 1976. Settle II.
A Computer Program to Calculate Settlements. Geotechnical Engineering Software Activity, University of Colorado computing Center, Boulder, Colo.
- Lambe, T.W. and Whitman, R.V. 1969. Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
Lee,.K.
L. and Albasia, A. 1974. ' Earthquake Induced Settlements in Saturated Sands. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 100, GT4, ASCE.
- Marcuson, W.
F.
and Bieganouski, W.
A.
1977. SPT and Relative Density in Coarse Sands. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division', Vol. 103, GT11, ASCE.
- Pculos, H. G. and Davis, E. H. 1974. Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanic,s. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
- Seed, H.
B.
and Whitman, R.
V. 1970. Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic ~ Loading.
Speciality Conference on Lateral Stresses and Design' of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE, New York,.
N.Y.
- Seed, H.
B.
and Idriss, I.
M. 1971. A Simplified Procedure for Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, AS3, Vol. 97, No. SM9.
- Seed, H.
B.;
Arango, I.I and Chan, C. K. 1975. Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Effects During Earthquakes.
College. of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Report No. EERC 7528.
- Seed, H.
B. 1976. Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Effects on Level Ground During Earthquakes, Liquefaction Problems in Geotechnical Engineering. AS G, New York, N.Y.
(SWKC)
Stone
& Webster Engineering Corporation 1978.
Excavation and Placement of Fill Under Structures and F 7al Backfilling Around Structures. Specification No. 2BVS-928. Beaver Valley Power' Station
- Unit 2.
- s, Amendment 6 2.5.4-34 April 1984
BVPS-2 FSAR e
,$wEC 6 tone & Webster Enaineering CorporatiorD 1980. Lease II Limiting Equilibrium Analysis in Soll Engineering.. GT-018, Version 02, Level 00.
- Swiger, W. F. 1974. Evaluation of Soil Moduli. Analysis and Design in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, New York, N.Y.
- Terzaghi, K.
and Peck, R.
1967.
Soil' Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
U.
S.
Department of the Navy 1971. Design Manual, Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Earth Structures. NAUFAC DM-7.
'L, sert D' Qop 1 s 4 -ss*-)
% Znger-f Y ap 2., So A-350.)
O I
December 1983 Amendment 4 2.5.4-35 v!
-.r--
- 1:. :. ^. J :, ~~~~
n_..
i Insert "A" Aud ibe rt, J. M. E. _ and Nyman, K. J'.
19 77.
Soil Restraint Against Horizontal
. Motion of' Pipes.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE.
October.
Insert "B" Housner, G. - W.
1970.
Strong Ground Motion.
Contained in Weigel, R.
L.
Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.
Insert "C" SWEC 1984. -Seismic Design Response Spectra.
Beaver Valley Power Station -
Unit 2. - Prepared for Duquesne Light Company, Pittsburgh, PA.
Insert "D"
- Vesic, A.
B.
1961.
Beams on Elastic Subgrade and Winkler's Hypo thesis.
Proc. 5th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
. ink, Paris, pp 845-850.
Ves ic, - A.-
B.
1961a.
Bending of Beame Resting on Isotropic Elastic Solid.
Journal of - the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 87, No. EM2.
April. pp 35-53.
2.5.4-35a
C /C =0.5 2
2.s
(
/
2.5
)
2.4
/
2.3
/
2.2 Cg/C = 2.8 s
i s
2.1
/
/
i 2.0
{
/
/
/
I,.s r
/
r C2 /C = 2.2 61.8
[
g g
f
/
u
,,7 l.6 f
f 1.s C /C = 1.7 2
~
~
f fV IJ f.2 M/
--h-C /C, = l.2 2
C /C =1.1 2
Jg e
C /C
- 1.0 2
3 0.9 i
0 1
2 3
4 3
8 7
8 9
10 H
LEGENO:
I Cr s RAYLEIGH WAVE VELOCITY C, a SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY OF UPPER LAYER C3* SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY OF t.oWER DENSER LAYER FIGURE 2.5.4-31 H
- THICANESS OF UPPER LAYER A = wAvELEwoTnf2b FOR PARAu.EL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
[ WAVES; 2b SIN 45' FOR 08Lt00E RAYLEIGH WAVE VELOCITY AND
- Q g
waves.
SOIL PARAMETERS 8EAVER VALLEY POWER STATION-UNIT 2 CENTROIDAL DISTANCE BETWEE3 b(
STRUCTURES _
FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Rd.
Ewing e+ al.1957 i
r.
e 1
l I
t O.
t i
P' -
a
,i 42000 _
T i
i x
i t
X i
w a
-15 4 @ t<. 3o, V_
X
-i i
\\
a 4e A
t I
i t
ICOO
_y.. - _ _ _.
v ____.
y l
s W<.15
'x
-_ 4 l
i
...mfi %.... _.... _.. _. -..
_._:. a.::2%._ _
t
-n=
= :
..s=--_. -:.;.=__.:
=--=u -=-e.:.= =.. _
==
. -=~
~~
3d5 :;Md $Mi 5" :.'+.5d.INf-IEE M.4*F" iiiIhs1 Mk
- .: t. : cP.
f
'~~~-E
,. :..... :. ;- 2 ana:
- u. = : 2:. =
-- - - ; ;.4..
G')
=_
- c : :.: := t:= ::s_: ::.*: :.. :
- =:
r:
=.2 n::: :..: %. n ;-
- =_tunt=. L.
- : :._:. : :.K:: I:.n..
- .... ;.=2.
- :'n u
- i=:r
=::
-::=. : :..:.;: :.
g
~._.. '~... ~. ~. " ~ ~ ~ - '. =....
.....I.'.'..-'s..'..E 1
- ^ ~ '-
. _ ~ ~ ' ' "...
.O h ---
.r.
p.
. p...
1
.i
.800 w
a s
g 0
=.....
i I
u l-l l
[
t C.)
ggg 2
3 to Jo 50 t
ElPS D tMAETER 3 MCM W.h l
3 e
i
/ Mil v.v~v e
No i
t am l
l f
a 5-l h~ima.s..%E9-G7--
1 I
l Qggyq,gy @@p()MT TITLE SCALE:
f **
CHECKED Op'
$Qgy"Qg QS&T'lOQ DATEt M
MEAS.D @N SWETCH NUMSER
@i
@j f,
APPROVED L
REvi O.
l' nq 1
5 to to So O
I I
Il i I i ll 1
s s
a g
Z 1
A to 4
D o
n, 1
34 a.
as w.
s'-
. Ig, W a.
.rs f
is I
l t ii#
, i ii g,
..n
.n N DEA &Menen CA5hc.M 9%C.M, Ng O
i z>
~
LfetND s
at os.cosa sano sf oosass sano a
e Alu.sTuTest
$}.
3 w r u a
- w d3 o 4 nat h
u "3
=.1.E.
=
g g
=-
3 1.5 %
b m.
0 o
1 3
3 4
e e
T e
e le BURite CONOUlf Ol AMETER 0 la.
- y..
L' b)
Mk.N8ffE 4thMASWWT[p
%uas 4.is.w-t,3 Tm.
seas.r e
Whamwwv9A hm% Cm9mstT9 984M
.V cHacxto DATE'
%.$,,MTE.M9 mins.umeh*'T",7oG-M.
connacy Pight,'
sacercH Numeta APPnovto
@i Ol
' @l a<vinica.
t m
D u
.iz
,i1
. n..
.j
. 9 L, -
l
+
I'
't e f,
_i r
.i.
I 6
.i
.i A
j
- i
-l'
. 3, l
A L! !
4-l S.
l s
3
-W
,3,
_\\.
O N,,,/J000
{
mr.
u-x I_A.
.i.
l l
et-3 i.
, ;j
'f" i
1 Ni
[,,6 l
g, i
N,
't X
1,!*
'!4
'i N iii
,iti
+
1.
ji,.
.s.,
," ["
r 1 !
eii Y
[
N w
iii.
<m.
> 2000 2
,1, Iiff I8<
,jf,3
(
I8 nx i,-
.,n.o
.i.
m,,
t it E h
i,;[
i'
. !'3'}
i
, i,,.
- u
(
r; N.
3
'N -
i g
' t g 4000
'-f j;
ah ;
i-i g
56!
y l
C i
4..
g
.i.
.,n o, t '.
't i
!H iii en n.
u:
4,
[iig.,
' '. )
I' '!!'
'ih n-it i
. i i,.
- # j.
- 4 I
li li (( i 10 469 (NM) l l
6 l
l
-d C,=1100Sp 6 gh I
H. 4154 I
1 s k.T C.
1
-~
hg* U hb
- 4Nar % y
(,
TITLE F=.a.m. 4,g,q f4 SCALE:
=~ ~ mm. ~,
CHEckte DATE:
CONNEcy SMETCH NUM3Est APPROVED h
g REVislONS
.. - -. -