ML21119A069

Preliminary Seismic Analysis of Buried Hdpe Piping, Cimarron Environmental Response Trust, Revision a

ML21119A069
Person / Time
Site:	07000925
Issue date:	02/19/2019
From:	Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
References
Project 112340
Download: ML21119A069 (11)

Text

BURNS9DONNELL ii ii i

i ii i

i Cimarron

Site, Oklahoma Project No.112340 Revision A

O2/19/19

prepared by Burns& McDonnell Engineering

Company, Inc.

KansasCity, Missouri COPYRIGHT@2:018 BURNS& McDONNELLENGINEERING

COMPANY, INC.

Seismic Analysis ofBuried HDPEPiping Revision A

TableofContents TABLEOFCONTENTS Ed

1.0 INTRODUCTION

,-..............-.1-1 2.0 METHODSAND ASSUMPTIONS

--,..-.--..--.22 2.1 Software................,...,........................................................,....................

2-2 2.2 CalculationScope and Process....................................................................

2-2 2.3 Assumptions 2-4 3.0 FINDINGS-.....,--..-=..-..-...-..--....-.-

-.-.,-3-5 3.1 Pipe Stress........................................................................,...................

3-5 3.2 Pipe Displacement 3-5 4.0 DISCUSSION ANDLIMITATIONS-......,-.-...-..,..-...41 LISTOFTABLES Eage.Nsh Table 1

- Piping Seismic Loading Parameters................................................,....................

2-3 Table 2

- Pipe Stress Analysis Results...........................................................,............

3-5 CERT Burns

&McDonnell

Seismic Analysis ofBuried HDPEPiping Revision A

Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Burns

& McDonneH Engineering Company.

Inc.(Bums

& McDonnell),

onbehalf oftheCimarron Environmental Response Trust (CERT) andEnvironmental Properties Management, LLC(EPM),

has prepared this Seismic Analysis ofBuried HDPEPiping Report (Report) tosummarize theevaluation and results associated with the potential impacts ofseismic activity ontheproposed buried piping network.

EPMreceived requests for additional inforrnation ('RAIs) related totheDecember 31,2015Facility Decommissioning Planinaletter dated February9,2017.

EPMsubmitted preliminary responses toRAIs onMarch21,2017.Inresponse toRAI Environmental Assessment (EA)

- 13,Burns& McDonnell has conducted anevaluation ofthe buriedpiping network toidentify potentially at-risk locations along the alignment ofthepiping network.

This analysis was focusedonthegroundwater extraction piping network anddischarge pipes Piping transitions from below toabovegrade werealso evaluated.

Thecurrent objective atth.e Cimarron Remediation

Site, located at100North Highway 74,Guthrie, Oklahoma (Site) istheremediation ofgroundwater contaminants toreleaselevels estabUshed bytheU.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) andtheOklahoma Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ).

Ingeneral, high density polyethylene (HDPE) piping isproposed to convey groundwater between treatment facilities andassociated wells andtrenches throughout the Site.

Piping is anticipatedtobe buried belowthefreest line inanengineered pipe andconduit trench system.This preliminary seismic analysis ofburied HDPEpiping evaluates possible seismic response ofthe groundwater piping transportation network andidentifies areas ofrisk.

CERT Burns&McDonnell

Seismic Analysis ofBuried HDPEPiping Revision A

Methods andAssumptions 2.0 METHODS ANDASSUMPTIONS Thefollowing analysis methods andassumptions wereused whenperforming theseismic analysis.

Project-specific vahles wereusedwherepossible, otherwise typical industry orliterature values were applied.

2.1 Software Thefollowing keysoftwareand applications wereusedduring engineering evaluation:

e AutoPIPE@

CONNECT

Edition, Version 11.02.00.10(AutoPIPE)

UA Sehtmk Design Maps,USGSEarthquake Hazards Program (USGS)

Autodesk:

Civil 3D@,2018(AutoCAD)

Google Earth Pro,Version 7.3(Google Earth) 2.2 Calculation ScopeandProcess Pipe andconduit trench sections which contain watersupply, injection, or extracting piping were converted fromAutoCADsite plan drawings toathree-dimensional pipestress model inAutoPIPE.

Elevation profiles werecaptured with Google Earth.

Tomodel theburied condition ofthepipes discrete nonlinear soil springs werecalculated based onmethods presented bythe American Lifeline Alliance (Guidelines for theDesign ofBuried Steel

Pipe, July2001).

Soil properties wereestimated based ona combination ofAutoPIPE soil library values andsite-specific data presented inthe Cimarron Water Treatment Facility Geotechnical Engineering Report (Geotechnical Report) prepared byTerracon Consultants inJanuary 2017.

Seismic loads wereapplied tothepipe network pseudostatically, meaning theeffect ofthe earthquake is represented byapplying horizontal andvertical forces tothepipe asfactors ofgravity.

This method is consistent withChapter 13oftheAmerican Society ofCivil Engineers (ASCE) 7Minimum Design Loads andAssociated Criteria for Buildings andOther Structures (ASCE 7)andisanintegral capability of AutoPIPE.

Keypiping related parameters oftheseismic loading arepresented inTable 1

CERT Burns

&McDonnell

Seismic Analysis ofBuried HDPEPiping Revision A

Methods andAssumptions Table 1-Piping Seismic Loading Parameters Parameter Value Notes Piping conveys potentially radioactive material (ASCE 7

importance Factor (Ip) 1.5 Section 13.1.3)

Component

Response

(Rp) 6.0 ASMEB31piping ofhigh deformability material with Amplification Factor (ap) 2.5 bonded(fusiori)

.joints (ASCE 7Table13.6-1)

Ground motion panuneters presented inthe Geotechnical Report werederived fromonline USGSsources andwereverified aspartofthis study (i.e. nosignificantearthquakes haveoccurred since development oftheGeotechnical Report).

Forbrevity values arenotrepeated here;

however, these canbeprovided uponrequest.

Numerous commercial andindustrial age-necies have recently developed aninterest inpolyethylene piping.

General advantages overtraditional steel oriron pipe include natural corrosion resistance, inereased flexibility, lower cost,andfaster installation.

General disadvantages includesignificantly lower material

strength, time-dependent stress

response, andlimitations innon-destructive examination.

Targeted research andcasestudy analyses inrecent decades bythe Plastics PipeInstitute(PPI),

the American Society ofMechanical Engineers (ASME),

theElectric Power Research Institute (EPRI),

and theAmerican Society forTesting andMaterials (ASTM),

amongothers, has supported the widespread acceptance ofHDPEmaterials incertain engineering applications Specifically, ASME Code CaseN-755-1UseofPolyethylene (PE)

Plastic PipeJhr Section

III, Division 1,Construction and Section XI Repair/Replacement Activities (CCN-755l),andsubsequent revisions, provides evaluation of PE4710 material innuclear powerplant applications.

Proceedings oftheASME2013Pressure Vesselsand Piping Conference (PVP2013-97226) suggests 1,100pounds persquare inch (psi) asanacceptable stress level forseismic

design, which wasapplied inthis analysis.

Twopotential sources fordirect seismic loads onburied piping arepossible:

loads fromwavepropagation through thesoil andloads fromseismic anchor movementofthebuilding orstructure towh.ich theburied pipe isattached (EPRI, Nondestructive Evaluation:

Seismic Design Criteria for Polyethylene Pipe Replacement CodeCase,2006).

Thisevaluation onlyaddresses loads fromwavepropagation (via ASCE methods described above).

Seismic anchor movementwasnotevaluated asconnection details toskid-mounted equipment orbuilding-type infrastructure isnotyetavailable..However, thefollowing buried to aboveground transitions weremodeled toassess thesystem ascompletely aspossible given current state ofdesign:

CERT Burns

&McDonnell

Seismic Analysis ofBuried HDPEPiping Revision A

Methods andAssumptions Extraction well/sump andvalve/metering vault piping wasmodeled withaseries ofrigid pipe supports (replacingsoil) based onpreliminary design drawings.

Discharge andwell extraction header connections atthetreatment facility weremodeled with a

horizontal flanged connection elevated three (3) feet above theground surface (for connection to treatment equipment manifolds). Connection totheskid wasmodeled asarigid anchor.

2.3 Assumptions Pipe depth ofcover is 36".

o Water table isbelow the depth ofpipe burial (see Geotechnical Report).

o Seasonal frost penetration is above thedepthofpipe burial (see Geotechnical Report).

Pipefluid contents arefresh waterwith density of 62.4 pcf.

Pipe material isPE4710.

o Hydrostatic Design Stress (HDS) is1,000 psi.

o 12.5%erosion allowance Operating pressure is75pounds persquare inch(gauge)

(psig).

Ambient installation temperature is600F.

Fluid design temperature range isfrom320Fto1000F.

ASMEB31.4 isthegoverning pressure piping code.

Soil backfill around pipe isstiff clay withlittle sandandsilt.

Soil strength properties were selected torepresent suitable fill

("cohesive lowvolume change soil")

asdescribed inthe Geotechnical Report.

CERT Bums&McDonnell

Seismic Analysis ofBuried HDPEPiping Revision A

Findings 3.0 FINDINGS 3.1 Pipe Stress Pipe stress was evaluated perASMEB314Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquids andSlurries (2016).

Pipe wasmodeled inAutoPIPEsoftware andevaluated with"restrained" stress equations for buried sections and"unrestrained" stress equations forabovegrotmd orvaulted sections Conditions of highest stress arepresented in Table 2 Table 2-PipeStress Analysis Results Allowable CalculatedCalculated Stress(loading) lj Stress (psi)

Stress (psi)

Stress Ratio Hoop(interrdi 1,0001 700 SumofLong'itudinal from 388 0.35 Sustained andOccasional Loads3 1,1002 Equivalent Combined (sustained 700 0.64 HDSf P 4 2Value suggested based onanalysis ofCCN-755-1 (PVP2013-97226).

3Seismic loads included asoccasional loadt 3.2 PipeDisplacement Continuous soil support andrelatively small system mass(small diameter pipe and conesponding fluid volume) produce minimal deformation duetoseismic wavepropagation through the site. Pipe displacements ineachcartesian direction under seismic loadings wereless than1/2inch atall locations.

Maximumpredicted displacement ofanypoint wasinthepipe vouult (0.4 inches).

CERT Burns

&McDonnell

Seismic Analysis ofBuried HDPEPiping Revision A

Discussion andLimitations 4.0 DISCUSSION ANDLIMITATIONS Pipe stress analysis indicatesthepiping system will operate within allowable stress ranges forall occasional seismic loadcombinations.

Limits formaximum allowable stress wereconservatively taken from analyses ofactive nuclear powergeneration plants.

Particular careshould be afforded toensure systemoperating temperature remains below1400F, above which performance ofPE4710 issignificantly affected.

Additionally, HDPEpiping issusceptible to erosion should anysediment enter the process fluid.

Currently anticipated fluid velocities (less than10 feet persecond),

filter

packs, andstrainers should be-sufficient tokeeperosion within acceptable limits (i.e.,

12.5%erosion allowance issufficient).

Seismic hazards wereevaluated aspartofthe field investigation performed byTerracon andresults are presented intheGeotechnical Report.

Strong ground motion (shaldng) isthequ.antitative subject ofthe analysis presented

herein, butdiscussion ofother hazards with regard totheHDPEpiping systemis warranted (hazards, relative likelihood, andassessments aresum marized fromtheGeotechnical

Report, withadditions below forpiping-specific issues andpipe infrastructure intheAlluvialArea).

Surface Faldt Rupture.1Project susceptibility tosurface fault rupture isrelatively lowconsidering proximity, dze,andactivity ofknownnearby faults.

However, presence ofunk.nown faults is

possible, andimpact ofasurface manifestation ispotentially catastrophic.

Final pipe system design will include control systems andisolation valving tominimize loss ofproduct inthe unlikely eventofcomplete line rupture.

Strong Ground Motion:

Strong ground motion design parameters wereextracted from the Geotechnical Report andapplied tothepiping model.

Qmditatively theanalysis shows satisfactory pipe performance (quantitative results arepresented inTable 2).

Soiliguefaction:

Piping neartheTreatment Areafacilities isgenerally underlain byclays over bedrock withobserved groundwater table atorbelow thedepth

ofrock, negating liquefaction threat inthis area.

Piping intheAHuvial Areawill generaHy beunderlain byloose toveryloose sands andsilty

sands, whichpresent ahigher risk forseisrnically induced liquefaction (if saturated).

However, field exploration identified thewatertable belowanticipated pipe depth of burial which reduces risk.

Thelikelihood ofaseismic eventoccurring simultaneously with an anomalous ground waterexcursion (higher thannormal andabove pipe) islow,therefore the Alluvial Areahasminimal liquefaction threat.

CERT Burns

&McDonnell

SeismicAnalysis ofBuried HDPEPiping Revision A

Discussion andLimitations Landslide:

General project topography isnotconducive toclassic rotational ortranslational landslides; however lateral spreading ispossible ontheshallower Alluvial Areaslopes.

Toreduce loads from massdownward oroutward soil migration, conveyance piping alignments are currently proposed tobeinstalled parallel totheexpected direction ofmotion.

EarthquakeInduced Settlement:

Materials intheTreatment Areaarenotlikely toexperience seismic settlement considering thethin layer ofstiff tohard clay overbedrock.

However loose granular materials (sands andsand-siltmixtures) intheAlluvial Areapossess greater risk of settlement during cyclicloading fromseismic motion.

Should seismically induced settlement occurintheAlluvial

Area, soil consolidation isexpected tooccurinthesaturated soil layers beneath thepipe andtrench systern As suchverticalstraiin inthenear-surface soil layers (above thewatertable andincluding thepipeand trench) will beless thanexperienced atdepth andpipe integrity should bemaintained.

CERT f3urns

&McDonnell

CREATE AMAzlN G

Burns& McDonnell Wor.dHeadquarters 9400WardParkway KansasCity, MO64114 O 816-333-9400 F 816-333-3690 z.bornsmanee;

-