.. - - - ..

)

+ . il

11

'

~ THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMIN ATING COMPANYF 0 BOX 5000 n CLEVELAND. OHlo 44101 e TELEPHONE (216) 622-9800 e ILLUMINATING BLDG e $5 PUBLIC SOUAGE

Scrying The Best Location in the Nation

Daiwyn R. DavidsonVICE PRf SIDENTSYSTE U ENGINEmrNG AND CONSTRUCilON

October 30, 1981to#

^dD@AtNOVO 51981* g.

Mr. Robert L. Tedesco .f,Assistant Director for _ulcensing comissem '/'

Division of Licensing b ,hU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission O'> \fWashington, D. C. 20555 \ MN

Perry Nuclear Power PlantDocket Nos. 50 440; 50-441Response to Request forAdditional Information -Geotechnical Engineering

Dear Mr. Tedesco:

This letter and its attachment is submitted to provide draftresponses to additional questions raised by Mr. Jacob Phillip,NRC, at the site visit of September 30, 1981 These respon-ses are in addition to those provided in regard to yourletter dated June 30, 1981 on geotechnical engineering. Itis our intention to incorporate these responses in a sub-sequent amendment to our Final Safety Analysis Report.

Very truly yours,

&/ADalwyn R. DavidsonVice PresidentSystem Engineerirq and Construction

DRD: dip

Attachment

cc: G. Charnoff, Esq.M. D. HoustonNRC Resident Inspector

o\o0111060604 811030 - $g |

.PDR ADOCK 05000440 |PDR |

i_

e e

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 locustrine .(2.5.5.2) deposits) is. caused by groundwater seepage and frost action.

(RSP) Demonstrate how this fact has been incorporated in the stability

analysis (Section 2.5.5.2) conducted to determine the amount of jbluff recession which can occur before the emergency service waterpumphouse 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, andnew Figure 2.5-175.

i

',

I

. .

241.2 Figure 2.4-72 is purported to 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 radwastebuilding, to measure the hydrostatic uplift pressure acting underthese structures. However, the tip of the only piezometer shownon the figure is founded in relatively impermeable Class B fill.Is this an error in the figure? If not, discuss the function of

the pief.ometer in the context of measuring the hydrostatic upliftpressures 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 beadded to the FSAR and will be referenced in Section 2.4.13.5.3.din lieu of Figure 2.4-72.

The frequencies for monitoring the uplift pressures beneath tbuilding mats have also been added to this Section.

.

. .

241.3 Provide single grain size distribution plots for each of the

(2.4.13.5.5.C following materials, showing the lower and upper bounds (range).4.b) of the distribution.(2.5.4.5.2)

a) Class A fill during conatruction (one plot each for

construction materials from the Bestone and R. W. SidleyQuarries).

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 2.3-183.

- __ , - , , _ - . . .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ..

. ..

!

i

|

|

! -

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 Bfill. The results may be presented as a statistical distribution

plot showing low, high and average values. This would help thestaff to conclude that suitable compaction has been obtained.

Response

The response to this questien 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.

<

.

4

' - -_ . _ . . _ . _ . _

. - -- .

. .

4

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 structures'

where settlements are being monitored. Discuss any deviations

from anticipated settlements assumed in the analysis and designof these structures and components. Evaluate all deviations fortheir impact on the design and construction of these structures

and components.;

Response

If

The reaponse to this question is provided in revisedSection 2.5.4.13.4 and new Section 2.5.4.13.5. Also, seerevised 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.

.

A

e

i

,

!|

I

I

I:|

|

|

i

|

|!

!

I

.

2. Above the lacustrine / upper till contact, a minimum two-foot widevertical Class A fill zone was placed along the structure walls upto three feet below finished plant grade.

3. To monitor the effectiveness of the Class A fill drainage provisions

throughout *.he life of the plant, piezometers are installed in theClass B backfill zone at approximately 15 feet from the main plantstructures. Cne olezometer is installed at each of the four sidesof the plant and is placed three feet above the Class A fill.

4. Special provisions were included in the construction drawings andspecifications, and strict quality control was exercised duringconstruction, to ensure the integrity of the Class A fill drainage

provisions. In particular, care was exercised to see that thetwo-foot wide Class A fill zones along the structure walls and

lacustrine slopes adhered to the minimum requirements and were notcontaminated with other materials. The pertinent permeabilityproperties of the Class A fill materials placed were tested and' documented during construction.

5. Where pipelines penetrated the Class A fill, they were completelyenveloped with relatively impervious Class B fill at two locations(per pipeline) to produce an effective water stop.

c. Porous Concrete Pipe

The 12-inch (inside diameter) porous concrete pipe conforms to ASTMC 654-73. The aggregate used to manufacture the pipe is similar in sizeto that used in the porous concrete blanket to provide uniform voids.The layout of the pipe is shown on Figure 2.4-68.

2.4-69

.- - - - -

_. . - . _ . --

. .

d. Hydrostatic Pressure Under Foundation Mats

.

; To measure the hydrostatic uplift pressure acting under the safety clascbuildings, piezometers have been installed through each of the building

; mats of the auxiliary buildings, control complex, intermediate building,and radwaste building. The pressure monitoring piezometers are openstandpipe type and pneumatic type. The bases for selecting these devicesare primarily because of their long-term reliability and durability (49) .Details of the piezometer installations are shown in Figure 2.4-76.'

Piezometer measurements will be taken at the following frequencies to

monitor system operation:

d'E4 Fuel load to 5 years after Commercial Operation UnitQuarterly basis - 1

i No. 1. 6

Semiannual basis - 5 years after Commercial Operation Unit I todecommissioning of Plant (Units 1 and 2).

e. Radioactivity

;

The possibility of release of radioactive material from plant buildingsito the pressure relief underdrain system has been considered. Postulated

i mechanisms include: (1) the transport of radioactive liquid from sumpsto the underdrain system by leakage through small cracks in the sampliners and floors; (2) the onset of a seismic event resulting in the

simultaneous failure of one Seismic Category I radioactive waste tank and

: cracking of a Seismic Category I safety class building, resulting inrelease of radioactive material to the underdrain system. It is

; considered highly improbable for significant cracks to develop in aSeismic Category I building and Seismic Category I radioactive wastetank.

In order to continuously monitor and detect significant amounts ofradioactive concentrations discharging from the underdrain system, as a

result of the postulated event, radiation monitors are located inside,

2.4-79

_. - ,. . . _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . _____._ _____. __ - _. - .. _ ... . _ _ _ _ . _

_

. .

each of the two gravity discharge system manholes at the north end of the

Unit No. I heater bay, at the point where the service underdrain pump

effluent discharges into the gravity drain system. Each radiation

monitor is an inline-type liquid monitor mounted directly on the

lischarge pipe header. Details of the radiation monitor are discussed in

Section 11.5.

.

|

I

2.4-79a

, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _

> > ,> .so

,en

.I6 %- ort,

|

_ _ _ _ , _

w- r kmW

.u.-

7 g=. . . . .

, _#MN - ~ ' . - - ' rnT , . . _ . . .-7'_7 ~,.r_.-_--~ --

* 8gg.g,9fg4 meg BJ*L D'8e 6a g

c., o., , , . . . . . . n ..fu ett6Cotp*6 t uBs O S #0 =t 4 si

=T M" .M.AubekiA44

, , F sv 60'esee " "m-xV s,

*** ' ** p _ _ --__. -..$.Ife

**

"4_ .,

a w*'''m ae.as.s e 4 .4, na nc t o' 9>%o

i ev. ome

i9 4 4a e

;

| t.a.s.et*

c e ~, .x . ~ , ..e,. o.c a9sco con **s t s d>, % sasO eeS

'N

h __ ,

S t . V' C 4 - 4t N,C 9** *t.*19

gg,gn,gg .1..P %n60.e.3 L

u -- ,/ q ,

--~

h-W I a 6 ' A 8t vOd'L%3

. 84 ''$ %

n. .v 9 * E.a | .re a.u, t#.soss i

~ eee. .N -

;

w %s T *1| Tw w =t %i6c.ms

** " * '__. _ _ _ _ - .

I JI as,

i'-

me nte t oav- -

i

,, - t h at ed*.,,$ I.IFLA ' 548E"'E dg

!

-x _ _ _ _ . _ _ -=_!

ents e =<944-

'%

>9,

M M*e

I

II

(

- _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

R

I,

?

,

Ie .

.' J + t $ $.44t w a ' co S

f j \ 1"-,., , e'/8*t?? af M." % ' : 8. N3 fA-

. . . at.c% u . s .t C ' m . et t** c% .e f Eo

. , I,. # V A'.e j N / ,c c c,.y a, , so .3 , i r. ", e___j

_

>c .,

. ' , , .

,*', . .

, * *.. . ..h =,*es. 9 e as we' .* - ,.. ,., . ,, r ,a uc t m At w at . .

g = ,*

,*/r -.

.,

, ,

1 ad pectrev .g .*, ,. s, , e 4. ' n,; p, *

en _ ' ' ' , ' .. ..c (= eve

. .,p s/ . ,,m.'t e '4 N' W, r*1amt '' . * ' *

', 4 ^ rM M e t t i.t

' foiMSo c: w as't - - .J * i i r tsooru ec%:= rte , i ;*.M swe we,. 4%e /. , , , |j nafterm M * ,

u|/ ,|, c:.:ne's , -J ., c: :sers $ . ea"- sma n sT1 N AL M r itnN TyrvAt 5f(TrCN

NC Nif MNS IN5 T KC M L N T ATION MONiTNN5 IN5Im vt NT AfiCN5tf D E S -l.2.3.4.11.12(IS S L E E N E S - 5. 9 ( o.>

k0 Stast 3 3ra t

g ' hC^^'angA to tCC S Ts.,e t e O Cap. . T C * s* 4 ' .7 f . FI N ' *C%

6 iIU 'I I( t . f %1 c.e {6, P,V C( A r.

.,,d, r* f f 5 v 9. .f, .w,tt c,a we. 4.'.W P FSscar urwica.noi.,,g $,c,

[_,g, , g, g p g,351 L wt h'a hCN S.51 0 % , g g , e t.ag.t O- . s...s,., . . , , , , , , , , y.- T

,m, ,,,,,

~_ u .,_

{a p t. sv. e 16 ssa s. % -, . - , ..

* '*. , .

'.. ,,

.,1&pC ?ve AL M A? I *,,*j~ SMt.CTt R AL M AT - ,r*. ., .,

'. '..p. .... . .

* * * .. .. .* # ' 4" P4C'I C I'*f *'ad* P.M E C f m f /*

CC (4fff - - - - - . - - ' IL * 6S O (E%CEE'E - * ftW%g ,waf t m*4 cf e.t WPM a e __. -f,. ~~ wattaPRxf wf wea 4%g - tj*

/ cxas.t ?evacus . ,atacoacc c at t r 3ne {-e

T (Pl( Al Sf(TION IY Plf kl_ $E(IlON'V5L MCNj TC O N S IN SIKUME NT ATACN M04.lTORitJO INSTRLMEN T ATION

StEE h E5 G(7 - ELEEn ES 14.15%.67.iSA2O( 21NO t c..L E C ic At f

s. Lac. o s

_--' m'"s.,.,. w r - r..~- ..==."*a_

'e''' S S h ". irw,. "

* f ".xE '=1m.* Mas. _.tr ea-* p- -'_'' 'm-__m' r._ n .* .=r'-...=*?_ t- . g, - .. - ._ -n .-m _ e

_a__ =- rr. . .- n _; . .-- -m m_ ,,.m

. _ _ _ _ ._ . _ . . -

.

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.

The maximum and minimum density standards used to compute the relative density

of each in-place density test were the averages of the 15 most recent maximum

and minimum density tests performed prior to the in place density test.

However, if a maximum and minimum density test was performed on an in-place c4density test sample, then that single determination of maximum and minimumdensity was used to compute the relative density of the in place density test.

bThrough the end of July, 1981, approximately 437,000 cubic yards of s.5safety-related Class A fill have been placed, and approximately 6,170 yi

in-place density tests and grain size distribution tests have been performed, i\.

The gradation range of the Class A fill which has been placed is shown in y

Figures 2.5-181 and 2.5-182. A summary of' field density tests obtained for 1

! quality control during the placement of Class A fill is shown in Figure 2.5-184.

Reasons why 47 relative density tests of Class A fill are documented belowthe 75% minimum specified are as follows: (a) certain areas afterrecompaction were visually accepted by the Resident Geotechnical Engineer k(RGE), with no further tests taken (b) scattered isolated failing tests were \y-

Naccepted by the RGE because all surrounding density tests were satisfactory;

[ and (c) some tests were taken in non-safety related fill used for laydown

j areas and as backfill around non-safety pipe.

A total of 181 laboratory constant-head permeability tests have been performed

on material removed from the fill with the lowest coefficient of permeability-2~

obtainec 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

-3lowest coefficient of permeability obtained being 9.45 x 10 cm/sec and the,

-2average 3.77 x 10 cr./ s ec . The minimum required coefficient of permeability

is 2 x 10 cm/sec.

If

2.5-150

|||

|. . ,. , .. . - - - _ _ . - _ - _ _ . . _ - - , - . - - . - - . , - _ - . . - - . -

_ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ ________ ___-_____________--- ____-________ - --_ _ ____

. .

i

Based on U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service ( } , the '

Class A fill which was placed is a suitable filtering medium for drainage of

the lower till and most of the upper till materials. The SCS method reduces

the stringency of the filtering requirements when the base materials exhibit

plasticity. Approximately one-third of the grain size distribution tests on-

the upper till showed results which are finer than that recommended for

filtering by Class A fill. However, as described in Section 2.5.4.6.3, the kseepage from the upper and lower till strata are negligible and undetectable. }{Therefore, filtering of these strata are not required. Class A fill is 4

generally not a good filtering medium for Lacustrine soil. Therefore, a

minimum three feet wide filter zone of Class B fill is placed between the

Class A fill and the Lacustrine soil, as shown on Figure 2.5-151. This Class B

fill filter zone is restricted such that at least 15 percent of the particles

are retained on the No. 200 sieve.

'',

2.5.4.5.3 Class B Fill

Class B fill was used for nonload bearing backfill around Seismic Category Istructures 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 optimummoisture 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

286,000 cubic yards of Class B fill have been placed and approximately 380in place density tests have been performed. The gradation range of the Class B

Lfill which has been placed is shown in Figure 2.5-183. A summary of field S<

density and moisture tests taken for quality control during placement of the sy| Class B fill is shown in Figurer 2.5-185 and 2.5-186. Reasons for 11 of the 4

density tests being recorded below the 92% minimum specified are that somewere in isolated areas surrounded by fill with pascing tests, and other tests

were takea in non-load bearing backfill areas.

2.5-150a

|!

|C _. ..- . - . - - . _ - . ,...

_

2.5.4.5.4 Field Testing of Backfill

An onsite testing laboratory was established to perform all field testing.

A defined Quality Assurance Program and approved procedures were implemented

to assure that proper testing methods, procedures and equipment were used in

field testing.

i

|

|

!

2.5-150b

. _ - - _--

2.5.4.8.3 Lacustrine Sediments

An analysis of the liquefaction potential of the lacustrine sediments wasconducted because certain Seismic Category I pipes are founded within thisstratum. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the simplified procedureby Seed and Idriss( } The analysis conservatively assumed thr.t the.lacustrine materials would behave as a poorly graded fine sand, whereas, thesematerials are predominantly silts and clays which would uave a greaterresistance to liquefaction.

Based on the SSE of Intensity VII (Section 2.5.2.6), the correspondinghorizontal acceleration at the ground surface is 0.13g(2) However, an.acceleration of 0.15g was used in the analysis for conservatism. Intensity VIIis equivalent to a magnitude of 5.25 according to correlation:; by Nuttli(227)for the eastern United States. The appropriate mean number of cycles, plusone standard deviation, is N =5 .c

Using the Seed and Idriss approach (226) the relative density required with,depth for factors of safety of 1.0 and 1.2 were determined as shown on *

Figure 2.5-179. Also shown on this figure is the relative density determined

for each Standard Penetration Resistance Test blowcount from 65 borings onthe site, using the Gibbs and Holtz(229) correlation for sand. This comparisonof the in situ relative density with the required relative density, together

with the conservatism of the analysis, indicates that liquefaction of any

significant portion of the lacustrine deposit will not occur.

2.5-160a

_- _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

..-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

| -

Six settlement monitoring points were established on the diesel generatorbuilding in June 1979, shortly after the structural mat was cast. Seven new

points were established at a slightly higher elevation in June 1980, and theold points were subsequently abandoned. The monitoring results, shown onFigure 2.5-173a, indicate that the average settlement through September 1981has been slightly less than one-half inch.

At the request of NRC, settlement points were established on the off gasbuildings after the structural concrete for these structures had beencompleted. Four points were establiched within the Unit I structure and threepoints within the Unit 2 structure. As shown in Figure 2.5-173b, the maximum

D'average settlement of these structures during the period from June 1980M

through September 1981, has been about 0.04 inches and 0.12 inches, 4,Nrespectively. The maximum settlement of any individual monitoring point has

been 0.07 inches for Unit I and 0.16 inches for Unit 2.

The installation of Safety Class piping between structures began afterSeptember, 1977. Based on the building settlement data which is available,it is estimated that differential settlement between adjacent Safety Class

structures since that time has been about one-quarter of an inch or less, andvery little or no additional differential settlement is anticipated. Based

on these minimum dif ferential rettlements there should be no detrimental effectsresulting to the piping connections between buildings.

2.5-173b

.. .. . - - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _

. ,

2.5.4.13.5 Comparison of Actual and Predicted Deformations

Figure 2.5-162 shows the anticipated deformation behavior of the Unit Ireactor building, as discussed in Section 2.5.4.10.3. The deformation

consists of three phases: heave of the shale bearing surface during the

following excavation, rapid compression 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 buildingis typical of all of the structures on the site.

.

The computed heave of the shale within the main plant excavation ranged fromabout 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 bedrockdeformation zone which was subsequently excavated.

The computed immediate settlement for the auxiliary buildings, radwastebuilding and control complex was about 1/2 inch in the interior and about 1/4

binch along the edges of the buildings adjacent to the toe of the plant se

excavation. The analysis method, however, did not account for structural Dm

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

_ .- - - . _ -,- _- . - _ - - - , .

. . _ ~ _ - . -. ..- . ..___; -. - -- _ . .- - _- .

i

. .

Based upon the results of the testing and analyses, the following conclusions1evolved. 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*

s

| 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 slopeswhich 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

A steep bluff which forms the shoreline of Lake Erie is located approximately

300 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 ({Yseepage and frost action has been observed. The resulting estimated average4

recession rate is two feet per year, as described in Section 2.4.5.5. The

bluff is about 45 feet in height and has an average slope inclination of about

2 horizontal to 1 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 pumphouce would ss,become endangered. The subsurface stratigraphy of the bluff was determined y,

4from observations of the exposed bluff slope and from nearby test borings.

The stability analyses were conducted using the LEASE-I and LEASE-II computer.

2.5-176

|

_ . - . - - _ . ~ _ , _ , _ _ , , _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ , - . . - . _ , _ . , . - . , _ . _ , _ _ , _ . _ - . _ - . - . --

. _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ . - . __. .. . _. __ - . - . . = . --. __ - .

, . .

I

programs, which utilize the simplified Bishop circular are method (193,194)andthe Morgenstern-Price method (223,224) respectively. For the seismiccondition, a seismic coefficient of 0.15 was used for pseudostatic analyses.The groundwater level was taken to be elevation 615' near the emergency

f service water pumphouse, exiting the bluff slope at elevation 590' .

The soil strength parameters used in the stability analysis were determinedbased upon CIU triaxial compression tests on the lacustrine and upper tillsoils which are summarized in Table 2.5-29. Three sets of strength parameters

were utilized in the analysis- " lower bound" values equal to the lowest

strength envelopes measured, " upper bound" values equal to the higheststrength envelopes, and " design" values, which represent intermediate strengthenvelopes and which are believed to be representative of the actual soil

( strength. These parameters are summarized as follows:i

Lacustrine Upper l'ill

Analysis Cohesion Friction Angle Cohesion Friction Angle(psf) (degrees) (psf) (degrees)

Lower Bound 0 35 0 35 N

f,Upper Bound 240 33.5 660 24Design 240 31 240 31 4

'

To stablize the bluff slope against wave action and against slumping in the'

mone of groundwater emergence, a flattened slope with rip-rap slope protection

is required. The results of Bishop method stability analyses using the

" design" strength parameters and 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,

j of safety. For this slope, factors of safety of 1.68 and 1.09 were determined

for the static and seismic conditions, respectively. However, the presence of

the rock rip-rap slope protection materials were not considered in this analysis,which sould add to the overall stability of the slope.

F

A parametric study was also conducted using the 3:1 slope and the lower boundand upper bound soil strength paran.eters. For the upper bound analysis,minimum factors of safety of 2.10 and 1.34 were determined for the static and

2.5-177

- - - . -_.._ - .

. _- . _ _ _ _ . - -_

. .

a

seismic conditions, respectively. For the lower bound case, wherein thelacustrine and upper till soils are considered to be cohesionless, thestatic factor of safety is 1.09, with the critical failure arcs representing

shallow, sloughing failure along the slope face below the groundwater level.For deep circles which would influence the crest of the bluff, the minimumstatic factor of safety found was 1.28. With the addition of seismic forces

,

on a 3:1 unprotected slope, the factor of safety for shallow, sloughing

failure was found to be about 0.70. However, all deep failure arcs that

daylight more than about 60 feet behind the crest of the bluff were computedto have a factor of" safety of more than 1.00 during seismic loading.

,

Observation of the lacustrine and upper till materials on the bluff face and in'

excavations on the site indicate that these materials do indeed possess some

cohesion. Thus, the lower bound analysis described above is unduly

cons 1rvative. In any event, final design of a permanent slope protection

system will be initiated if the toe of the bluff encroaches closer than

250 feet to the Emergency Service Water Pumphouse. At this time, the crestof the bluff would be expected to be located about 115 feet (assuming a

},3:1 slope) from the pumphouse. Thus, any failure which might occur during a 6

4seismic event prior to that time would not extend sufficiently far behind

; the bluff crest to influence the structure.

l

A Morgenstern-Price stability analysis was also cenducted on the 3:1 slope,using the design strength parameters. 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 surfaces passing through the uppertill (note that only the most critical 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.

Stability analyses have also been conducted on the final slope protectiondesign configuration, which is shown in detail in Figure 2.4-39. The results

of this analysis, which incorporated a friction angle of 38 degrees for

2.5-177a

the rip-rap, are shown below and indicate that the stability of the final

design is satisfactory:

Factor of SafetyAnalysis Static Seismic

Design 2.33 1.44

Upper Bound 2.49 1.51

Lower Bound 2.12 1.34

Thes- factors of safety are with respect to deep-seated failures. For shallow,

sloughing failure the riprap was found to have factors of safety of 1.56 andN

1.16 for static and seismic conditions, respectively. The unprotected 3:1 slope

in the upper portion of the lacustrine stratum was found to have factors of .'f\

safety for shallow, sloughing failure essentially the same or greater thanthose shown in the table above, for both static and seismic conditions.

The results of the various stability' analyses determined that the toe of the

bluff could recede about 200 feet before a potential failure are of the bluff

u >uld approach within 40 feet of the emergency service water pumphouse.However, as discussed in Section 2.4.5.5, if the shoreline recedesapproximctely 130 feet, protective measures will be initiated.

A monitoring program has been established to measure the bluff recession.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.

2.5-177b

.

2.5.6 EMBANKMENTS AND DAMS

-.:re are no Seismic Category I embankments or dams associated with the Perry'

Nuclear Power Plant.

!

,

.

2.5-177c

.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

223. Dawson, A.W., 1972, LEASE II, A Computerized System for the Analysis ofSlope Stability, Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts

*NInstitute of Technology.N,&"

224. Morgerstern, N. and Price, V.E., 1965 The Analysis of the Stability of

deneral Slip Surface, Geotechnique, Vol. 15, pp. 79-93.

225. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1968, SoilMechanics Note - 1.

.

226. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1971, Simplified Procedure for Evaluating SoilLiquefaction Potential, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and FoundationsDivision, ASCE, Volume 97, No. SM9, Proc. Paper 8371, pp. 1249-1273.

227. Nuttli, O.W., 1979, State-of-the Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the

United States, Misc. Paper S-73-1, Report 16, The Relation of SustainedMaximum Ground Acceleration and Velocity to Earthquake Intensity andMagnitude, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vick= burg, Mississippi.

228. Seed, H.B. , et al. , Representation of Irregular Stress Time Histories byEquivalent Uniform Stress Series in Liquefaction Analyses, Report

No. EERC75-29, Earthque.ke Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California,

229. Gibbs, H.J. and Holtz, W.G. ,1957, Research on Determining the Density ofSands by Spoon Penetration Sampling, Proceedings, Fourth InternationalConference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, London, England.

2.5-200a

.- . - - - . _ . . - . .- .. - _ _ _ ._ . - ~

k

.

i:i

!

)

Ii- TABLE 2.5-49

MATERIAL PROPERTIES' ADOPTED FOR DESIGN!

t

.

Saturated .Undrained ShearUnit Weight Shear Strength (p' Strength

Stratigraphic y * 84 sat uUnit (tsf)

_(Pcf) (tsf)

0.12.+ 6 tan 33.{*) 0.75Lacostrine 131 O.12 + 6" tan 31*' n ,,

N

[0.12+(o tan 31* (2)0 + tan 35 1.0; . Upper Till 130a

i

Lower Till 142 0.60 + 6 tan 35* 5.5n1

a

130Chagrin. Shale 152 -

||

F

i

I/

NOTES:,.

Effectivestressbasis;I=c+6,tanh1.7i.

Iwhere: E = Effective cohesion, tsf

:i

I 6 = Effective normal stress, tsfl nI~L 5 = Effective friction angle, degrees

N-2. Strength parameters used for the Lake Erie Bluff Stability Analysis shown| on Figures 2.5-174 and 2.5-175. $! n <

'

,

;a

!

i

i-

2.5-271 ,;

1

$

i- . . , . . . . .~.-~..---..-,.,_._..m.-.,. . . , , _ . . ~ , . . . _ . . - - - . . _ . - . _ - - . - . _ . , , - . , - . . - - . , - - . . . -.

.

9

|CO- - - __,

d _,:~~

5 8O l'"ya - ;=w .. -cc o

$5 60 /6.

-;a.,'ow .wd

e a: 40 /

OM ';_' AUXILIARY BUILDING MO.I58 ' (SP-1)ooc 20-wCh.

O

-O,03''

___.

- 0.0 2'

o

e> .g.O g * ._-i ,, .~

_

_

_

r u. g- ;'' '\ ,.' . '

= :'.W .'.,- r- - - .u. a. ; L-m

._y.

' ''$Q M i .'. .-w :1 - 's ... -

.

100 . _. -

2-

-

5 20 .#5 - -' .oQ -_ _gw , --> j 60 __ ,f'

O.

ow ',-u.

$E #.-._ REACTOR BUILDING NO.I

OE T (SP-2)xowa -g 20-wQ.

o

- O.O l'- ~

h

.-- r :#d5 0 mwa Nu- Q- WjQ - , _-= ' -n+ 0.01,x w ; 2.,,,C., y i' ' 'M' \ --

",

.__

_.

ww .:.=WW u"

;Q CO ,C

i

I + 0.0 3' .'~

'.| Ni t \,^ . :

.- -

+ 0.0 4'~' '

,-

-'

-'

+0.0 5'

f$$'-$$$$h$$ b$5EEb$$hE$$ bb5$$b$$hb$ b$ 5$ $5 b5$ bb5 5 b b19 77 19 78 19 79 19_g o___ 19 8i

FIGURE 2.5-173 (2 of 6)

.%

COO

a<

-M-

,

3 80 foo zDW ,-"MU

_ _ _ - - _r4

" d 60u.OW

WWW " + 0. 0 2,

-ztHW

K " i~

' "- -g g O.Oy-

-

_

u. HWW ;-CM ,

, ' '' . ^ - a''+ 0.0 4,

, - ~ ~; ~~2

- i

Y -

* 0. 0 5'., t. ," /

:m

+0.06'

' ^

n+ 0 07'-

' '

- m;,

'#-

+ 0.0 8'- -

+ 0.09'

$15A$$5Ik3$N$I$IlkTIk5$ $I$IEEfIks} I$$IlbIIk5$ II$III$Ik2$$19 77 19 78 19 79 19 60 | 19 BI

FIGURE 2.5-173 (3 of 6)

.

-

100 ;

-'M< .'..a= 80 /3 ,-

.-- i

'

>-oa

-Dwoc o />- * 60 ,'-eJ,A -.ow -,,-

w$ 40 'S fi / AUXILIARY BUILDING NO.2wx - - SP-4)zo -woo 20ccwA

___

0

-0.02_

_

A:

- 0. 0 |

e n-ww . _.w- .wJ .aww 0 ( ._g $_-D . p

a - _= . w- . w2e M_.M^n., ?

_s w + 0.01

10 0- _ --.'

a .'4 |nc /O 80- .'w -ua ,''. ~Dwoc o .->- ac(SP-6)zowu

uoc 20wo.

O

- C.OI

_

,Q -O =y_,,

m_

9 l-

+ 0.0 l'- W

-T_, _ _T , p ,,' ?; ca-p - N

pw l - - w_*w .0,02' - _w,",,X /-

coWJ',

-

. - ,~

., 15

.6A

_~D.m

,J f i.,',A -

O y + 0.03'- ', "Iz ,

N ,'; ;_i ~~y - _v j___ g f w-f ;

, , ,

>- w ,

I3 i. k'_h ,P 'd-a t_ t u- -o & +0.0 4 -ww

'wwCD q.,

e- _+0.03 ':-

U_ %_

-

-

-

+ 0. 0 6'

!$$I$$$N??$$5$$$$$$Nhi$Y?lb5$$$5 55E b$b5$555 5$Y5$55$ $5 5bb.

| 19 79 19 SQ ||19 81la 7819 77

FIGURE 2.5-173 (5 of 6)

ico- _ _ _ . ,__ -

a'

M -,'ou ,|* 80wo ,;

" I 60 -_'-''Wo 'u. mo .mwrew

I00- 7

,''

Y ,"m 80 - -ooMWoo -o<mJ*

',/s o. 60

OW /'jw

WW-

wo 40xzweoo5

'

.dlESEL GENERATOR BUILDING20a.

_

'

.~

O

O.00,

' i

0.O| '

w',

;g ~-w .

s,,. tg -w

0.02g ,

E ';5g 0.0 3 - ([ \m ~ _ ,W O.04 -

'

e<$~~< 0.05-

0.06

SI}lilffl251!IS$1IIIIIEIMI$$515II1$$NII5AIIIII$$N515AIEIII$$$19 79 19 80 19 81 19 19

FIGURE 2.5-173a

, _ _ _ _ _

I

.

A o.oio-; UNIT I

(AVERAGEOFI4 POINTS); 0.005--

d% -4u. a~ -

o . .'N

''..'u' ' -

; ,_.,

o-

5 E O.00585b#

O.010

'I O.015-

0.010-g-

F- 0FF GAS BUILDINGSb o.ooS UNIT 2

g _(AVERAGE OF 3 POINTS)?"* O i.N 'a''

-i

-

''y 6 0.005'

.,

85 .${o,o,o Y '_J

m

N O.015-

0.0 20

0.025-

0.030$$2515!!k81k!$$killiksi $$$$lE$1E$$$$$$$l5%INElhI$$$$15 FEE $$E

||1919 81 19 1919 80

NOTE: STRUCTURAL C0liCRETE PLACEMENTCOMPLETED PRIOP. TO SETTLEMENTMONITORING.

FIGURE 2.5-173b

__ _ . . _ _ . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ZE!i

t'

Y'%

101E:/zANGLEOFINCLINATION*'OF THE BLUFF SLOPE

20 wlTH THE HORIZONTAL SYM80L AVERAGE FAC10R of SAFETY WAX. @-@SLOPE STATIC DYNANIC* DISTANCE (Ft.)

|[o I.S

-

e 1:1 0 73 0.56 Il43 STAllt

0 2:I l.32 0.M 86h,I.0-%

t 3:1 1.68 1.09 136" DYNAHIC

0.5 - ' '"

*

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 k,= 015w.p

@ EXISTING TOE OF BLUFF SLOPE

@ FUTURE BLUFF TOE, .e os (0)@ MAX. LIMIT OF CRITICAL SLIP SURFACE

, ,,,, ,, g 3)

@ y

GROUNOWATER O]/ ,-LEVELS 300't U

" ' '/ [ _ _- 620-- --

R.D/ s.ni % w % ,.--- A ' N. ..,s. , -{\

' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ top of naux n 6:e 0o

g- .u mm _p.hs .m)'' n -N .--- a w sci ev

N, 1

_

%"j"g"_' _ -~

,;}AN __ ' . _ _ _ - - _ _ _. )_ _

N

- - - - - ---%- - _ __gginuyzza jmL~ ~ ' " x ._. w s -% __,__

--- ;. . . . _

550 ;TOP 0F BEDit0CK EL. 555 0 3* Wi w W a m xist" ~ -- 204*t |176't _ _

. . _ -'l , g4o

'' '

|

@ ||..

. ... .

..

. .

6 GAAVEL i SANO i SILT OR CLAYC088t.ES ce,y g , ,iN E :ccamssi w t oiu m i rint ,* * * ' " ' ' ' ' " ' " ' " * ' * * " " ' "

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE No,5' ih. N. Y 4 'O *O 200} i i .M///A' I i' I I i li * ! ! I e ! I

~

i i ,4 | . i i,i6 1 i i i i**

a i . i. 1 : i e ii ; i rjaii,N///if_A :: i .ii- iM i !. i i ei: .i i*. .Y/////A, , . i i,+, , e iy/y///N ~ a, s i I , . ,

, ,.

, " i. . ey/////A . i: . .. ,,= .. , i ... . . .i i y/////A i.i: i , , e ..c i .: , ,i.. . , ii. ... . i , .L//A////A5 i .9 i , i i

. i,: . *syyi///////k 6 i- . I i i e i 'i4. i i i i.>*g ! v/l///////Xi .. .: . . . . . . , e . .. . . t i. i . .sie:V////////N i i i liia a i ii.e i s. i e i ey. . . . v// ,4 / / / / / A . . , , . . . . . .y -- . i .

i. i ii is-9 .4 i e-i V ///////Ai 'C i se . i i ' iti :

ec ,4,,, , , , ,,,; ;, , yf j,j j jjg, , g , ,, , , , , , , , , , , ,, , . . . .. . . iz . , . , , e isi. ei , iy/,////A i i . i .i0 " . . .v./////Ai . . i .e , i t.i ,. I i i i . . ., . i,

V/////A l i . .. : i i e I..t -$ i si . . i 'i.ie ei ,A 2C , ,Wjjjj;A , , , , , , , , ,,,, , , , ,, ,; t , , , , , , , , , , ,, , ,

i t i ii. . . +. . . Wy'///ki . . 'i ., , . i toee. e i .to ,,, , , , ,

,q,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,, ,, fjjb, ,,

' ' ' I *' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' # ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' ' ' 'C'"'''iCG r0 .O C. We

G004

iGRAIN SIZE Ife MILLIMETERS

NOTE: RANGE IS ESTIMATED BASED ON A RANDOM SAMPLINGOF APPROXIMATELY 675 TESTS

.

-

RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE OlSTRIBUTIONTEST RESULTS FOR CLASS A FILL

(BESTONEQUARRY)

FIGURE 2.5-181

_ - . . _ _ _ _ . _ . .- , _ _ . ._ - ~ _

. .

1 GRAVEL i SANO ii ccansg , ,,,g ,ccansgi , g e,y , , ,,,,g j SILT OR CLAYC088LES

''**#'E' 58'6 C64 s s.r wean system

,U.S. STAND ARD $1 EVE SIZE NQ.g ,3g' W y ,a 0 *C 200:CC h t. . . nei,, , . i , , . . , , , , , , , , , ,I?!''' i i - ,'

. ni..,, , , ,,;. , , , 3ix w i ,' ' ' ' ' ' ' ',e,

l' +V/A ei. , i , i.i. , ,:*'' 'ii i i . Y//A n.. i , ,

. . , , ,' ' ' ' ' i *i:- g

. o' ' ' ' i i. isi. ;.V/ / A 1 , , , , , , ,' 2 ' ! ' , ,, , ,G

i ..ii i i . i v f /a n . , . , , , , , , . , , , ,, , , ,yn v / f ai,, , , ,,. , , , , , ,'u *- ! ' ' .!.- ..>.iii i :...,,t. .vffA,,,,, , , , , , , , ,,, ,; e

i+ ai ! Xf / / A.... i i , , , , , , , , ,,, , , -. , ' ' , ,''- - ' * , ,,3i iyffyx . , , , , , , ,,, ,, , ,ia''' i < >gw~ ' ' ' ''!- * v/fA . i ... , , , ,E

' ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' 'tii 'i i i vf/A. > i o , :, , , , , ,. , ,, ,.c. i v./fi , , , n, , , , ,. , ,, , , ,' ' ' ' ' ' ' oti ,; .g ,;,'' - i iv /A; , ,D i4 ai , i n y, . , , , , , ,' '. x n .xf ,1 ,- , n,.,, , , , , , , , ,. ' ' ' ' oi- , , .y .' , , , , , , , , , , g,,, , ,,, , ,y f3,ini i . . i,...., .g g

toi ' i . i. .. i n, .yfx , n , ,, , , , ,,,,, , , ,' . . . - i , i,,,, ,

'1''.'',' '. ":''...'. ', i,' v/mic g,,,, , , , v, w, , , ,, ,, ,m , , , ,ci , n,. ,

, , , , , , ,ii., r. . , ,,,, , ,, , , ,g'... #GRAIN $1ZE IN MILUME ERS

NOTE: RANGE IS ESTIMATED BASED ON A RANDOM SAMPLINGOF APPROXIMATELY 5500 TESTS

RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONTEST RESULTS FOR CLASS A FILL

(SIDLEY QUARRY)

FIGURE 2.5-182

.._ _ _ _ - _ _ _

. .

Oo._

E $eC,3| 7cED,2 O 4$ 't :E r - :

gm>Z -.uteI

,8>8 g0 S f . g i"=1- - 4Mo I |

|;

| |

| || _|*

Mo I ||

||

|

|

"8 I

STS

||E

TF

O Eo I |R |EBMU |N

~8 ! |

|

|

_|

mo ||

|

| |

| ||

uo ' _|||

|

_|

_8 5 5 9 3 8 6 8 3 t 6 9 9 2 5 6 2 9 37 1 5 1 3 6 4 9 7 5 3 8 4 7 0 2 5 8

g 2 2 2 1 2 1 13 7 2 s 9 9 6 6 5 5 5 4 84 3 2 7 3 54 2 3 6 5 7 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 25 2 4 5 4 3 3 8 7 0 5 4 i i i 2o

- - - - - - - -yY jL "o $ *o $ g ou g 3o+

b 3m{d OmZTji

n_m$mm.Nm#-

obmco>mg mgC-om * g qm 4m o--

o.

RELATIVE DENSITY, PERCENT

O 20 40 60 80 100620 -, ,

* .. . . ..*

...

.., .

, . ., *. . . , , , .< :,,* * - :.. .,.

. . . . . . .. .* * *

615 - *

N : .; .~

--

. ..,, ;

.

.,, .

. . . . . .. * . ,e... *

l. .' .. ..! . . . . .... . ., ;. , .,

GIO .- * * * * . * ,* * *, ... .. ;. . .

*.. ... . ,*

.. . .. : :.

*

.: o . -.. . l, ..

....

.. . . . . . ,s * =W *w 605 . ;-

- *-

.. -. *. u. ,, . .. -.

. . .

. 'j*~

.Z . *.O . .,

_ * * .. . .. ,p * *' '