Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc.

Interim Technical Report

DIABIO CANYON UNZZ 1INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM

SOILS REPORT - INZAKE STRUCZURESLIDING RESISZANCE

ITR g 40REVISION 0

Docket No. 50-275License No. DPR-76

Pro ec er teT

' Review

Dr. R. NcNeiTechnical Review

sl Vins

Prospect

Manager teApproved P 105-4-839- 040

8303i60342 8303i0PDR ADOCK 05000275P PDR

g l4

E

t

I

PROGRAM NNIAGER'S PREFACE

DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POMER PLANT - UNIT lINDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM

'%ERIN KCNfKOLL RKPORY

SOXLS - IlffAKESKUCAJRE SLIOING RESISTANX

This is the fortieth of a series of Interim Technical Reportsprepared by the DCNPP-IDVP- for the purpose'f providing a conclusion ofthe program.

This report provides the revie~ results and conclusions of the IDVP.I

'with respect to 'he review af soils - intake structure slidingresistance; Ho EOI files were initiated as a result of this IDVP

verification effort.

As IDVP Program Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services has approved

this ITR-40, including the conclusions presented. 'Re methodology

followed by TES in performing this review and evaluation is described inAppendix S to this report.

ITR Reviewed and Approved

IDVP Program Manager

Teledyne Engineering Services

R. MrayAssistant Project Manager

0

SOILS REPORT-INTAKE STRUCTURE g

SLIDING RESISTANCE

Program Manager's Preface

List of Figures

1.0 Introduction

Purpose and ScopeSummaryBackground

2.0 IDVP Review Method and Results

2.1 HLA Specifications

2.2 IDVP Review and Calculations

2.3 IDVP/HLA Comparison

3.0 EOI Reportstl

4.0 Evaluation

5.0 Conclusion

6.0 References

Appendix A — Key Term Definitions

Appendix B — Program Manager's Assessment

Lish af Eiauraa

RifleIntake Structure and ControlBuilding, Plan View

Intake Structure — Section ViewA-A, Outline Only

Intake Structure Foundation,Plan View

Intake Structure Foundation,Profile A-A

0

INTRODUCTION

Pursual and Gaaua.

This interim technical report summarizes thereview by the Independent Design VerificationProgram (IDVP) of the sliding resistance, which isincluded in the soils analyses for the intakestructure at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,Unit 1 (DCNPP-l).

The IDVP Phase I Plan specifies that Robert L.Cloud Associates review the soils analysesperformed by PGandE's seismic service-relatedcontractor, Harding Lawson Associates (HLA). Fortheir soils analyses, HLA examined the followingareas: intake structure, outdoor water storagetanks, buried diesel fuel oil tanks and connectinglines, and buried auxiliary saltwater piping.

For the intake structure, the HLA analysesincluded a lithology definition, backfill propertydefinition, bearing capacity calculations, lateralearth pressure calculations and sliding forcescalculations. All but the last of these subjectshas been verified and described in previousreports.

This report presents the IDVP review of theHLA postulated sliding surface and resistiveforces. This information was used in a subsequentstructural review to determine the factor of safetyagainst sliding. The IDVP will address this subjectin a later report on the structural review of theintake structure.

ITR 013, Revision 0, describes the IDVP reviewof bedrock depth determination and backfillproperty definition for the intake structure(Reference 6). ITR 039, Revision 0, describes theIDVP review of bearing capacity and lateral earthpressure (Reference 13).

The balance of the IDVP soils review both forthe intake structure and the other areas will bepresented in separate ITRs. These will include areview of possible changes that may have occurredwhich affect either the surface or subsurfacecondition (e.g., additional roadways).

tt

This report is one of several interimtechnical reports of the Independent DesignVerification Program (IDVP). Interim technicalreports include references, sample definitions anddescriptions, methodology, a listing of Error andOpen Items, an examination of trends and concerns,and a conclusion (Reference 1). This reportpresents the results of the IDVP intake buildingsliding resistance review and serves as a vehiclefor NRC review. It will also be referenced in thePhase I Final Report.

The IDVP has completed the review of theHarding Lawson Associates'HL'A) soils work for theDCNPP-1 intake structure. The IDVP performedindependent calculations, examined HLA reports, andcompared results.

Both the HLA postulated sliding surface andresistive forces were found to either agree withIDVP results or to give conservative results.Therefore, the HLA intake sliding resistanceconclusions were determined to be acceptable.

Qaakazauni

On September 28, 1981 PGandE reportedthat a diagram error had been found in a portion ofthe seismic qualification of the Diablo CanyonNuclear Power Plant Unit 1. This error resulted inan incorrect application of the seismic floorresponse spectra for sections of the annulus of theUnit 1 containment building. The error originatedwhen PGandE transmitted a sketch of Unit 2 to aseismic service-related contractor. This sketchcontained geometry incorrectly identified as Unit 1geometry.

~ ~

As a result of this error, a seismic rever-ification program was established to determine ifthe seismic qualification of the plant was adequatefor the postulated Hosgri 7.5&1 earthquake. Thisprogram was presented orally to the NRC in ameeting in Bethesda, Haryland on October 9, 1981.

Robert L. Cloud and Associates (RLCA) presenteda preliminary, report on the seismic reverificationprogram to the NRC on November 12, 1981 (Reference2). This report dealt with an examination of theinterface between URS/Blume and PGandE.

The NRC commissioners met during the week ofNovember 16, 1981 to review the preliminary reportand the overall situation. On November 19, 1981 anOrder Suspending License CLI-81-30 was issued whichsuspended PGandE's license to load fuel and conductlow power tests up to 5% of. rated power at DCNPP-l.This suspending order also specified that anindependent design verification program beconducted to ensure that the plant met thelicensing criteria.

t

PGandE retained Robert L. Cloud and Associatesas program manager to develop and implement aprogram that would address the concerns cited inthe order suspending license CLI-81-30. The PhaseI Plan for this program was transmitted to the NRCstaff in December 1981 and discussed on February 3,1982. Phase I deals with PGandE internalactivities and seismic service-related contractsprior to June 1978.

On llarch 19, 1982 the NRC approved TeledyneEngineering Services (TES) as program manager toreplace Robert L. Cloud and Associates (RLCA).However, RLCA continued to perform the independentreview of seismic, structural, mechanical andgeotechnical aspects of Phase I.

0,

The NRC approved the Independent Design Veri-fication Program Phase I Engineering Program Planon April 27, 1982 (Reference 3). This plandictates that a sample of piping, equipment,structures and components be selected forindependent analysis. The results of theseanalyses are to be compared to the design analysesresults. If the acceptance criteria is exceeded,an Open Item Report is to be filed. Interimtechnical reports are to be issued to explain theprogress of different. segments of the technicalwork.

As part of Phase I Program, Roger F. Reedy,Inc. (RFR) performed a quality assurance (QA)review of PGandE and seismic service.-relatedcontractors prior to June 1978 which included thefirm of Harding Lawson Associates (HLA). The .

results of these QA reviews showed that HardingLawson Associates did not implement a qualityassurance program for the DCNPP-1 soils work. As aresult, RLCA and Dr. Robert NcNeill formulated areview program to verify the HLA soils work(Reference 4).

In addition to the intake structure, thebalance of the review program included the outdoorwater storage tanks, auxiliary saltwater piping anddiesel fuel oil tanks. For the outdoor waterstorage tanks, the HLA analysis included alithology definition, material property definitionand bearing capacity calculations. The IDVP reviewof this HLA work is presented in ITR 016, Revision 0(Reference 5). For the auxiliary saltwater pipingand diesel fuel oil tanks, the HLA analysesincluded a lithology definition, material propertydefinition and finite element analysis.

For intake structure, the HLA analysesincluded a lithology definition, backfill propertydefinition, lateral earth pressure calculations,sliding force calculations and bearing capacitycalculations.

ITR 013, Revision 0 presents the IDVP reviewof the bedrock depth and backfill propertydefinition for the HLA intake structure analyses(Reference 6). ITR 039, Revision 0 presents theIDVP review of the HLA lithology definition, bearingcapacity and lateral earth pressure calculationsfor the intake structure (Reference 13).

L

2 ~ 0 IDVP REVIEW METHOD AND RESULTS

Robert L. Cloud and Associates, together withDr. Robert tlcNeill, reviewed HLA work, whichconsisted of postulating the sliding surface anddetermining resistive forces. RLCA engineers and Dr.Robert NcNeill also toured the DCNPP site to examineexposed rock and in-situ backfill.

The intake structure is a reinforced concretebuilding 240 feet by l00 feet by 50 feet. It isfounded on a grout mudmat poured neat to bedrock.Three sides have been backfilled to grade. Figure 1shows a plan view of the intake structure andcontrol building. Figure 2 shows the section viewof the intake structure. These figures includeapproximate dimensions and elevations.

True North

108 feet ll inches

Reference North

T23 feet 0 inches

Intake StructureControl Building

104 feet 2 inches Intake Structure

239 feet 4 inches

Figure 1

Intake Structure and Control Buil ding

Plan View

104 feet 2 inches

Top Oeck

Intake Structure

Elevation+17.5 feet

0

~ BackfillC

Mean MaterLevel

Elevation0.0 fee

. Bedrock: '18. 5 feet

Bedrock'$

5 fee—El evation -38. 5 feet

Figure 2

Intake Structure - Section View A-AOutline Only

'.1 HLh GaraifiaakiaaaIn 1978, Harding Lawson Associates (HLA) determined the

postulated sliding surface and resistance factors for theintake building (References 8 and 9). Postulated slidingsurface was defined as shearing action through thebedrock between the two shear keys (see Figures 3 and 4).Resistance factors included:

o Resistance to shear between the two shear keys.

o Resistance to sliding along the remaining lengthof the base as (weight reduced by the effect ofvertical acceleration) times (tangent of the angleof internal friction).

o Resistance to sliding due to passive pressure onthe western shear key as (2) times (cohesion).

2.2 ZDVP Bedim aaD CalaulaiiauaTo verify the HLA work, the IDVP postulated the

sliding surface and determined the resistance factors forthe intake structure (Reference 10).

Figure 3 shows the interface between the intakestructure and the bedrock which the IDVP determined byreviewing the concrete lift-pour drawings. The IDVPpostulated the sliding surface shown in Figure 4.

The IDVP determined three resistance factors:o Resistance to shear between the two shear keys.

o Resistance to sliding along the remaining lengthof the base as (buoyant weight reduced by theeffect of vertical acceleration) times(coefficient of friction = .6). tt

o Passive pressure west of the outboard resistancealong a 2 to 1 horizontal to vertical slope.

Pumps

elevation - 38 ft91 ft

16 ft

13 ft107 ft

elevation - 34.5 ft

120 ftBed rock sur face

elevation - 31.5 ftUnit Unit

1 g 2

~Le end

Shear key

figure 3

Intake Structure foundationPlan View

0

~ '

North

East

p pumps

2h=14 ft Shearkey Shear key

ShearFriction

Shear Friction

~Le end

——Postulated sliding sur fac

"~~~~'edrock

Figure 4

Intake StructureFoundation Profile A-A

10

~,

A comparison of the IDVP and HLA methods forpostulating sliding surface and determining resistiveforces showed that the two analyses were similiar withthe following three exceptions:

1. The IDVP accounted for the resistive actionwest of the outboard key as shear alonga 2 to 1 horizontal to vertical slope. HLAaccounted for this action by calculating(2) times cohesion (c).

Ghaariua Baaiaianaa Ca Glidiaaia Maaiaru Shear Key.

2 (c) h2 (3ksf) 7 ft

42 k/ftwhere

c h~ + (2h)~3 ksf (15.7 ft)

47 k/ft

c=3ksfh = 7 ft (see Figure 4)

2. The IDVP used a 0.6 frictional coefficient.This frictional coefficient corresponds toconcrete on gravel or coarse sand (Reference ll)and will yield conservative values. HLA used atangent of the angle of friction of the rockmaterial. This angle (30 degrees) is discussedin ITR 039 (Reference 13).

Eriahiaual Baaiaiaaaa Ca GlidiuaB,luoa Bemaiaiaa Lt:naFh af Raut:

Tan ())Tan 30 degrees = .58

0.6 (Reference ll)

3. The IDVP explicitly defined the structure's buoyantweight. Although HLA did not specifically addressbuoyant weight, subsequent design calculationsfor factor of safety against sliding consideredbuoyant weight effects (Reference 12).

The differences in the HLA and IDVP results havebeen examined. As shown previously, the HLA results forcases 1 and 2 produce smaller (conservative) resistiveforces. fr7hile the HLA results did not explicitly specifya bouyant structural weight, the IDVP determined that itwas considered in a subsequent'esign analysis.Therefore, this difference had no impact.

12

3.0 EOI REPORTS

No EOI reports were issued as a result of the IDVPverification of the intake structure sliding resistance.

4.0 EVALUATION

The IDVP examined the HLA soils work for the intakestructure related to the sliding resistance. A review ofthe HLA specifications for postulated sliding surface andresistive forces was conducted and independentcalculations were performed. A comparison of IDVP andHLA results shows the HLA sliding resistance work to beacceptable.

5 ' CONCLUSION

The HLA soils work related to sliding resistance ofthe intake structure has been found acceptable by theIDVP

13

~ ~

6 ' REFERENCES

XiilaRLCA

Eisa M.

DCNPP-1 Phase I Program NanagementPlan, Independent DesignVerification Program, Revision 1,July 6,- 1982 (Revision 0, triarch 29,1982).

"Preliminary Report, Seismic Reveri- P105-4-820-005fication Program," Robert L. CloudAssociates, Inc., November 12, 1981.

DCNPP-1 Phase I Engineering ProgramPlan, Independent Design VerificationProgram, Revision 0, DCNPP-IDVP-PP-001,I'larch 31, 1982.

Program for Design Work Done byHarding Larson Associates, Robert L.Cloud Associates, Revision 0, Nay28, 1982

'Interim Technical Report, 016,Diablo Canyon Unit 1, IndependentDesign Verification Program,Soils-Outdoor Water Storage Tanks,"Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.,Revision 0.

P105-4-839-016

"Interim Technical Report, 013,Diablo Canyon Unit 1, IndependentDesign Verification Program, Soils-Intake Structure," Robert L. CloudAssociates, Inc., Revision 0.

DCNPP-IDVP-PP-003 Preparation ofOpen Item Reports, ProgramResolution Reports, and IDVCompletion Reports, Revision 1, June18'982.

P105-4-839-013

14

~ s

Zihla"Geotechnical Studies, IntakeStructure, Water Storage Tanks,Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tanks,Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,San Luis Obispo County, California,"Harding Lawson Associates, April 12,1978.

RLCAEisa Hz

P105-4-449-001

Letter of Transmittal, Harding-Lawson P105-4-449-049Associates, to URS/Blume, Intake (26,27 and 28)Structure Sliding and OverturningResistance, Inarch 30, 1978.

RLCA Calculation "Intake Structure- P105-4-515-014Sliding Resistance" Revision 0.

"Soils Mechanics, Its Principles andStructural Applications", Krynine,blcGraw-Hill, Second Edition."Diablo Canyon Intake Structure,Factor of Safety AgainstOverturning, Foundation BearingPressures," URS/Blume, November 13,1978.

Log 2.2.2

"Interim Technical Report, 039,Diablo Canyon Unit 1< IndependentDesign Verification Program, Soils—Intake Structure-Bearing Capacityand Lateral Earth Pressure," RobertL. Cloud Associates, Inc., Revision 0.

P105-4-83 9-03 9

15

I j

0

Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc.

- Appendix A

Key Term Definitions

( 6 'pages)

I~

4

KEY TER51S AND DEFINITIONS

(The definitions in this glossary establish the meaningsof words in the context of their use in this document.These meanings in no way replace the specific legal andlicensing definitions.)

Closed Item

— A form of program resolution of an Open Itemwhich indicates that the reported aspect isneither an Error nor a Deviation. No furtherIDVP action is required (from Reference 7).

Completion Report— Used to indicate that the IDVP effort related

to the Open Item identified by the File Numberis complete. It references either a ProgramResolution Peport which recategorized the itemas a Closed Item or a PGandE document whichstates that no physical modification is to beapplied in the case of a Deviation or a Class DError (from Ref erence 7) .

DCNPP-1

— Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1

Design Codes

— Accepted industry standards for design (ex. AISC,AISIg ANSI'SHEN'N'1Ag IEEE) ~

EOI

— Error and Open Item Report

~ I~

4

Error Report— An Error is a form of program resolution of an

Open Item indicating an incorrect result that hasbeen verified as such. It may be due to a mathe-matical mistake, use of wrong analyticalmethod, omission of data or use of inapplicabledata.

Each Error shall be classified as one of thefollowing:

o Class A: An Error is considered Class A if designcriteria or operating limits of safety relatedequipment are exceeded and, as a result, physicalmodifications or changes in operating proceduresare required. Any PGandE corrective action issubject to verification by the IDVP.

,o Class B: An Error is considered Class B if designcriteria or operating limits of safety relatedequipment are exceeded, but are resolvable bymeans of more realistic calculations or retesting.Any PGandE corrective action is subject to veri-fication by the IDVP.

o Class C: An Error is considered Class C ifincorrect engineering or installation ofsafety related equipment is found, but nodesign criteria or operating limits are exceeded.No physical modifications are required, but ifany are applied they are subject to verificationby the IDVP-.

o Class D: An Error is considered Class D ifsafety related equipment is not affected.No physical modifications are required, butif any are applied, they are subject toverification by the IDVP (From Reference 7).

A-2

~ I ~

0

~ I I

FSAR

— PGandE's Final Safety Analysis Report

Hosgri Criteria~r

— Licensing criteria referring specifically tothe postulated 7.5N Hosgri earthquake.

Hosgri Report

— A report issued'by PGandE that summarizes theirevaluation of tne DCNPP-l for the postulatedHosgri 7.5tl earthquake. Includes seismiclicensing criteria.

Hosgri 7.5ll Earthquake

— blaximum earthquake for which the plant i'designed to remain functional. Same as SafeShutdown Earthquake (SSE).

Interim Technical Report

— Interim technical reports are prepared when a.program participant has completed an aspect oftheir assigned effort in order to provide thecompleted analysis and conclusions. These maybe in support of an Error, Open Item or Program

Interim Technical Report (cont.)

Resolution Report or in support of a portionof the work which verifies acceptability.Since such a report is a conclusion of theprogram, it is subject to the review of theProgram Nanager. The report will be trans-mitted simultaneously to PGandE and to the NRC(from Reference l) .

NRC

—,Nuclear Regulatory Commission

A-3

I ~

~ I p

NRC.Order Suspending License CLI-81-30

— The order dated November 19, 1981 that sus-pended the license to load fuel and operateDCNPP»1 at power levels up to 5% of full powerand specified the programs that must be completedprior to lifting of the suspension.

Open Item

— A concern that has not been verified, fullyunderstood and its significance assessed. Theforms of program resolution of an Open Item arerecategorization as an Error, as a Deviation, oras a Closed. Item (from Reference 7) .

PGandE

— Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Phase I Program

- Review performed by RLCA, RFR, and TES restrictedto verifying work performed prior to June 1978related to the Hosgri re-evaluation designactivities of PGandE and their seismic service-relatedcontractors.

Potential Program Resolution Reportand Potential Error Report

- Forms used for communication within IDVP.

Program Resolution Report

— Used to indicate that the specific item is nolonger active in the IDVP. It indicates whetherthe resolution is a Closed Item, a Deviation, orthat responsibility for an Open Item has beentransferred to the PGandE Technical Program.Further IDVP action is required upon completionof the associated PGandE Technical Program Taskif the IDVP transfers an Open Item to PGandE orif physical modifications are applied with respectto a deviation (Reference 7).

I I

RLCA

— Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc.

Sample

- Initial Sample stipulated in Phase I Programof equipment, components, and buildings to bedesign verified by independent analysis.

'ampling Approach

- llethod used by the IDVP to determine the initialsample (buildings, piping, equipment and compon-ents) for analysis and to provide for sampleexpansion when required.

SSE

— Safe Shutdown Earthquake: Maximum earthquakefor which the plant is designed to remainfunctional (Hosgri 7.551).

Seismic

— Refers to earthquake data.

Shear

— Slicing motion parallel to plane of reference.

Shear keys

— Structural member set in a slot or groove toresist planar forces.

Sliding resistance— Resistance of base to sliding of a structure.

- TES

— Teledyne Engineering Services

I ~ p

e

0

0

Ver'fication Program

— Undertaken by the IDVP to evaluate DiabloCanyon Nuclear Power Plant for compliancewith the licensing criteria.

A-6

I ~

Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc.

Appendix B

Program Manager's Assessment

(1 page)

0'~

rs-TELEDYNE .

ENGINEERING SERVI(~ES„

PROGRAM MANAGER'S ASSESSMENT

As program manager of the Independent Design VerificationProgram, TES has reviewed the work of RLCA personnel andDr. Robert McNeill in developing this. Interim TechnicalReport. The review activities of TES conform to the re-quirements of the Phase I Program Management Plan DCNPP-1and the TES Engineering Procedure EP-1-014.

TES conducted the following tasks, in order to verify thereview methodologies employed, and final content of thisITR:

1) A complete review and editorial comments wereprovided to RLCA'on drafts of this ITR.

2) A general review of selected literature andbackground documents was conducted.

The items presented in this Interim Technical Report areconsidered complete and this ITR is therefore approved.

TES will continue to review the progress of the RLCA andMcNeill work related to the soils review program.

8-1

0) \