IR 05000329/1978020
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- ,- .1
- -~e.
[.\\ t C(..',t.ih 4C j # '* l" , ) , <, - , . . ,y s .. , , , / 2.
d p.).)., M:a.t % J ' .i a s . ., - . _ .GU.ll.4 YG) U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:0!ISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 050-329/78-20; 050-330/78-20 ' Subject: Consumers Power Co:apany - - Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Midland, Michigan [ , Settlement of the Diesel Generator Building Period of Investigation: December 11-1"), 18-20, 1978 and January 4-5, 9-11, 22-25, 1979 . Investigators: G. A. Phillip E. J. Gallaglier G. F. Ita:niell Reviewed By: G. Fiorelli, Chief
Reactor Constrection and Engineering Support Stanch . C. E. Norelit.s Assistant to the Director ~ ~
- .
sud J a n . .
. , . B408140039 840718 PDR FOIA RICE 84-96 PDR -/ . - - - - - - -, - - - -- ,
-! e.
~. ) i i _ %:( C ',- ,a . u j;. : y6 .,;
. Y & 0 '-{, f' . REASON FOR INVESTIGATION -- . On September 7,15'~, 'the licensee notified Region III, by telephone, that the settlement of the Diesel Generator Building and foundations experienced' constituted a matter reportable under the requirements- - . of 10 CFR 50.55(e). Written interim reports were s'ub.sequently submitted bythelicenseebylettersdatedSeptember29anddovember7,1978.
An investigation t.:s initinted to ebtcin infor= tica centerning the circumstances of this occurrence. I# M/f/NAIW MA I A WAffdASW/ /W f//A4 /fl ASS &Yvf/d.5 /rWC nx? o ceNc.svc ,gr o 4 ffi:' ssc w.ec/ > . /Aap0d/Ztf- /QOff/4' s ##c, fAf- //fL J/
fFMf*f/> rs /&f 15/M J.%Y ;c 7Af lk0, seoN This investigation was performed to obtain informtion reinting to .- design and construction activities affecting the Diesel Generator Building foundations and the activities involved in the identifica- , tion and reporting of unusual settlement of the building. The investigation consisted of an examination of pertinent records and
- .
procedures and interviews with personnel at the Midland site, the
Consumers Power Company offices in Jackson, Michigan, and the Bechtel ' . ! Power Corporation offices in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
I <
. . i b.
. ' SUMMARY OF FACTS ' i +
. - . . - .
= ,$ $. ~.{ Y.
- e
j .a e >,31 %. :[=L.. h.
- f8 - w r i u l - . . By letter dated September 29, 1978, the licensee cub =itted a report as required by 10 CFR 50,55(e) concerning an unusal degree of settle-ment of the Diesel Generator Building (DGB). This report confir-ed d' information provided puring earlier telephone conversations on or about August _22, 1978, with the NRC Resident Inspector and on September 7, n
1978, with,the Region III office. This report was an (terim report and was followed by periodic interim reports providing additional infob.ation . concerning actions being taken to resolve the probic=. Further testing and monitoring programs and an evaluation of the resulting data have tgg u.
e_ been undertakenTeo determine the cause of the settlement and the adequacy,,
M
- -
of li c ecle corrective actio M.~. acWb~ b b)AC-u:i LO l A. d w 't h A 5 a-M r Information obtained during this investigation indicates: (1) there was inadequate control and supervision of plant fill material placascnt; (2) corrective action regarding nonconformances related to plant fill was either not taken or was indequate; (3) certain design bases and construction specifications were not followed; (4) weaknesses exist in the interface between various cc=ponents within the construction contractor's organization; and, (5) the FSAR contains inconsistent, incorrect and unsupported statements.
ML
.
e
M . e
.. .. . .,7 ',. . h er/bts:
- i / A 5"OJ'ff $/YYYfs
swtrrd .JL:<es-6 yHis x:-;-/- 67Atxras /Y vwr.w.ums f s ~ cC:6-As,r. M&ffs $ f w*/ W6 .,#ss.1w - -f6 . s ,
- +'- <f
, - e.c+.cvfs ssyouf./ A r* d e.ff,< /,e 4.,t'#p p.s xn rp- .rsts-w x! /:r, vow.sz .es n.n.
xs
si.es spwssorbr,,pmm -rssexvs.1 ..= -o ~ q.c.xN 77 4:s p-rAss
- , A;Kcrs. ~ >-J'-
.a8w-f/,a,e-;Scs / dE'.e + nts A% ro..-d+ Mx.s-dowc/fr, fers/' m sy- .ds.vsiSXfs sr n.rs .&.c.wrso.4, yc;4A/ff .4Lf6t'z./1x/W, q '/A/Tf gss FAu,.fexpf,y .or es.x<rfm .c,s f x M f' o r s - s. -v /ertzisosi-x/ Acs 4:1 f.n-6 wX!x u 4, ,orcm i7,z.
A S.re w c; ' ' no zG,:rs ns2/V f7 2*?/* /,6>: /dM>x.,.'j' cyx:,,y '
- . WNf/Ws fsSdxff /NSlN'/W fi S Pf,,/' E sf G / /f,9 ' d ' $ k 1f/A"& .5 -#Xf 94:o /ksk/M/#4 A - .
. k
. . m W
e
- = . S
- .* . %
.* . " e - . ,- - , . . . O g - e e se e A- - - - , -, , , w-. .---m -,, -,, - - -, , -. .- -w--- - , e,, -
. . .- j.
L. e,. .: 1 ' E -# [ %, j'339.l:- .D o - M(409
. ~ - Introduction ' On August 22, 1978, the licensee informed the NRC Resident. Inspector at the' Midland site that unusual settlement of the Diesel Cenarator Building (DGB) had been detected through the established Foundation . Data Survey Program. While the licensee regarded the matter as ' serious it was not considered to be reportable under the provisions . of 10 CFR 50.55(e) until further data was obtained.' ~ Following the acquisition of additional data from further surveys and a core boring program which was initiated on August 25, 1978, the ' licensee concluded the matter was rep'ortable and so telephonically . notified Region III on September 7, 1978. The notificatica nas followed up by a series of interim reports the first of which was submitted to Region III by letter dated September 29, 1978. Subse - ^ quent interim reports were transmitted by letters dated November 7 l978, j and January 5, 1979.
An inspection was conducted by Region III during the period October 24-27, 1978, to review the data then available; to observe the current condition of the structure; and, to review current activities.
Information regarding
- the inspection are contained in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-329/78-12; j l 50-330/78-12.
On December 3-4, 1978, a meeting with NRR and Region III representatives , . was held at the Midland site to review the status of the problem, to discuss open items identified in the aforementioned inspection repor,t ' / og thegctobg insgetion and possible corrective actions.
. MM CG211Y O _.
M . . . . . . , . - ~ ,,. - -- - - ,,,. -,
_ _,,,
- - -- - . .. Ih- /1 ,L !! .h! ' b '- b.
t _ , Identification and Ra_portin of Diesel Generator B'uilding Settlement , .. l . B eckIIEL Surveys to establish a baseline elevation for the DGB uere cor.pleted bg "on May 9, 1978. As a result ~of these surveys, the Chief of Survey Parties noted what he considered to be unusual setticmant. He indicated 'that from his experience he would have expected about 1/8" settle-ment. The July 22 data' showed a differential settlement between . . various locations ranging from 1/4" to a maximum of 1 5/8".
He . promptly instructed his survey personnel to resurvey to deteraine whether the data was accurate. The resurvey confirmed the accuracy of the survey data. The Chief of Survey Parties reported the survey.
ha.hTeL results to the4 ead civil field engineer.
The lead civil field engineer said that in July 1978 the settlement of a pedestal in the LGB was noted frcs surveys and about a weak later a 1" discrepancy was noted when scribes on the DGB were being moved up.
He said that at that time he was uncertain as to whether actual settlement had occurred, the survey was in error or the apparent discrepancy was a construction error. He instructed the Chief of Survey Parties to check his survey results and to perform surveys more frequently than the 60-day intervals required by the survey program .. as a means of determining whether actual settlement had occurred and whether settlement continued.
The Field Project Engineer was also informed of the apparent settlement , , and concurred with the lead civil field engineer's actions. He said ' , ( [- ....... ..-.. .
.-- , - ' @, ^ ) b' ) !! 4. e/ ' ' ' ll. %E he.had toured the building at that. time and~ he saw no visible indications of stress which could be expected when unusual setticnent occurs.
The lead civil field engineer said the DGB was monitored for about a month. He compared the aucunt of cettlement being experienced with the settlement values reflected in Figure 2.5-48 of the FSAR and did not - consider it reportable until those values were exceeded. When the settlement did exceed those values as indicated by s.urvey data obtained . on about August 18, 1978, he prepared a nonconformance report with' the assistance of QC personnel.
. The July 22 survey data was transmitted by the site to the Bechtel Project Engineering office in Ann Arbor by a routine transmittal memo dated July 26, 1978. The data was received at Ann Arbor, processed through document control on August 9, 1978, cad was routinely routed to the Civil Engineering Group Supervisor. He stated he did not review th.. data but placed a route slip on it indicating those members of his group who should review it.
_jA d .
9
= m . O . ' ' , .. O d [w.? hiF~' { U ^" .I . b, V/h i k .The engineer in the Civil Group, who had established the curvay program and who was responsible for assuring it was being carried out, stated he rev!ewed the data and did not regard it as unusual. For that reason he did not bring.the matter to anyone's attention but carely routed it to other personnel in the civil group. The engineer responsible for the DGB'said he did not see the data before the settlement problem was identified by the field in a nonconformance report.
. . With the issuance of the noncomformance report, No. 1482, on August 18, 1978, CPCo was also informed of this condition. On or about August 21, 1978, the NRC Resident Inspector was crally informed of the =atter by CPOo. It was indicated at that time that although CPCo regarded the matter as serious, they did not consider it to be reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e).
Construction on the DGB was placed on hold on August 23, 1978 and a test boring program was initiated on August 25, 1978. After prelim-inary evaluation of soil boring data, a Management Corrective Action Report (MCAR), No. 24, was issued by Bechtel on September 7, 1978.
The MCAR stated that based on a preltsinary evaluation of the data, the matter was reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e),1, iii and Region III .
was so notified by telephone on that date.
The telephone notification was subsequently followed up by a letter dated September 29, 1978, from CPCo enclosing a copy of MCAR 24 and Interim Report 1 prepared by Bechtel.
e , On the basis of the above, it is concluded that in this instance the' licepeee plied ith th reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
I . Af}X.
Af// l_ _ 37. - -- . e
t @g*
4 - - .x -, -.. .~
- - ' ' . . 4; ... _ u s J ', y.
..: '* ~ i,a .. .
g Review of PSta/FSAR Cmamitments on Compacted Fill ISterial.
~ In a previous NRC Inspection Report,.No. 329/78-12 and No. 330/78-12, , . an apparcat conflict was identified between FSAR Table -2.5-14_ (Sure.ary of Foundations' Supporting Seismic Category I and II-Structures), Table-2.5-9_ (Minimum Compaction criteria) and the site construction drawing ~ C-45 (Cla.ss-I Fill Material Areas) regarding the type of foundation.
=ntetial to be used for plant area fill. Table'2.5-14 identifies the supporting soil materials for the Auxiliary Building D, E, F, and a G Radwas Building, Diesel Generator Building and Borated Water Storage Tanks to be "contro11ed' compacted cohesive fill." Table 2.5-9 e also indicates the soil type for "suppo'rt.of structures" to be play.
Contrary to these FSAR commitments, drawing C-45 indicates Zone 2 (random fill) material, defined as "any material free of humus, organic or other deleterious material," is to be used with "no restrictions on gradation." It was further determined that Zone 2 material was in fact used.
During this investigation a review of documentation showed that the commitment to use cohesive soils was also made in response to PSAR question 5.1.11 and submitted in PSAR Amendment 6, dated December 12, . 1969, which states, " Soils above Elevation 605 will be cohesive soils in an engineered backfill." Ihis response also indicated that certain class I components would be founded on this material, such as, emergency diesel generators, borated water storage tanks and associated piping < and electrical conduit.
. -8- . . _.. . . .
K -
-. - - -
p
.. . n 3, p;m.
t CPCo qnality assurance issued a nonconfornance repert QF-56, dated [ October 10, 1975, which stated that contrary to the'?.beve-quoted PSAR statement that cohesive soils would be used, Specification C-211 required ~ cohesionless (sand) material to b'e used within 3 feet of the walls of the plant area structures. The corrective action taken was for Bechtel to issue SAR Change Notice No. 0097 which stated, "The FSAR will clarify the use of cohesive and cohesionless soils for support of Class 1 structures."
As noted above, the FSAR tables 2.5-14 and 2.5-9 once again stated.that " cohesive (clay) material was used for support of stru'ctures-while the construction drawing continued to per=it the use of rend:= fill , ' material.
Based on the al(ove, thip'failur # o ass 're that r ulator2 t comm nt , and,/esig rans)dted is a speci 'ed in e license pplic on are to ecific ions rawine or instr tions consic'e ed an em f /' R 50, Appe6 dix B, Criterion lIII././, / (62h/28-e- ; j-poncompl$ nce w th 10 A319# M ). fp Afl' _ Au , . , e B . l l l
-9- . I . j . . . , . . . . L-
-- - ~, . _. . . -.. .. i q.: *p NT b) / k, {h.)/ e + . bh.. .. '. - r3
. This investigation included efforts co ascertain.whether procedures ~ vere established and implemented for the preparation, centrol and review y _ _ of the technical criteria set - forth in -the safecy analysis -report (S AR). - .This included the role of both Bec tel and C Co in the review of the h of SAR. Eachtel had established control f6 the SAR'in procedure MED 4.22 (Preparation and Control of Safety Analysis Report Revision 1, } dated 3,une 20, 1974). The SAR preparation and review flow chart requires the Engineering Group Supervisor (EGS) to review the. originator's draf t ~ . for technical accuracy and.cespliance uith the standard format guide.
Records indicated that Section 2.5.4 was orginated by the "echtel Oeotech group on January 3, 1977. It was reviewed and^ approved for technical accuracy by an engineer in the civil project group en April 29, 1977.
No technical inaccuracies were noted in the documentacion. The Civil EGS edvised that he did not personally review Section 2.5.4.
The designated engineer stated that in his review of the section he was primarily concerned with the Auxiliary Building not the Diesel Generator Building. He said the review of FSAR material was performed by sc=bcrs of a group set up for this purpose. Not all of the content was checked since they relied to some extent on the originator. The author of Section 2.5.4 said he was not aware that changes regarding . fill material had occurred since the preparation of the PSAR. It was ascertained that Field Engineering did not review the FSAR prior to its submittal.
o
. ' . . -/o - , ... _ = _ _..... . e
e
, ,
- p
.- ic'.* 2 0 % g f ='\\ !,! -p ++ ., AIpartial review of the FSAR revealed that although Fig re 2.5-48 indicates anticipated settlement of.the Diesel Generator 2ailding .during the life of the plant to be on the' order of 3 inches, Section 3.8.5.5 (Structural Acceptance Criteria) contains the following state- - =ent: " Settlements on shallow spread. footings founded on compacted fills are. estimated to be on the order of 1/2" or less."
.. , Section 3.8 was prepared by Project Engineering. Geotech, who prepared Section 2.5, said they were unaware of the presence of the statecent regarding 1/2" settlement in Section 3.8.
The originator of Section 3.8 said that the above statement was taken from the Dames and Moore report submitted as part of the PSAR. Cince the PSAR did not show any change in this regard, he assumed the statement was valid for inclusion in the l FSAR. He said there was no other basis to support this statement.
M 2/$ W - '_8 k.
L . l
- .
O a
- // - \\ . . r.e.
- r - --.---y a,. e,,- .y ---
a , .' . ), ' ,e [i t.$ \\ N Os O , PCo'als'o has an estab1'shed procedure for the review cnd final approval i of the SAR by procedure MPPM-13 dated June 23, 1976.
Section S.6 states that."CPCo shall approve all final draft sections of the FSAR prior to final printing." Discussion with the responsible licensee representa- ~ .tives for review of Section'2.5.4 indicated that a limited amount of cross-reference verification of technical content of the FSAR is . performed by CPCo.
. . The CPCo Project Engineer in Jackson' stated that the review of drawings and specifications was an owner's preference kind of thing. No attempt . was made to review all drawings and specifications since'they did not have the =anpower or expertise for that type of review. The staff engineers of the various diciplines were asked to indicate the drawings and specifications they wanted to review.
Regarding the review of the FSAR, he said that he had prepared a memorandum to the staff engineers stating the procedure that would be fo11cwed in performing the review. An examination of this memo, dated July 28, 1976, showed that prime reviewers would perform a technical review, resolve comments made by other reviewers and perform the CPCo licensing review to assure compliance with required FSAR format and ,, content.
As portions of the FSAR were received from Bechtel, connents were sent to Bechtel. Some were disregarded; others were not.
Following this review, , , , ' , O -/d - . . .... 4. - ~., + , . - - - - - - - - - - . - - - _ - _ _. - - _ _. -. _ _ _ _, _ _ _. _,, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _, _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,, _, _, _,, _ _ _ _ _ _, _, _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _, _,,,, _, _ _ -. , J
y_ ., _-.
- ._.
'3- . h,. (.4 , .r j t.
. cosmp - - ,, .t :... as r.eetings' between 3echtel and CPCo were held to r-ndid any u.. resolved uatters before each section was' released for printing. A review of the .,. files'at CPCo relating to Section 2.5 and 3.8 showed that no coments were r.de concerning the above inconsistent and incorrect content. The apparent inconsistent and incorrect statements were not identified during the review-of the FSAR prior to submittal and the review procedures did not provide ^ any mechanism to identify apparent conflicts between sections of the FSAR.
. Based-on the above, this failure to assure that regulatory c- '--~~s
and design basis as specified in the license application are translated into specifications, drawings or instructions is considered an item of , ncncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III.
(329/78,?.0- ; . 330/ 78-/.O- ). AY ]h RO . !
l l !
I e ,? e '4 . -/3- .
g . p . . - ..m..-.. . d . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . .. .-- - .. -.. .m
, . _ - - y .. - ,4 s .' Ed %g5.r.., {, 3.,fa ., .. ..
' Effcct of Ground Upter in Plant Area Fill
, Final plant grade will be established at clavation 634. The normal ground water was assumed to be at ground surface prior to construction, approximately elevation 603. ne surface of the vnter in the cooling water pond will be at a maxinum of approximately elevation 627.
, 'Ihe Dames and Moore report on Foundation Investigation submitted with ! PSAR Amendment No. 1, dated February 3, 1969, stated that, "The , effect of raising the water level to elevation 625 'in the reservoirs will cause the normal ground water level in the general plant area to eventually rise to approximately elevation 625.
IIo-ever, a drainage system will be provided to maintain thE ground water level in the plant fikiatelevation603."
A supplement to Dames and Moore report was submitted in PSAR Amendment No. 3, dated August 13, 1969, which chanted the above planning of a ' drainage system to control the ground water. The supplement states, i "ne underdrainage system considered in the initial report has been eliminated; consequently it is assumed that the ground water level in i the plant area will rise concurrently to approximately elevation 625."
l A Bechtel soils consultant indicated in a December 4,1978, site meeting
i that the main unknown is what might happen to the rate of settlement
as the water table rises and saturates the fill.
Therefore, the total effect of the ground water being permitted to inundate the plant fill o , material is undetermined at this time. An evaluation of this condition is under re av b the licensee. % i th 4 (A . &s/ '8 i on/va-zo-23o /78 - p - )- p,1- . ...... . . . .
_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _._ _ _ ....... ... . .- . . i..l ~ f I
'gl l
L.V , , ' review of Ca;.paction Requiren?nts_ for Plant Area Fill b During the investigation a review of_the history of the compaction '* requirements was_ performed in order to determine whether the compaction of the plant fill was implemented in compliance with the commite.ents in- , the PSAR and in site construction specifications.
. PSAR, Amendment 1,. dated February 3, 1969, presented the Dames and Moore report " Foundation Investigation and Pre 1Lainary E$ploration for 'crrow Materials." The recommended minimum compaction criteria is stated on page 15 which indicated 95% of maximum density for " cohesive soils" as determined by ASTM D-1557-66T and 100% for " granular soils."
PSAR, A=endment 3, dated August 13, 1969, included a supplement to the Dames and Moore report entitled, " Tour.dation Ic.vastigati n and ":Olixir. 7 Exp1cration for Borrow Materials." Page 16 of this report lists the recommended minimum compaction criteria for sand soils and cohesive soils.
For the fill material for supporting structures the minimum compaction is 85% relative density for sand and 100% of caximum density for clay as determined by ASTM D-698 modified to require 20,000 f t-lbs, of compactive energy (equivalent to 95% of ASTM D-1557, Method D which provides 56,000 . f t-lbs of compactive energy). Subsequent to the filing of Amendment 3, no amendments were made to the PSAR to indicate that the recommendations contained in the Dames and Moore report would not be followed or would be further modified.
, - e e .
4 e .
.
m
7, - - - - - - -. ..... . ... ., . ... (g ':.. ; j
- g x. :
}li%c.=:, - ?.l '. j f Se 's . 3echtel Specification C-21,0, Section 13.0 (Plant Area Backfill and . 3erm Backfill) indicates the compaction raqt: ire =ents for cohesive soil . (13.7.1) to be "not less than 95% of raaximum density as deternined by ASIM D-1557, Method D" and for cohesionless soils (s nd) (13.7.2) to be compacted "to not less than 80% reistive density as deterreined by - - ASIM D-2049."
. ~ . . By comparing the PSAh commitments to the specification requirements it is apparent that the corapaction ca aitments for c:hasive 011 (clay) was translated into the construction specification i.e. 95T. of maximum density using ASIM D-1557, Method D (compactive energy of 56,000 f t-lbs).
However, the compaction commitment for,cohesionless soil (sand) was not dr.
same as in the construction specification,-i.e. 85% relative density versus the 80% reistive density, translated in the construction specification.
s1Nf 'A/ / . e . h e
s
V . . p
0 . . W f -*
i-... ....... _.. . __
L' - ] ... .
'y ', s , ^ N8 {k.d t -..h .{. '., - .. . - - . . ._ The actual ihplemented cocpaction requirements were as foll: s: E , a.
Cohesive soil '(clay): 95% of maximum density as detortined by the "Bechtel Modified Test," a compactive energy of 4 r - bis noD,000 FT-LdS..This was used instead of 56,00077-ppy of compactive energy as committed to in the PSAR and required ' . by the construction specification C-210, Section 13.7.1.
- . . b.
Cohesionless soil (sand): 50% relative density as determined by ASTM D-2049 instead of 85% as committed to in the PSAR.
Hevever, this is consiste t with construction specifiestion C-210, Section 13.7.2.
' - . The ec=paction require =ents i=piccanted during constructica of the plant l ' area fill between elevations 603 and 634 were, therefore, less than the commitments made in the PSAR for cohesive and cohesionless fill material. In additon, the cohesive (clay) material was also compacted to less than that required by the Bechtel specification.
(Specification l.
C-210, Section 13.7).
A review of Specification C-210 (specification controlling carthwork . contract) beginning with Revision 2, dated July 27, 1973, which was issued for subcontract showed that it contained conflicting sections I relating to the plant area backfill compaction requirements.
o
, .' -/7- - . . ..... _.... . .. , _ . ... . -. . . . . . . . . . - . . - - . - . - . . . . .
- -- . .- h Na P/: A (* '1 ' i? l *.*.' t., fs c L .. ?,.,jA.
,j %a y Section 13.7, Cocpaction Requitecents, from Revision' 2 to the latest revision, consistently provided that the backfill in'the plant area shall'be cor.pacted to 95% of maximum density as determined by ASTM 1557, Method D.
Section 13.4, Testing Plant Area Backfill, contained the statement;that tests would be performed as set forth in Section.12.4.5, t.aboratory ' Maximum Density'and Optimum Moisture Content, which specified a lesser ' - standard, 20,000 foot-pounds per cubic foot, which is commonly referred to as the ?echtel Modified Proctor Density Test (BMP). Section 12 of the specification relates to Dike and Railroad Environment Construction.
. . It waa also noted that this inconsistency was refl.cted in the applicable QA Inspection Criteria, SC-1.10 Ite:n 2.3(d) Compaction which states, , l "thekfill material for the specified renes has been compacted to the l required density as determined by Bechtel Modified Proctor !!athod" and ' i ' n/ As, Section 13.7 as the inspection criteria.
vet references C-210 /o - ! l l l
' ( .
I ~f " ! . . , i - . ...... _ _... .. , . ., .. m ,
(- _.
' .
. 4.i g% A i~ ,_ h [ o[*~u f i J I ..f..u-.,. . w - . . . Furthermore, in Specification C-20S which defined the testing contract
requirements of subgrade risterials, Section p.1 (Testing) required i compaction tests to be in accordance with ASni D-1557 and only when directed was the BMP compaction criteria to be used. It was determined that U. S., Testing was only orally advised that the BMP was the standard to be applied to the tests they performed of plant area fill.
.
Through intervicvs and an examination of iaterj.. docuacnts it .as asce/%nedthatb@seofthisinconsistency,thequestionofthe applicable compaction standard for cohesive materials in the plant area was a recurring one.
. , i . The following is a summary of the documentation regarding the confusion of the cuiupaction requirements for plant area fill: g.5:e,,im ie 6etJ Gp RdNh 10,1974[ states"therehasbeen 1.
1.etter 7220-C-210-77 dated June - some confusion as to the interpretaion of the following item: 13.7 Compaction Requirements all backfill in the plant area and berm shall be compacted to not less than 95% of maximum density as determined by modified Proctor method (ASTM 1557, Method D), with the exception that Zones 4, 4A, 5, SA, and 6 Materials , need no special compactive effort other than as described in Section 12.8.1 (emphasis included in specification). Quality Control questioned whether the exception stated above applies only to Zones 4, 4A, 5, 5A, and 6 or did construction have to abide ' , by Section 12.8.1 for Zones 1 and 2.
Section 12.8.1 clearly, , -/9 - . . . ............. . . .. ... . . m -. - -
O . g- .. - fk.
, requires. Zone 2 raterial to be placed with a 50 ton rubber tired roller with a minimum of four roller passes per lif t.
QC's interpretation _was that the field needed "to obtain 95% of maximum density by the modified Proctor method (ASTM 1557, Method D), with no restrictions as to the method used to obtain these '- results."
- o,..,N d ~ u (bel <l Gg.u v 4,'un D('. I "-Mb 2.
Letter 7220-C-210-23, dated June 24, 1974 responded to Item 1 ^ states,."We have revieved your JtIne 10, 1974, IOM above. It concerning compactive ef fore required on Zones 1 and 2 in the plant and berm backfill areas. We agree with r r interpretation; t ' i.e. a 95% of maximum density is the acceptance criteria, and . the number of roller passes listed in Paragraph 12.8.1 does not i spply to plant and berm backfill. We feel the specification is now clear and no FCR is required."
l ((ieLL Cue-%NOICH k* Y^*YC$ $ ** k ' 3.
Letter BCBE-370, dated July 25,1974,klistsoutstandingitems requiring Project Engineering's action. This includes the question, "Is the 95% compaction required in the plant area to be 95% of j t l Bechtel Modified or 95% of ASTM-1557, Method D."
m.
a d // , .
l ! ,
,e
! .' ' ! 90- -
0
3
f m .m.
..A . . . . a.. .. . ..
r; w ,. 'M ;-}.;)$E} I'. (., g-(- . .b N [- > @T T p .. ) L,'r. JA"% i...._b.j.,,') N.
< , 4.
Letter 3EBC-456, dated August 1,1974,hstatesthatGeotechis addressing the question posed in BCBE-370 (Item 3 above).
5.
Memorandum from Geotech to Bechtel Field, dated September 18, 1974, responds to the question raised in BCBE-370 '(Item 3 above)'. It states, "It is our opinion that all the compaction requirements that are needed for Zone II u.aterial in the plant fill is as stated in 13.7 with the exception that Zones 4, 4A, 5, 5A, and 6 materials need no specisi compactive effort other than described in Section 12.8.1."
Geotech reiterates the specification requirement of 95l: of ASni 1557,1:cthod D.
'ntis _ was confirmed with the Geotech personnel.
- 6.
Telecon dated September 9.1974, from R. Grote (Tield Enginaaring) to Rixford (Project Engineering) states, "I made an analogy (an exaggeration admittedly but applicable) that if the compaction could be acheived with a herd of mules walking over the fill 1: would be acceptable as long as it got the required 95% compaction.
fRixfordagreed."
7.
Telecon Consumers to Bechtel Engineering dated September 19, 1974, , , expressed Consumers Power Company concern about what they felt was a lack of control of compaction in the plant area fill. CPCo addressed the added responsibility this lack of control places on the inspector. Bechtel told CPCo that it "was the inspector's ' , , job to make sure we got proper placement, compaction, etc."
, / - .- - . a p g e a y e e no.
. ..
c .- - _, ,..
. , q,% f
- a}.a-q
, rk ~~ y)
. m: . : 'N' . 8.
Telecon dated September 18, 1974, by Bechtel. Field Engineering to " . Eachtel Project Engineering discussed compaction requirenents for ~ specification C-210.
It stated, " Compaction _ acceptance is ba' sed on meeting an 'end product' requirement,-i.e. 95% of maximum density l only. No method of achieving this 'end product' is.specified or ~ is required. Rixford' fully agrees with the above."
, .. - ~ ' l-9.
Telecon dated October 7, 1977, from Bechtel Eield Engineering to
i . I 3echtel Project Engineering states, "QA has asked for clarification l' of subject specification (C-210), Section 13 for plant area and her= ' l-backfill. Section 13.4 for testing of materials refers to Section ~ i i + l 12.4'and therefore, requires th'c Bechtel Modified Proctor Density . i Test for Compaction of cohesive backfill. Section 13.7 for cowpac-tion of the same materials refers to testing'in accordance with ASTM D-1557 Mathed D Proctor, without specific reference to Bachtel Modification." Bechtel Engineering responded to this question as follows: "This apparent conflict is clarified by Specification , l-C-208, Section 9.1.a. direction to the testing subcontractor, , t which calls for ASIN D 1557 test for these materials and also - allows Bechtel Field (the contractor) to call for the Bechtel Modification of that test. Either method is therefore acceptable .. to pro ect engineering."
A l v - j . l l l ' l o ' > l .' i- . - d% 9 - . . . . . , . .
.. . . , .. , .. . ,, , , , .o.
- ,.. -. _. -. ..m - - - - -..... - _ - - - -. - -,. . - - -.. -. -.. - -
. .-. , ... ... I . - ~. J. i : r.. A p li h b ~~*. j$ ll . ., < ' ' =P , 10.
Telecon dated October 7, 1977, from Sechtel QA to Lechtel Project Engineering questions,."Is the intent of Pcragraph 13.7 of Speci-fication C-210 that the test be run to the 'rachtel' codified proctor test as is indicated in the FSAR Paragraph 2.5.4.5.3 and in response to NCR 88."
Engineering's response was "yes."
s Yarious interviews'were held with Bechtel construction field engineers, . U. S. Testing personnel and Bechtel Ann Arbor Geotech and Project . Engineering ersonnel to ascertain their understnnding of the Oc pactica requirements. Four predominant versions of the understood compaccion requirements were stated by various individuals within the Bechtel , ,
organization. They are as follows: . , a.
Specification C-210 required the contractor to perform l cc:pacticn to the ASTM 1557, Method D, h:.:ever, th: :2 sting i requirements would be performed to the less stringent "Bechtel , I Modified Test Method."
' b.
The required compaction and testing was always understood
l l to be based on the "Bechtel Modified Test Method."
l ! l l . . ' c.
The required compaction and testing was always understood to be based on the standard AS m 1557, Method D requirements.
! (- d.
A tacit understanding had been established to use the Bechtel , Modified Method, butg to exceed this require nt by , enough to also satisfy the requirement of ASm 1557, Method D.
. "h0# .
. . ..._ ... .. -..... -. . .. . -tv.
-$ g w- --.. - + - - - - - - c-p _w .* - .=r
== yv ' - -
f? - .,- .. ~j.. J \\i ' h !z US b \\ $%,z ) ') It is apparent f rom the steve icur distf actly dif fer2nt understandings s of the compaction requirements, that the apparent conflict was not resolved. A member of the'Bechtel QA staff in Ann Arbor teho had previously been a QA Engineer at the Midland site said that QA audits ' & of QC inspection criteria did not identify above as a conflict.
g . This failure to accomplish ~ activities affecting the quality of the' plant , area fill in accordance with procedures is considered an item of - , , . noncompliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criter' ion V as identified in Appendix A.
(329/78-)b- ; 330/78-2 - ). AfAh fit /1l lt5
- t.
, . . !
, I l . l I . ! i l
,
l - l ' . . W . . . . . . . . ,. ...... . ... . .
. -... -.. . . - . - - - e- .. -- . - . - -. . - - -.. -.. . . - - -. -. . - . - - - - - - . -.. - .-- -. -. . .--- - ---u-------
7-- ._ .. . - L{e a v/ 4%di a :, j.
4' . .
Review of Moisture Control Requirements for Plan _t Area Fill < Specification C-210, Section 13.6 (Moisture Control) requires moisture control of the plant area fill material to conform to Section 12.6.
The moisture control requirement in Section 12.6.1 states, in part,. " Zone 1,1Aand2materialwhichrequiremoisturecontrol,shall ' ~ be moisture conditioned in the borrow areas " and that " water content during compaction shall not be more than two percentage points belcw optimum moisture content and shall not be more than two percen-tage points above optimum moisture content."
, Contrary to the above, Bechtel QA idyntified in SD-40 dated July 22, , 1977, that "the field does not take moisture control tests prior to and during placement of the backfill, but rather rely on the moisture results taken from the in-place soil denalty tests."
. The following is a summary of the documentation that followed the identification of the above deficiency.
. 1.
Letter BCBE-1533R (dated August 15, 1977) field to project engineering states, "it was found that densities meeting specification require- . . ments could be attained, irrespective of the use of moisture tests," and that " moisture tests were not used to control backfill moisture." The field requested "that project engineering agree to acceptance of backfill materials installed in the past, along with , . ' the records thereof, irrespective of the use of the moisture tests."
.' . Deme' .
.
e
. .. .. . . , . , , . - - - -. - . - .
-
.. - l / i.
' .* N ,e A..
- C L S' 64 %* 'v, y
'd , 2.
Letter BEBC-1859 (dated Septecher 30, 1977)'responsed to the fields request in 3CBE-1533R.
Engineering states, "It should be noted that it is ideal to control the moisture of backfill raterial at the borrow areas by conditioning" and that "the procedure used to take moisture content tests af ter compaction would not have direct impact on the quality of. work." Engineering then agreed with the field request that " backfill placed prior to modification of testing .- methods to be accepted as is."
- 3.
Telecen October 10, 1977, (Bechtel QA Site to Bechtel Engineering, Ann Arbor) indicated that, "there are no moisture requirements at ' ~ the time of density testing, only density requirement. ne moisture requirement is prior to compaction."
Telecon October 13,1977, (Bechtel Engineering to Bechtel QA Site) . changed what was indicated in the telecon on October 10, 1977, (Item 3 above). Engineering then stated, "The moisture require-ment (i 2% of optimum) is mandatory and must be implemented at - the time of placement and testing." This is contrary to what was stated on October 10, 1977.
Aff/1 ds Y /
.- o ,f
ed . . e s, e e me s.
e e s.e..
- * * *
+*
- *
-
. . .. . .
r -. . . ~ _, . . __ > -t
t ' < J . g, - _ /1 - i
- .
l'h q %.l ,_ ~ ' ' . .;, .
.. 5.: Letter BCBE-1669R (dated November 18,:1977)'once.again is a-field request to Lechtel engineering requesting.. " written clari-t fication of the. 2% tolerance on backfill moisture content during , , compaction."
. . .. 6.
L Letter BEBC-1998 (dated December 15, 1977) provides engineering's response ~to BCBE-1669R requesting clarification of the noisture requirement. Engineering stated, "The moisture content of the soil ! , should be within 2% of optimum during placemant and cou.paction.
However, this property of the soil is not necessarily a measure of its adequacy af ter compaction." 'Ihis letter is contrary to the
' , direction given via telecon on Lktober 13,1977 (Item 4 above).
, , I l 7.
Letter 0-1631 -(dated December 21, 1977) closes QA Action Request l SD-40 (dated July. 22, 1977) which first id.atifi d the oisture . control defic,iency.
f ( 8.
Telecon (dated April 7,1978) from Field En81neering and Quality , Control to Project Engineering once again requests them "to clarify BEBC-1998" (December 15, 1977), Item 6 above. Two situations were , ' presented to engineering as follows (a) The moisture sample . . taken from the borrow area at the start of the shift is acceptable, ! however, the moisture test taken in conjunction with the density test fails'while compaction was attainedl and (b) The moisture sample taken from the borrow area at the start of the shift fails ., ... ' and the material is conditioned to meet moisture content required.
.' ! i e . , . l - '
', . . ... . , . , , . . . m . . .
{. .. ii $,. . j.. [ ' -, ' ' tj If / ". [J h ' ' ' , ap c Q f --:. '
however, the acts.ture test later fails at the time the.possing ' compaction test is taken. ' Engineering responded, "the above two , situations are acceptable as is."
This respcase is contrary to the direction previously given in telecon dated October 13, 1977 (see Item 4 above).
. . ' 9.
. Letter GI.R-249 (April 16,1978) is a Bechtel Site QA request to Project Engineering to resolve the moisture content situation and "to provide clear direction for the contcol of wisture content." QA recommends "one possible solution would be to delete the requirement to control the moisture content and rely
, on the compaction requirement or.ly for completion of soils work."
. i 10. Letter BEBC-2286 (June 1,1978) was Project Engineering's re=ponse l to GLR-249 (Item 9 above).
It states, "woistura couteat is act necessarily a measure of a soil's adequacy to act as A foundation . or backfill material," and that " soil with the specified density l following compaction would not be rejected on the basis that its moisture content was not controlled in the borrow area."
b /K8 A . - . . O
e l .i
c78-e t
s
e f e n
'
I .. .. ...,.. .f.......... , ,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
.. _. . . !
. l ; 'H
-
s. ~c.
' O ~ - ' ~
. It is apparent from the foregoing documentation'that noisture control j had not been'ir:plecanted -as the specification requirad.
It is also ' evident that adequate corrective action had not been taken af ter the issuance of QA Action Request SD-40 on July 22, 1977, by the continued attempt to clarify and provide direction for moisture control through numerous inter-office remos and telecons up until June, 1978, while ' soils work continued.
. ~ - . . This f ailure to assure that significant conditions adverme to quality are pro:ptly identified and corrected to preclude repetition is consi-dered an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion ' XVI.
(329/78-A - ; 330/78-3- ) ' , , ?/$?bn Al[ 0, , . $ . O e ~~~
. e v . .. a... .... - ... . .. - --.
, . .. r g C :- u s_ 'q .) . Review of Subgrade Preparation for Plant Area Fill The Dames and Moore report on foundation investigation submitted with _ PSAR Amendment 3, dated August 13, 1969, states, "the clay soils are susceptible to loss of strength due to frost action, disturbance - and/or the presence of water. If the construction schedule requir'es that foundation excavation be left open during t,hi t.' inter, it is reco= mended that excavation operations be performed such that at leait 3 1/2 feet of natural soil or similar cover remain in place over the final subgrade or overlying the mud cat.
':his layer of protective
' material is necessary to prevent the'sof tening and disturbance of subgrade soils due to frost action."
m / N /j A meeting was held on November 2,1978, between CPCo and Bechtel which ' t.
included discussion on frost protection of subgrade materia t was x _'.3 stated, "If backfill froze and then thawed, it shcald be removed.
It .
9 was all scraped off (usually 2") and then tested with a pickax." This $ y? indicates that the above Dames and Moore recommendation to rem McA-AIC e; q% w~ n ew m p A.~* S ,.3 3 1/2 fee as not incorporated into the specification for preparation I$ x3 of subgrade materials nor was it implemented.
, ,, %E R*
Y The Bechtel Specification C-211 Section 5:2.2 states, "No backfill shall
'N k, 4 be placed upon frozen surface nor shall any frozen material be incorpor- , I ated in the backfill." C h h *4t!;s !rta:Lfo% g {a ' - f h.; $ . J f-
3o . - -
,. - - -. ._.
, .- . . . . . 'u ' ~,
, fli %["\\ _ )} ' /* * j J l +" g,3 . It was accertained that the Bachtel specification did not rovide - J - specific instructions fortre"=c/ e.w - % 'f m A }%fj-: 'b - I fpud f on % e r< a-m upon res'umptiorf of A.
- work after the winter period to preclude the effects.of frost action on the'subgrade materials.
.< , This failure to assure that regulatory co:=titments as specified'in the . license application are translated into specification, drawings or . , instructions is considered an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion III.
(329/78-f4- ; 330/78-/f - ) AIA D/ b . . - ', e e e .
W - 31 - . . .
. _ _ _ _ - t ... .. . r- ? ::- l4 s - !.: 11 ).j q,j.7 ; .!j . . neview of Noncenfor ance Reports Identified for Pla.nt Area Fill . - !. The following nonconformance and audit reports regarding the plant area fill were reviewed relative to the cause of the nonconformance and tha engineering evaluation and corrective action: . No.
Nonconforming Condition Engineering Evaluation . - . l (1) CPCo Failure to perform inspec- "Use as is" based en QF-29 tion and testing of struc-samples taken from stock-(10/14/74) tural backfill (sa,1) pile.
, r ! ! delivered to jobsite 29 of ! 30 day in Aug. and Sept.
74.
Sechtel QC not informed of deliveries.
(2) CPCo Moisture control out of Accepted in place material QF-52 tolerance of specifica-with low moisture.
(8/7/?5) tion C-210, Section 13.6.
.. (3) CPCo Compaction test had been Failing tests were cleared
QF-68 calculated using incor-by subsequent passing (10/17/75) rect maximum lab densitv.
tests.
Test recorded as passing j , . was actually a failure.
.' u . _.
. l _ -.
.. . ' .g
. -:, .
.'4 *\\u4, 4, j .. * ,e , (4) ~ Bechtel Material placed did not' Engineering stated that NCR-421 ceet moisture require-this r,.=p crea is teep-(5/5/76) ments, orary and would be removed.
' Supposedly, this was re-- ,. ~ moved based on note added to NCR 421 on 3/18/77.
' . Note: In the vicinity of this ramp a Geotech engineer deter- ~ mined the material to be "sof c" and directed a test pit to be dug for investigation in SepteE.ber 1978 af ter the D. G. Bldg.
~ - . m settic=nt.pdftjiwd.. ,M. (5) CPCo Lift thickness exceeded Material was removed and QF-120 maximum of 4" in areas recompactcd.
(9/21/76) not accessible to roller equipment. Insufficient
monitoring of placing crews. Laborer foreman ' not familiar with re- " quirements.
. Al _ .1 o
. . . . . . -
_ . .. .
_ ' ' .
- 1
' , L' us, ~ j ,., -(6) CPCo Inspection plan C-210-4, Corrected inspection plan QF-130 - Rev. O, permits 12" lift requirc ents.
(10/13/76) thickness for areas in- , accessible to rollers - ' caused by "misinterpre-tation of' specification .
requirements. Spec. per-
K.
- mitted 4" 1)f t thicpness.
~~ (7) CPCo Failure to perform inspec-Engineering accepted the QF-147 tionandtestingtlfstruc-material in place "use , (2/2/77) tural backfill (cand) on as is."
' 12/1/76,'12/14/76 and 1/11/77 (same as QF-29 dated 10/14/74) material . lacked gradation test requirements.
(8) CPCo Moisture control out-of-Engineering accepted QF-172 tolerance and compaction materials.
' ' (7/8/77) criteria not met.
(9) CPCo Gradation requirements Engineering accepted QF-174 for Zone 1 materials not materials.
(7/15/77) met.
' .' t <379._ _.
. - e m.
M -, .- ._ .. _
. & .J ' e.: ':. - . ~ ,
4 s % i eg -~ r .: (10) CPCo
- foisture content not cet; I,ssued 32chtel ;CR's : o.
QF-199 compaction requirements 1004 and 1005; No. 1004 c (11/4/77) for cohesive and cohesion. still open; No. 1005 less soil not met.
Mater- " accepted as is."
ials had been accepi:ed - , using incorrect testing
. . . data.
. . . (11) CPCo Gradation requirement not Engineering " accepted QF-203 met yet materials accepted. as is."
(11/22/77) ', . (12)~ CPCo Moisture content require-Bechtel-QC to inform ..udit = cats not =at; 2st fro-fero::n directing seils
F-77-21 quency not met.
work of requirements.
. (5/77 & 6/77) . .. t . ,o I ' < . . . ..e - .. - _.
m.- r --, g, y- --+--er,- e,,-v,-- -- g,,- y am
. . .... > .: . . >
Ud'aQj"q[ ] (13) CPCo Compaction requirc.ent'for Project Engineering to ,, Andit both cohesive and cohesion-justify the caterials F-77-32 ' less materials not met; these failing tests (10/3/77) moisture requirements not represent. NCR QF-195 met; tests had been accept-still open.
.. ed yet failed requirements.
. ~ . /j - ) Eachtel Structural backfill (sand) En;;incering accepted NCR 698 was delivered without "use as is " . { (2/9/77) acceptance tests on Oct.
26, 29, Nov. 12,'1976 and . Jan. 11, 12, 1977.
14/ ,achtel c2=2 deficiancy as MCa 598.
.a,:::pted, "use as is."
p3) NCR 686 (2/1$/77) (16)- Bechtel Moisture content require- " Accepted as is" based on NCR 1005 ments not met.
density test only.
(10/26/77) . . . Note: 'the majority of the above nonconforming conditions were identified by Consumers Power Company Quality Assurance group rather than the Bechtel QC/QA organization.
< . . O e M O . . 4-... ~,. w e
- -
, w - pr 7-
' - a . -
-.. i \\ \\< -
- .3 N L t[ N,d
' , . Based on a review of the above-nonconfor=ance and audit reports and ~ . the continued engineering evaluation to accept (use as is) significant defic'iencies affecting the quality of safety-related work activities it appears that the cause of the conditions were not promptly identi-fied and corrected and the corrective action taken did not preclude - . the repetition of the deficiencies.
This failure to assure that the cause of conditions adverse to quality ~ and that adequate corrective action be taken to preclude repetition is considered an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50,.*.ppendix B, 33'3/78-20 - ) Criterion XVI.
(329/78-JB- ; _ AL/1 .- a, Y
e 7- - .
- - .,.., _.a%_ <,4 .* -% -.-_ywa - _.
- - ,.v-s.*w.+.-
. o ') /\\- . l -'
. - E' :1 'l.,' ~,, ;,h . . Review of Calculations of Settlement for Plant Area A review of the settlement calculations for the structures in the plant area was performed during a visit to the Lechtel, Ann Arbor Engineering office. Specific attention was given to structures founded on plant area " compacted fill."
The following specific findings were made: . . 1.
FSAR, Section 3.8.4.1.2 (Diesel Generator Building) indicates the foundation of the DGB to be continuous footings with inde-t pendent pedestals for each of';he Diesel Generators. Centrary , to the structural arrangement described in the FSAR, the settle-ment calculations for the DGB were performed on the premise that the building and equi;n:nt 1:22: would be unifermly distribut:d , to the foundation material by a 154' x 70' foundation mat.
The settlement calculations were performed between August 1976 and October 1976 by Bechtel Geotech Division.
Discussion with the Geotech Engineer who performed the settlement calculations indicated that he had not been informed of the , design. change of the foundation until late August 1978 when the excessive settlements of the DGB and pedestal became apparent.
at . erfvsmed h wieu. ' .. I - 37- -
. . * . ~ < . pr. u..
- .
. a h.
t'4 L L j % [. } 2.
-FSAR Figure 2.5-47 ' indicates the load intensity for the.DSB to be 4 KSF (4000 lbs. per sq. f t.); however, the settlement calculations reviewed in/* mate a uniform load of 3 KSF (3000 ?SF). This appears to be a conflict batween the FSAR and settlement calculations.
- 3.
The settlement calculations for the borated water storage tanks - were performed assuming a 54' diameter circular foundation mat -
with an assumed uniform load of 2500 PSF.
Instead', the tanks are supported on a continuous circular spread footing and compacted structural backfill as detailed on the construction drawings. rne Geotech engineer was also not ade aware of the revised foundation , detail.
It is important to note the FSAR Figure 2.5-48 (Estimated Ultimate Settlements) indicates the anticipatec ultimate settlement for Unit - 1 and 2 plant structures. The values indicated for the Diesel Generator Building and Borated Water Storage Tanks are the values developed assuming uniformly distributed loads founded on mat foundations as was indicated in the settlement calculations reviewed even though the actual _MA , .
f o . -., . -
- .:
i
l3 V / l'.: Y. * $ % [*Tq.j 'j
design and construction utilizes cpread footings. The FSAR,Las written , indicate /'thefoundationtypeassumedin.the todate, does not - settlement calculations and therefore the values in the FSAR figure appear to represent the settlements estimated for'the as-construc'ted spread f'ooting foundation.
. 4.
During a review of the settlement calculations, it was observed
- .
that the compression index (C ) for the ce=pacted fill betuacn elevations 603 and 634 in the plant area was assumed to be 0.001 (estimate based or experience). FSAR Section 2.5.4.10.3.3 (Soil Para =eters) indicates th2 soil co=pressibility para:eters , used in the settlement calculation are presented in Table 2.5-16.
' 'Diis table indicates that for the plant fill elevations 603 to 634, the ec=pression index used was 0.003.
C::tr:ry to the FSAR value, 0.001 was used in the settlement calculations reviewed.
This value is directly used to determine the estimated ultimate settlement of structure supported by plant fill material.
This failure to translate specific design bases, as specified in the license application, into specifications, drawings or procedures is ,
. considered an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III. This is an item of noncompliance as identified in Appendix (320/78-/f,- ; 330/78-74- ). d a
' Discussions with CPCo personnel responsible for the t..chnical review ' - and format indicated that a comparison between the de;ign documenta . - W . .
m a - p y w vw-r v s % m Y
- _, ,, dtg "* >
. , Ed E's!~g [- h.
and TSAR had not been perforced. I.ikewise, Bechtel perscanal indi-cated that a detailed comparison for the technical accuracy of design documents to the FSAR statements had not been performed; instead reliance was placed on the originator's input.
,. According to the Civil Engineering Group Supervisor, a cat foundation . was considered for the DGB only during the conceptual stage.' All drawings generatid show a spread footing founda:Een. The Cactcch engineer apparently based his calculations on the conceptual stage information. He went on to say that an individual in Geotech was , responsible for checking the calcu5ations and the first thing he is supposed to do is determine that the basis for the calculations is correct. He cAdi that apparently this was not done.
>v )&&af6/
, st .. $ o .! . 4/- . . .. . T
m-- rm q y - '3 .- d / ,J h
..
': ?, n.1 Review of Settlement of Administration Building Footings .. During the investigation, it uss disclosed that the Administration Building at the Midland Site had experienced excess,1ve settlement of the foundation footings. Although the Administration Building is a . non-safety-related. structure, it is supported by plant area fill material compacted and tested to the same requir,e=ents as material supporting safety-related structures and therefore pertinent to the current settlements being experienced by the Diesel Generator Building.
The following are the events relating to the Administration Building \\, settlement.
. During the end of August, 1977, a Bechtel field engineer observed a gap between a slab and the grade beam of the Administration Building. On August 23, 1977, a survey was taken of the setticsent. The results indicated that the footings supporting the grade beam had experienced settlecent ranging from 1.32" (north side) to 3.48" (south side). This settlement took place between July 1977, and the end of August 1977. The footings were supported by " random fill" (Zone 2 material).
c.
The concrete footings on the order of 7' 6" by 7' 6" by l' 9" deep were removed along with the grade beam. The random fill material was also removed. According to U. S. Testing personnel, it was observed during excavation of the fill material that there were voids of 1/4" llLt L wt-.e w"atrA w 44) ' largelumpsofunbrokenclayceasuringufto . to 2" or 3" within th " ' 3' in diameter.
- ~~ " .
4-e
,-w - --.,,p-,, -. . -,.., _. -
, _ _. _ __ .. %. ,
- g
- m
[;-+.- g, L.
2' ll ~ :L, ._ , The Civil Field Engineer assigned responsibility for plant fill mork said that, although he was no soils expert, it was his opinion that the b e, problem was cause he presence of pockets of water dut to drainage from the steam tunnel. The Lead Civil Field Engineer also indicated a drainage problem caused the Administration Building settlement. They were, however, unclear as to how the water pockets were formed, i.e.
whether they were formed as the fill was being placed or how they , could develop after the fill was compacted.
The exca ated fill was replaced with concrete and the design of ,individualfootingswaschangedto}scontinuousspreadfootingdesign for support of the building.
A total of seven borings were taken of which five were in the Administration Building area, one in the Evaporator Building area and one south of the Diesel Generator Building. In the Administration Building area the foundation material was found to be " soft" with
' " spongy characteristics." The two other borings did not indicate unusual material properties at the time in that the blow counts were reasonable. These borings were taken in September 1977.
AM NA $5 . .
I < . f
- -
.
e
~ <--y- .--w ~ w < - - ~.
, . . . l ' '
. . , 6 J ' '*' i \\s :' ~ ( [ j ' > The licensee ind'icated that reports from Bechtel indicate that the primary cause of the settlcment in the Administratien Building area was that the percent compaction of the foundation material was less than the originally reported percent compaction indicated on the test report documentation. Bechtel concluded that " deviations from specific'coopac-tion requirements was the result of repeated erroneous selection of ' - compaction standard," 1.e. optimum moisture-density curve for the soil . material being compacted. In effect, the moisture-density curve was 2*.274^'d' assumed t epresent rrt & 5 =r e d r_..~ the soil being used and therefore soil was compacted to less than maximum density.
, Bechtel personnel, including the Civil Group Supervisor, Project - Engineering, the Field Project Engineer, the Lead Civil Field Engineer, and the Chief Civil QC Inspector, all stated that the Administration Building settlement was regarded as a localized problem and the question as to the adequacy of the entire plaat area fill did not arise. The opportunity did exist at the time to perform odhke borings of the foundation material for the Diesel Generator Building since preparations were being made at that time to pour the footings for the '* building. The Diesel Generator Building area required more-fill than other safety-related structures since its base is located at a higher elevation than the others.
. Consumers Power Company, QA, QC and the Project Engineer in Jackson, " Michigan, all indicated they were unaware of the Administration ' Building settlement until the Diesel Generator Building problem arose.
- -., -
_ .-
- .
.. . .. . I a l5 ~ ' i - , . Y 3 sd ta t / u It should also be noted that since the identification of the Diesel . . Generator Building settiement, a sof t ' spot was found north of the Auxiliary Building in the_ tank farm area.8 A~ test pit was excavated , there to obtain data for futh'er evaluation.
- Based on the settlement experience in the Adminstration Building area and the settlement currently being experienced in the Diesel Generator Building area, an apparent relationship exists'between the two in that.
Zone 2 (random fill) was placed and testad using the same method of selecting the laboratory compaction standard, s
, . The Bechtel report by Geotech, dated Deher 1977, and Bechtel letter , to U. S. Testing, dated rebruary 1,1978, do not relata tha pcchlem experienced in the' Administration Building area to the rest of the plant area fill nor was any evaluation performed to identify the extent of the deficiency except a total of two borings in the entire plant area.
h0 _i & .
' ,e e i - _ t-m + p -- w1W.
w& g --m- -- y >r7
.- ., ~. ,. is g g - ', -*i;! . tU Eased on the cause of the Administration Building deficiency and the N lack of proper evaluation as4the extent of that same deficiency in plant area it has been concluded that the requirements of 10 CFR 50, ' - ve Appendix B, Criterion XVI hat not been eet, in that, the licensee failed toevaluateandtakecorrectiveactiontoprfcluderepetitionof signif cant conditions adverse to quality. This is consideredan item ' . of noncompliance as identified in Appendix A. (329/78-20- ; 330/78-2$- ) G4f f 2?/A' , % .
- e
$ o l , 6-- - . . _ - . . .. .
. ., . ~.. - - ... - - c.
r=~ j% /x n. t.. - v... ' . t U \\.\\ [~.\\, _,
- $
Review of Interface Between Diesel Generator E ildine Foundation and Electrical Duct Banks , .. A review of the' design interface between the electrical and civil sections I of the Be.ghtel organization _was performed to determine whether the _ , design. accounted for the inceraction of the electrical duct banks and spread footings on the differential settlement of the northside of the ' DGB. It was determined that the electrical and civil groups made accc=::odations in the design to permit settlement of the spread footings around the electrical duct banks by including a styrofoam " bond breaker" t . around the duct banks. Both electrical and civil groups reviewed and , I apprcved electrical Drawing E-502 which includes the appropriate detail.
However ng C-45 which identifies Class I fill material areas permits the use of Zone 2 (random fill) which includes "any caterial free of humus, organic or other deleterious material." This, in effect, does not preclude the use of concrete around the electrical duct banks , beneath the spread footings. Due to the difficulty in compacting, Bechtel elected to replace the soil material with concrete. Letter from project engineering to field construction, dated December 27, 1974, states, l ' " lean cencrete backfill is considered acceptable for replacement of ' Zone 1 and 2."
Consequently, the concrete placed around the duct banks restricted the settlement on the north side of the DGB where four electrical duct banks enter through the footing. This apparently caused s
the excessive differential settlement in the North-South direction " ' I across the building.
- - 9' 7-P ' , , - - ~.,_ .- , . - -,, . -.. -,.. -. . . -
- .
. l.
f.
., - . u
- , .... E M ' \\L l N j 'd . J ' Based on the above, it is apparent that adequate instructions or proce- ,, dures were not provided to field construction to preclude the use of a u-t /c.* pmd foundation material that would restrict the uniform settlement of the Diesel Generator Buildingy--"' ', med.
- - ~. This failure to prescribe adequate instructions for activities af fecting . the quality of safety-related structures is considered an item of , noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
(329/78-/c- ; 330/78-20 - ) Y .Y ' v1/J* , _ ., . .i s a G $ ' s ,$
M . m e a y
.__,, - -, -
,, _. ,_.- .c -.,,, _.,, _,
l . . .:
--.. . U[:
.! /4 n. ' t i;L., k" . Review of Soils Placement and Inspection Activities for Plant Area Fill A subcontractor, Canonie Construction. Company, South Haven, Michigan, performed the major portion of the earthwork at the Midland site.
Although Canonie was primarily engaged to construct the cooling ' pond dike, they also performed most of the plant area fill work. Bechtel, however, also performed plant fill work prior to and after Canonie left - , the site in mid-October 1977. The last Canonie' daily QA/QC fill placement report is dated October 16, 1977.
According to Canonie QA/QC records'the first fill in the DGB area was , . placed in late October and early November 1975. No further fill was placedintheareauntilJuly197).Afterthat time, fill work in the area was interspersed with soils work in other areas.
While it would be difficult, if not i=possible, to identify the soil work performed by Bechtel versus that performed by Canonie, records reviewed indicated that most of the Bechtel work was done during the latter part of 1976 and continued through 1977 and 1978. Although most of the Bechtel work related to placing sand around piping and ducts after they were laid and placing sand adjacent to walls, some "* . motorized work compacting clay fill was also done by Bechtel.
wcRK.
Regarding the plant fill wShk performed by Bechtel, CPCo Audit Report o No. F-77-21 dated June 10, 1977, identified a number of deficiencies - which recommended the corrective action to be as follows: (1) "the' , f# - . .-=4 mer-w m--
, r . , , ?,f'% ' ", I : f a. [l, A s lw' u
.a, .3 . foremen directing the soils work should be instructed as to the required moisture content limits',' and (2). "the forensn directing the soils work should be instructed as to the correct test frequency requirements." Based on the above two reco= mended corrective action items, it is apparent that /foremfn# were # recting# di the soils ' activities. Interviews with two such Bechtel foremen confirmed the fact that they were directing soil operations.,They said they had . never seen the specifications for backfilling. They indicated they _ received their instruction regarding lift thicknesses and testing requirements orally from field engineering through a general foreman.
i T . i No documentary evidence was available to indicate indoctriaation and training of these labor foremen or a general foreman to assure suitable proficiency in the area of sotis activities.
, />A / . . o h n a _ _
e ..
- %
i . ',. j .. - - S a q l5
t , Eased on the above, it is apparent that Cadequate training and poi fac.-<.d*A indoctrination was avvA Me to to personnel perforr.ing activities affecting quality and is considered'an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II.
(329/78-20- ; 330/78-2C- ) . The foremen indicated that Bechtel Field Engineers and QC inspectors were rarely in the areas where soils activities were going on.
The foremen decided when and where tests ware taken. The locations of tests were approximated by pacing or visually estimating distances from columns or building walls. Lift thicknesses were determined visually, usually i
without the use of grade stakes.
, , " Soils testing services are provided by U. S. Testing Company based on the requiramcats of Specificatica C-208.
The two.U. S. Tasting tach-nicians who said they performed an estimated 90% of the soil testing during the years 1975-77 indicated that they rarely saw a Bechtel field engineer or QC inspector in the areas where plant fill activities were ' going on.
One technician said he could recall only one occasion when a QC inspector was present when he took an in-place density test. The other technician estimated he had contact with a QC inspector in the . field about once a month. A Bechtel QC inspector, however, was assigned , to the testing laboratory on a full-time basis.
0.5. Testq e w m eL stated that erroneous test locations were a chronic problem , - .regarding the Bechtel placed fill. The location of a test was usually l given at the time of the test by a labor foreman or a laborer if the . - 61 - ... _- . -. _.- __ _ __ _ _
-- . ,. )
'
- ( *>
t . .. zd u t f '
' foreman vasn't there. Sometimes, however, a fordman was not familiar with the. area in which he was working and the location was not provided- .until sometime.after the test.. It became necessary on occasion to ~ , wit ld test results as'a means of getting the test location. Test elevations were approxi=ated sequentially.
. The technicians further advised that rarely did a Bechtel QC inspector . .. i_ request a test.
Normally, labor foremen requested them. On occasion a technician passing through an area would be asked by a fc,recan if a test should be taken. Upon completion of in-place tests, the results t were usually communicated to the fc', reman directing the work. Test ,
failures were also reported by telephone to QC or f eld Engineering.
i A weekly report of test was provided to Bechtel QC and Field Engineering who reviewed any test failures and resolved them.
All W .. d e a e . . -e-erw.
- ,
a . . ;. y . i,- 2 h t.;d a s, 2 ~ \\. U Y U. S. Testing personnel advised that they were requested to take tests of clay fill while it was raining and in order to do so, plastic was held over them to protect their equipment while the test was ende.
Even though it was raining, the fill placement work was not stopped on some occa_sions. A Bechtel foreman confirmed that density tests were on - D N occasion taken while it was raining. W d & ;s u.T fg* '+ , ~ b. M it is ~~'1 s, ' U. S. Testing personnel indicated that when moisture was added, the O ml-4d procedure did not include blending 8Chn which resulted in mushy seams. It is commonly accepted good parctice to disc the fill after spraying it with water to add need d moisture. A Bechtel foreman stated that if moisture was needed they compacted 6" then sprinkled it and then added another 6".
] The field engineer who was assigned responsibility for plant fill work stated he did not spend full time on soils work since he also had responsibility for two structures, the steam tunnel and general b - work. He said he tried to get out to the area where fill work was being done once a day. Some times he did and sometimes he did ndt.
- He indicated it was his impression that the QC Inspector responsible '- for the soils work on the day shift visited those work areas once or twice a week. He confirmed that only oral instructions were furnished to the foremen whom he felt were conscientious. The main problem he exp rienced with the foreman was maintaining proper lif t thickness.
' - .. .
- 6 3~ . - O ,,y,- m-y- .,
-, .. !i I 9 [' G ! ;b;, y, f ~~-Q lj s.] Review of Inspection Procedures- '. The following procedures which are relative to backfill operations at !!idland Units 1 and 2 between August 1974 through Decenber 1977 vere reviewed.
- a.
Bechtel Master Project QC Instruction for Conpacted Backfill - ~. C-1.02 was issued for construction October' 18, 1976, and it is presently the current instruction which is used by Bechtel QC (.; hen ::achtel is the inspection cgency, providing first icvel inspections during backfill o[arations).
Further, this instruc-tion was used by Bechtel QC when monitoring the activities of other inspection agencies (Canonie) when such agencies were performing the first level inspections of backfill operations during the ti=e periods of October 18, 1976, until June 28, 1977.
b.
I!echtel Master Quality Control Instruction for Earthwork Subcontract
', Surveillance - SC-1.10 is an instruction utilized by Bechtel QC when monitoring the activities of other inspection agencies that are providing the first level inspections of backfill operations (this instruction was utilized during time periods of June 28, 1977,
- through October 25, 1977).
c.
Bechtel Quality Control Master Inspection plan for Plant Foundation d Excavation and Cooling Pond Dikes (Plant Area Backfill and Berm
. Backfill) - Procedure No. C-210-4 is an instruction utilized by - - - ,,, - >, -,, - , - -., -, ,e---, ,-, ,,n.- n- .-7 ,-
- - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - , ,.. y * * :.' /} f..7$(* e O
- ) +
' a y g j. --( {,} -.. Bechtel QC when monitoring _ the activities of other inspection agencies that were providing the first level inspections of backfill . i.
' operations (this instruction was utilized during time periods !. prior to October'18, 1976).
d.
'Bechtel Quality Contirol Master Inspection Plan for Structural l
. .. [ Backfill ~ Placement - No. C-211-1 is an instruction utilized by - , Bechtel QC when performing first level ins'pection of backfill activities prior to October 18, 1976.
Bechtel Procedure C-1.02, listed abave, was written as a replacement for both Procedures C-210-4 and C-211-1.
The inspection activities which were delineated in Procedures C-210-4 and C-211-1 were compared with those described in Procedure C-1.02.
The following are some of those activities which were cc= pared: h0 &{l'! A.l - l ! I . .
.:
p: . ' - . ( s e . e + . e e - . % . . . . . e .
. . ,
- ,
t, ' + - . Y:b L Q;' f!ll' .a . .
Inspection Code for-- Activities / Task Description C-210-4 C-211-1 C-1.02 . _ Backfill Material - (*) 1.
Free of brush, roots, sod, I S(V)' snow, ice or frozen soil.
,. - (*) 2.
Material moisture conditioned S I S(V) to required moisture content.
's b 3.
Structural backfill used ' I
with 3" of plant structure, shall be cohesionless and free-draining.
. ' (*) 4.
Material not placed upon I S(V) frozen surface.
5.
Foundation approved prior to R H R/H backfill placement.
, 6.
Prior to start of work, area I(V) free of debris, trash and ' unsuitable material.
, , . db" - . . . . .. ... - . . ., .
e- . i v ;. e , '! h % j.*,, /),\\ ia $e - ';;- k.-- '} ft .- \\ . .q ', ' %.p. -.,; 3 \\ . ' s-- a .. . . i , Compaction Requirements . 1.
Cohesionless material com-S S S(V) pacted not less than 80% ' relative density.
- -
. . (*) 2.
_ Cohesive material compacted W, S S(V) - ' to not less than 95% max.
density.
(*)' 3.
Zones 1,1A, 2 and 3 mat' rial W I S(V) e . . in uncompacted lifts not ex-ceeding 12"; areas not access-ible to roller equipment the caterial placed in unce:pacted . lifts no exceeding 4".
A ( - , S $ ' s . J l-6 7 - ~ .. . , ,
!; .- J,,
- I Y
f.
~... - ' u \\, f j U
- &.
c.t j-* - . L.' g , .. L \\ " ' ISterial Testing
, 1.- Verify testing and test results are as.per engineering requirements.
. a.
Materials S .S ~ S(V) , . ~ . - b.
Moisture S S S(V) c.
Compaction S S S(V) g
- e 2.
-Review lab-test report verifying: a.
Proper test method.
R R R . , b.
Proper test fiequency.
R R R c.
Technical adequacy.
R R R I - Inspection point ,, H - Hold point W - Witness point S-Surveillance (V)-vis/ual
R - Review records , ,, . . . . ... - = - - - -
. . , i i s ygj']j fiyff VC f/W !b l b'
.. -.... - - - -- :
Inspect, test, witness and review are esadatory in:,ection
! where the designated activity is no longer inspectablepointe b
~ g without the consent of the responsible Construction Qualf ty control Engineer. 9 p p p jp g //h*-1A/"/ f/8"/d ~ /-#W/#b-g g g/_4/1,4.
I . -.- / Surveillance (S) - To progressively sionitor by rnndenly' during or after in-process construction. This.insp ., , activity requires that the QCE physically varf fy the s:,rk ? , , , operations described in the Quality Control Instruction to , criteria rcauira nts. assure they are perforned in accorJan'ee with 1:.:pction , as often and for as long a time period as is necetstry toT - effectively t enitor the designated Activity /fask. /p . .-- -. . O f2AA thW '//// / f/1^/ >W ff-f& . . . . fab ll5'f f i / s/ / / s i 2 A ) V X / Jf ff y/Suk S Gko'//L L AsvCf U ' fjr r r _ __W V /MyJMW1" yfnl___ e J./f/f&$
- f y'
fY/JN///?fod "$1 ~ tA' f/fh JfA" s 2 2M/4AL As e i . >=J'M s mM s s WJ/ AA A> Af3"/J/LdpqE , _ _ _, / !) A $54-&t.H$.,0 h dsfActJ.,k21Af - '.4/AfJ// q $/ J Y $7/f119 2 A M d= m e Alc f)Q 'V gone activities identifed by an (*) asterisk indicate inspection requirements which have been relaxed from the original procedural. -.
- *'" N"' $
ff SV/ W alA*m f, eo us e nAt
. A n'tn1%./ A/2 h9d// A:/ P/J FA ' &lA dsL1 st/vCf - '
ar w,c s s si/s r/ a Ar.rrsf w> ms xr/a > < z _- ' ' _. _ _.... - erials wereshe installed in accordance, r .-_ - ... with the required specification and drawings. #egfidg.( h - , e Me.
- . ' . ! , . This failure to provide (2dequate inspection of activities affecting gaality is censi:!ered en iten of nonec=plit.nca with 10 crR $0 Appendix ' 3. Criterion Z.
(329/78- - 330/78- ) - 'i$W (El , , 59 - -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' ~ . . .., _ ' R.bpdXi - 2-%CI Y '= ~ 9 //l~'X COD 30m!!f5 ~ ~ 15' 1 POW 8r ' ' (Q Stephen H. Howell \\" ~ Senior Ysca President . General Offices: 1945 West Pernell Reed, Joekoon. Michigen 40201. (517) 7884463 August 10, lW 9 i Howe-218-79 , - . . Mr J G Keppler, Regional Director Office of Inspection ? Enforcement US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road ,
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 . MIDIAnD NUCLEAR FIx;T - UNIT NO 1, DcCIT no 50-329 UNIT NO 2, DCCKEE NO 50-330 SMTIFADT OF DII:3EL GE:ZHATOR { IVURDATICNS MTD BUI1DIEG - FILE 0485 16 CERIAL 7395 References: 1.
S H Howell letters to J G Keppler; Midland Huelear Plant; Unit No 1, Docket no 50-329; Unit No 2, Dc:het No 50-330; Settlement of Diesel Generator Foundations and Buildir4: Serial Howe-183-78; dated September 29, lW8 a.
b.
Serial Howe-230-78; dated November 7, 1978 c.
Serial Howe-267-78; dated December 21, 1978 d.
Serial Howe-1-79; dated January 5, 1979 o.
Serial Howe-58-79; dated sabruary 23, 1979 f.
Serial Howe-132-79; dated April 3, lW9 g.
Serial Hove-174-79; dated June 25, 1979 , 2.
G S Keeley letter to J G Keppler; Midland Project Docket No 50-329 and 50-330; Response to 10 C7R 50 54 - Request on Plant Pill; Serial 6925; dated April 24, lW9
S E Howell letters to H R Denton; Midland Project; Docket No 50-329 and 50-330; Response to 10 CFR 50 54 - Request on Plant Fill: Serial Hove-162-79; Rev 1, dated May 31, lW9 with a.
copics to J G Keppler b.
Serial Hove-199-79; Rev 2, dated July 9, lW9 with copies to J G Keppler ~ _ ' (pI1 si ( b 7p5f c e. - MOs _____ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
\\ . / .._. -
- Rose-218-79 .. . . . , Bis letter, as were Beforences 1.a. through g., is an Interim 50 55(e) report on the settlement of the diesel generator foundations and bniWng.
Se enclosure doctments the presentation made to members of the Staff and Inspection and Enforcement on July 18, 1W 9 in Bethesda, Maryland. The presentation provided an update of the status of the actions previously discussed in References 1, 2 and 3; the remedial work in progress or plannad; the schedule of activities; the results of the cause investigation; the QA/@ aspects; and the li&==4=g activities and changes to the PSAR.
Future 50 55(e) reports will discuss the following in more detail: a.
Results of further investigation of the leaking air line in the ~ tank farm area, and settlement criteria for the borated water storage tanks and the lines into the auxiliary bui3 ding.
b., Design bases to comply with the intent of the draft Standard Review ~ ' Plan on Dewatering.
c.
A Quality Assurance Plan for implementing the permanent site dewatering system.
Another interim report vill be sent on or before September 7,1979 h & , ._ r Sun /mM/osr Enclosuze: Presentation Made at July 18,1W9 Meeting With NRC at Bethesda.
CC: Director, Office of Inspectson & Enforcement Att: Mr 71ctor Stello, USHBO (15) Director, Office of M % _ ;, InformationandProgramControl,USNRC(1) Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Att Mr Domenic Vassallo, Acting Director . Division of Project Management, US NRC !
Washington, DC 20555
' l , I \\ ! l \\ f l - L.
,_ _ _ _ - _ _. - _ .. .. . . . . .. ~
, _ _ _ , e MEETING VITH 'IRC CN MIDIAND PIANT FILL STATUS AND RISCIU* ION July 18, 1979 9:00 AM NRC, Bethesda, Maryland 1.0 IETRODUCTION 2.0 PRESENT STATUS CF SITE INVESTIGATIO1E 2.1 Meetings with Consultants and Options Discussed (Historical) 2.2 Investigative Program
A.
Boring Program 3.
Test Pits C.
Crack Fenitoring and Strain Gauges D.
Utilities 2.3 Settlement A.
Area Noted 3.
Preload C.
Instramentation 2.k Recent Revisions A.
Deletion of Chemical Grout 3.
Decision for Site Dewatering 3.0 3E'EDIAL WCRK IN FROGRISS CR Fim 3.1 Diesel Generator Structures 3.2 Service 'iater Pump Structure 3.3 Tank Fars 3.h Diesel 011 Tanks . 35 Underground Facilities 3.6 Auxiliary 3uilding and W Isolation Valve Pits 37 licuefaction Potential 3.3 Devatering I 4 QOnd D 37h =. %'
- -;
-; -, - _ , ,
k.0 ANALYTICAL DVI:STIGATION h.1 Structural Investigation 4.2 Seismic Analysis.
4.3 Structural Adequacy with Respect to PSAR, FSAR, etc h.h Soils Sumary 5.0 CONSULTANT'S STATEGIT 6.0 SCHIDULE 6.1 Preload Removal 6.2 Auxiliary Building.
6.3 "'ack Fars 6.h Service '4ater Building 6.5 Site Dewatering 6.6 overall I= pact 7.0 CAUSE EVESTIGATION 7.1 Analysis 7.2 Possible Causes 7.3 Most Probable cause 8.0 QA/QC ASPE 73 8.1 Corrective Actions 8.2 Q-List Fill Resumptica 90 LICE: SING ACTIVITIES AND CHA5GiS TO FSAR . .,-_p y e -- - g,-m r--ete M - -- -* '- N"!WT' - -
. e 1.0 IDTECIUC* ION on August 22, 1978, Consumers Power Company notified the NEC Resident Inspector that there was larger than expected settlement of the diesel generator building foundation. On September 7,1978 the 3RC was notified that it was considered reportable. The first 50 55(e) Interim Report was on Septerber 29, 1978 with the latest Interim Report submitted on June 25, 1979 On March 21,1979 a 50.5h(f) request was issued by H 3 Denton.
Consumers Power Company replied on April 24, 1979 and revisions were sub-sitted on May 31, 1979 and July 9,1979 Meetings with the Staff and Inspection and Enforcement have taken place at Glen Ellyn and at the site.
In addition ve have received several questicus on this subject frem the Staff.
Initially, in September 1978 there were several options considered to correct the problems and these included =odified nat, preloading, a ec=bina-tien of these, underpinning and removal and replacement of the structure and soil. F:cm that time te the present, there have been =any meetings between , Consumers Power Company, 3echtel and the Consultants. Based upon these meetings, a decision has been =ade to delete the chemical grout option and to go to a site dewatering concept. This is discussed in more detail later.
. - , m.
y,- -s-y.
-"m + "
. , . 2.0 PP.ESENT STA*US OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS 2.1 Meetings with Consultants and Options Discussed The investigative program conducted to date has included: meetings with consultants to discuss the options for remedial action as noted in the introduction, discussions concerning the NRC findings, investigation of the various remedial actions and preparations of 50.55(e) Reports. As part of the investigative pmgram, approximately 31 meetings have been-held on this subject since September 1978. Various consultants partici-pated in 11 of these =eetings while the NRC attended approxi=ately 8 of these meetings. Consumers Power Company attended a majority of the meetings also. During this time the causes of the problem were also investigatec.
Responses vere also prepared to the 50.5k(f) glestiens.
2.2 Investigative Program The najor portion of the investigative program was the investigation of the entire site soil ccnditions, which included appmximately 161 soil borings, lh dutch cone tests and 5 test pits. (Figures 1 and 2 show iccations for soil borings and typical soil boring cross sections. Note: Sequential figure nu=bers have been added to show sequence in which they were presented at the July 18, 1979 meeting.) During this period of ti=e, an investigative program was also launched to monitor all cracks in =ajor Class I structures associated with plant area fill. Strain gauges were also utilized. (See Figure 3 on typical section through Service Vater Building.)
It should also be noted that an independent fir = Goldberg-Zoino-Ounneliff ? Associates (GZD) vas utili:ed for profiling pipes to deter =ine settle =ent.
(3ee Figure k on pipe profiling typical section.) A rabbit check of electrical duct verk was also utilized for assuring continuit/. (See Figure 5.)
During this period of time the frequency of settlenent nonitoring of the Diesel 'lenerator Structure was also increased.
_ h
- .. .
_.
2.0
2.3. Settlement. It -is very i=portant to note that the Diesel. Generator. Building is the
only Class I structure that was observed to have excessive settlenent; however,.as a result of the boring program we did find some areas with questionable soils beneath the structures. These areas were: Diesel Generator Building, Service 'a*ater Building overhang portion only, , Auxiliary Building electrical penetration rocas and Feedvater Isolation 7alve Pits. To correct the problems with the Diesel Generator Building it was decided to preload to consolidate the soils and accelerate the total s ettlement. (See Figure 6 on overall site layout of the power block.)
Figure 7 shows the settlement of the four Diesel Generator pedestals vs , the application of the surcharge. It can be seen that at the completion of the surcharge application the settlement appeared to be leveling out.
Figures 8 and 9 show the settlement for the Diesel Generator 3uilding.
- hese figures are profiles looking north and icoking in the east-west direction. Figure 10 shows settlement vs log ti=e.
Figure 11 highlights the elevatten contours and differential settlement between the northwest , and southeast parts of the structure. Figure 12 represents the various utilities beneath the building. It should be noted that the Diesel Generator Building was initially tartially hung up on these utilities and that after they were freed the building settled in a more or less uni-form fashion over the last few conths. Figure 13 shews the location and types of instrumentation utilized to ::enitor the settlement of the building and instruments that vere utilized during the preload program to deter =ine vhen the pore pressure had decreased to nor=al.
r _ y ., .y+, , T-gy '"W a-'~
- -t we rN"
"" T' f*"#~ T-'
'7
- ~ ' *
~#-"* -*-- "
. ,, 2.0
2.!4 Recent Revisions For the areas of questionable soil discussed previously it has been decidid to pmvide vertical support for the Service Water Building Over-hang and to impmve the support of the Electrical Penetration areas and Feedvater Isolation Valve Pits.
The investigative program pointed out that certain sand a2 eas were not adequately compacted. This presented a potential for liquefaction under the action of SSE. The initial remedial action plan was to chemically gmut the loose sands. After further review of this reedial action, it appeared that while the grouting vould sufficiently remedy the situa- . , tion, it vould be difficult to prove that all areas had been unifo:=17 grouted. It was noted that there were discontinuour sand lens and fine grain sands and, further:: rare, there vere access probles for grouting.
Underpinning of the Diesel Generator Building as another remedial action presented problems with shoring, support of utilities and schedule. It was decided recently that better remedial action vould be to devater the entire site on a persanent basis. This vill provide a conservative solu-tion since any liquefaction questions would be elisinated in any site area in the power block whether or not it was determined that there was a po-tential for liquefaction. More details of the basic plan discussed above are described in subsequent sections.
- ' _ _j
. 3.0 RDEDIAL WCRK !?T PROGRISS CR PLANNE 3.1 Diesel Generator Structures Se diesel generator building is a box-shaped stmeture. (Sea Figure l!+.) Its :nain purpose is to provide a housing for the four emergency diesel generators. Stmetural valls are very rigid and are supported on strip footings. Se building and the generator pedestal are founded . on approxi=ately 30 feet of fill. During the summer of 1978, settlements = ore than anticipated values were observed and a detailed soil investiga-tion was conducted. The backfill was found to consist of soft to very stiff clay with pockets and layers of very loose to dense sand backfill.
"'he cenclusion of the investigation was that the fill was not adequately compacted. Based upon the recommendation of our soil censultants, F:ofessors Peck and Hendron, the remedial =easure chosen was to preload the existing backfill by layers of sand surcharge.
Figure 15 shows in plan the extent of sand surcharge. The surcharge was gradually applied in steps. To da,te, the backfill under the diesel building is subjected to 20 feet of sand surcharge. Figure 16 shows a cross-sectica i of the building and the surcharge. The surcharge produces stresses in the fill greater than the a= cunt the fill vould experience when the stmeture is operatienal. This surcharge vill remain until excess pore pressures art essentially dissipated and the rate of residual settlement becomes s=all and can be predicted conservatively by extrapolation.
"he preload consolidates soft areas of clay fill; hcvever vill not signifi-cantly improve the quality of loose sands. The potential of liquefaction of these sands and aerial devatering of the plant site as a remedial = essure for this problem vill be presented later in deuil.
.
.*
e----
a-y- -.- -, - - - - - - - - - - * - *. -- , _
, i
2 Figure 17 shows plan and cross-sectional elevations of a typical diesel generator pedestal. This is a reinforced concrete structure having a minimum compressive strength of h000 psi. The fill beneath the pedestals have also consolidated resulting in differential settlement. Differential settlement of the pedestals will have no effect on alignment of the engine and the generator because they are both mounted on the same foundation.
l Furthernere, because of the enormous stiffness of the pedestal, no signifi-cant varping is expected and the top of the pedestal vill generally lie within one plane. The diesel generator will be set in. a level position ir-respective of the amount of differential settlement between the corners of the pedestal. It vill be achieved either by a suitable layer of grout on the pedestal or by chipping a few inches of the top concrete and refinishing it to the required level, i l The =achine itself has considerable tolerance limits for tilt and roll.
Celaval Turbines, the canufacturer of the diesel generator, stated that
a 5* combined backward tilt and roll of the pedestal or a forvard tilt of ( 1.k and roll of 5 combined vill not affect the perfor=ance of the engine
and the generator. Furthermore, during the operation of the plant, if further differential settlement causes this tolerance to be exceeded, the canufacturer states that the generators can be shi=med back to level posi-tien. In su--mrizing, for the diesel generator building the remedial I verk of preload is in progress and devatering of site is being planned for , imclementation soon. No further remedial work on the pedestal than that
centioned above is anticitated.
. .
_ _ _ _. __ -.. _ -, -. +--e - - -
.< . 3.0
- 3.2 Service Water Pump Structure The service water pump structure is located in the southeast end of the power block area adjacent to the cooling pond. (See Figure 6.) Figure 18 shows a plan view of the structure. The cooling pond is on the southern side. The major portion of the structure is founded on natural soil = ate-rial except for the northern portion which is founded on fill. Figure 19 shcws a cross-secticnal view of the structure. As mentioned earlier, the northern section, which is cantilevered off the main building, is founded on backfill material. As a follow-up to the 1:rtestigation df all Class I structures on fill, several borings were taken in this area. The borings indicated that the backfill censists of soft to ver/ stiff clay and loose to very dense sand. The conclusion was that some areas of the fill =aterial under the northern part of the structure were not sufficiently compacted.
However, no significant settlement of the structure has been noted. The reasen for this is that the existing dead loads from this portion are being partially supported by the rest of the structures through cantilever action.
The remedial ceasure chosen is to support the north *all on piles driven to ' hard glacial till. The choice of piles is an economical and expedient solution with minimal impact on the schedule.
Figure 20 shows in plan the layout of piles. A total of 16 piles is planned at this time. The piles will have a capacity of 100 tons and are designed as bearing piles to carry only vertical load. The piles vill be pipe piles filled with concrete. They vill be predrilled through the fill and iriven into the glacial till. The length of piles is expected to be approx 1:stely 30 feet.
. ~ .-- A . i
.
3.0
' Figure 21 chovs the method of transferring vertical lead from the vall to the piles by a systma of reinforced concrete corbels.
As shown in Figure 22 the concrete corbals vill be anchored to the vall by a system of anchor bolts. 'the pipe piles in turn vill be Jacked against the corbels to effect the transfer of load.
A test pile vill be load tested to determine its capacity.
3.3 Tank Farm Figure 23 shows the tank farm in plan. There are two borated water storage tanks (3WST), a utility tank and a primary storage tank. Of these, only the WSTs are safety-related. Each 3WST has a capacity of 500,000 gallons and is 52 feet in diameter and 32 feet in height.
As shown in Figure 24, a short concrete ring girder foundatica vith a strip footing is provided for each SWST. The tank is supported on the ring girder and the soil within the foundation. The tank by itself is quite "lexible.
Adjoining the ring girder for each tank is a senll box-shaped structure called valve pit. This houses valves and other controls. At present, cen-struction of ring girder and valve pits are ecmplete and installation of piping is in progress., As a follev-up to the investigation of all Class I structures founded on fill, several borings and test pit exa=inations vere completed in the tank farm area. The results of the investigation indicated that the tanks are supported on medium to very stiff clay backfill with oc-casional medium to ver/ dense sand layers. The condition of the fill is suitable for the support of the tanks. To confir= this, the tanks vill be constructed and filled with vater in order to nake a full-scale test of the fcundation soil.
- .
I . i i ! '3 0'
Figure 25 shows the layout of borated water lines entering the tank through the valve pit. The piping connections are being made to allow startup, flushing, filling and testing of the tank. Selected points on the piping between the BWSTs and the auxiliary building vill be monitored fon settle-ment during construction phase. Any differential settlement measured vil? be analyzed in accordance with established precedures.
In su:snary, the backfill material on which the SWSTs are founded is satisfactory and vill be confirmed by a load test. brated water lines - l-vill be monitored and evaluated for any differential settlements. Therefore, no remedial action is anticiinted for these structures.
l 3.4 Diesel 011 Storage Tanks The diesel oil storage tanks are located in the southeast end of the power block area and near the condensate storage tanks. There are h diesel oil storage tanks, each 12 feet in diameter and kk feet in length. (See Figure 6.)
f l Figure 26 shows a cress-sectional view of a tank. 'There is six feet of earth l ! covering each tank. The tanks are supported at three points anchorrid to con-crete pedestals. The tanks are founded on backfill and results of the boring i
program indicated that the tanks are supported on medium to stiff sandy clay backfill. This soil condition is adequate to support the tanks. :'c reover, the weight of the tanks is approximately equal to the fill that it replaced.
. In order to verify that the fill is satisfactory, these tanks have been filled i vith vater and settlements are being monitored. It has been three =onths since l the tanks have been filled with water and no appreciable settlements have I been acted yet. *herefore, the backfill is censidered adequate and no re- , . =edial measures are anticipated.
L '
. 3.0 6-a 35 Underground Facilities The underground facilities that will be discussed are Seismic Categer/ I piping and electrical duct banks. Figure 6 shows safety-related piping, namely Service 'Jater Lines, from the auxiliary building to the service water structure and from the diesel generator building +4 the service water structure, borated water. lines from the auxiliary building to 5tST, and diesel oil lines from the diesel oil storage tanks to the diesel generator building. Also shewn are electrical duct banks.
To evaluate the present condition of piping, a representative group of piping was selected and profiled by a Nold Aquaducer Profile Settlement Gauge. Figure 27 shews for illustrative purposes a plot of one of the lines profiled. All the pipes profiled were reanalyzed taking into account the =easured differential settlement in accordance with the provisions of cur-rent codes. Se analyses shoved that the calculated stresses due to differ-ential settlement are within allevable limits.
In sumary, the pipes are very ductile and calculaticas shev that there are no adverse effects of differential settlement. Therefore, no remedial work ' is anticipated with regards to buried piping.
Electrical Duet Banks The duct banks are reinfomed concrete elements enclosing FVC and rigid steel conduits, thus, providing voids for the cables. Continuit*/ checks that are being performed by passing a rabbit thmugh all the voids was dis- ,
- ussed previously. Bis program establishes the fact that, to date, the duct banks are intact. Furthermore, the duct banks are reinforced with ncminal a: cunt of steel, therefore, possesses a considerable a= cunt of 4t$ctility in bending.
' - , - , . ,- , ,---4
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ .- , 3.0
. As shown in Figure 28, a prel4=inav calculation indicated that a typical duct bank of 100 feet in length can undergo a ::mximum of 12" of central deflection in pure bending at ultimate load.
In sununary, the integrity of the duct bank is established by passing a rabbit through during the construction phase and the duct bank by itself is ductile and can absorb a considerable annunt of differential settlement without significant stresses. Therefore, no remedial =easures are anti-cipated for duct banks.
l 3.6 Auxiliary Building and PW Velve pits The following describes the proposed remedial measures for the electrical penetntion areas of the auxiliary building and the adjacent feedwater isolation valve pits. The objective of the remedial measures is to re-place questionable bearing capacity as evidenced by soil sampling data.
The design of the remedial measure has the objective of replacing the suspect soil bearing capacity with structural elements which extend from j the existing concrete foundations to underlying undisturbed glacial till while minimizing disturbances to existing structures and construction i operations. In order to accomplish this it is planned to utilize the structural capacity of the electrical penetration rooms to bridge over some of the questionable underlying materials by providing caissons at the extremities of the electrical penetration rooms. These caissons shall have sufficient capacity to support approximately one-half of the dead and live loads of the electrical penetation rooms with the remaining one-half being supported by the control tower. The proposed method for supporting the isolation valve - .. _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - ~ _ _ _ _
I 3.0
pits is to temporarily support them in place, totally undemine them by removing all materials to a depth at which undisturbed glacial till is encountered and fin ing the excavation with lean concrete.
The plan of attack for perfoming the work is as follows: (See Figures 29 thru 33) 1.
Locally dewater the soil above the glacial till in the affected areas.
It is essential that the loose granular soils be dewatered to permit excavation under the structures without significant loss of grcund.
The devatering system shall be installed and the water drawn down in advance of any excavation. The dewatering system is a curtain cut-off type. A majority of the eductors will be installed from the lower base-ment of the turbine building. The discharge will be monitored for piped fines.
2.
Temporarily support the isolation valve pit by the use of needle beams spanning between the buttress access shaft and turbine building fo'inda-tion vall at the ground surface.
Excavate an access shaft adjacent to the isolation valve pits to a depth of approximately T feet below the bottom of these pits. The excavation would then proceed laterally as a drift until the excavation
reaches the extreme edge of the electrical penetration area.
h.
Install jacked esissons at this location utilizing the electrical penetration rocas foundation as the reaction. The jacked esissen method has been selected for the following reasons: + . _. _ - . - ____.- - - - - -
. < 3.0
It win be possible to Jack through loose sands and soft clays a.
without excavating material from vithin the caisson thus preventing loss of ground from under the electrical penetration rooms, turbine building and buttress access shaft.
b.
It is known that there are sizable concrete obstructions in the backfin area which vie be encountered by the caissons. A caissen ' provides un-size working zoom for demolition of the concrete obstructions.
Likewise, the : nan-size working room of the caisson will permit c.
' direct excavation of highly compacted sands and/or clay as well as the glacial tin (caissons penetrate the glacial till a minimum of 5 feet).
. d.
The caisson provides access for direct visual inspectica of the glacial tin for the initial determination of bearing capacity (final bearing capacity is by load test).
5.
concrete the caisson and lead test same.
Load test one caisson under each electrical penetration room at a.
2.0 times design capacity.
b.
Load test each caissen individually at 15 times design capacity.
Lead test all caissons as a group at 1.0 times design capacity or c.
1/h" of vertical structure : movement, whichever occurs first.
l d.
Upon ecmpletion of any tests the caissons are to 'oe left in a prestressed state to prevent any settlement.
.
- l 3.0
6.
Instan support of excavatica system alcag the turbine building foundation van and connect it to the access shaft and the jacked caissons. The jacked caissons which were previously instaned under the electrical penetration rooms win temporarily act as suppcrt of excavation for the excavation under the isolation valve pit. The containmar.t structure and the buttress access shaft form the remainder of the excavation enclosure under the isolation valve pit.
The support of excavation system along the turbine van foundation win . also act to: a.
Support the temporary additional load imposed on the foundation van by the needle beams which support the isolation valve pit at the surface.
. b.
Support the turbine building vertical loads within the zone of influence of the excavation under the isolation valve pit.
7.
Excavate au material from underneath the isolation valve pits to a depth at which undisturbed glacial till is encountered.
8.
Fin the excavation under the isolation valve pits with lean concrete backfill to within 7 feet of the existing foundation.
.
Place structural concrete in the drift under the isolation valve pits and the access area used for installation of caissons underneath the electrical penetration rooms.
I 10. Dry pack and transfer isolation valve pit lead to the lean concrete backfill.
. ,, y 1-,-,-- --r.., --, -, -..,,, _ _ _ _. _ -,, - _ - - _ ,. .O,,
11 The design of the caisson is based upon a ver/ conservative esissen tip pressure of 25 kips per square foot (EsF) for straight sided caissons.
This provides a tip load intensity of approximately one-tenth that normally associated with jacked piling, and will bring the long term settlement into line with expected settlements of the balance of the auxiliary building.
The bearing strata pressure is limited to 20 ICSF for stzsight sided esissen.
If the bottom of the jacked caissons are belled in the glacial tin, the design tip pressure is reduced to 17.7.EsF. The bearing strata pressure sssociated with belled caissons is not relevant. The steel shens for the Jacked esissons are neglecte.d in calculating the structurni capacity of the caisson.
The bearing pressure on the glacial till below the isolation valve pit is only nominally increased by the substitution of concrete for earthen fill.
37 Liquefaction Potantial Figure 34 presents a summer / of the predcainant fill cenditics (=aterial type and density) below various categor/ I structures supported on plant area fin. The figure shows the fill under au categor/ I structures supported en plant fin censists of both sand and clay except for the borsted water and diesel fuel tanks where the fill is predominantly clay.
Liquefactica evaluations '<ere =ade for the auxiliary building-centrol tower ares, auxiliary building-rsil cod bay and the diesel generstor building. :To liquefaction analyses were :ade for other areas. The . . . .
i .. . 3.0:
liquefaction evaluation was based on experience at sites where lique-faction did or did not occur and access to pertinent infomation regarding earthquake magnitude, distance from the source, ground surface acceleration were either known or possible to estimate.
Figure 35 is a plot of the cyclic sheer stress ratio causing liquefaction versus the standard penetration blowcount corrected to an equivalent over-
burden pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot. The figure correlates the sheer st ess causing liquefaction in the field and the penetration resistance of the sand. Utilizing this figure, if the standard penetration resistance
is known at a certain site along with other pertinent infomation regarding the soil column, _ the structure and ground surface accelerstion, a point can be plotted on this graph. The horizontal coordinate of this point win be , ' the standard penetration resistance after correction to an equivalent overburden pressure of 2,0C0 psf and the vertical coordinate vill be the
sheer stress ratio induced during the asrthquake. If the point falls below
' the line, this vill indicate 13quefaction vould not occur. Cn the other j hand, if the point plots above the line, this would indicate that lique-faction is possible. This can be illustzsted in terms of factor safety as follows.
I I Factor of safeb = cy lic shear stress causing liquefaction i / ' induced cyclic shear stress a The liquefsetion evaluation was based on ground water table at elevation c27 and ground surface acceleration of 0.12g and did account for surcharge frem
the structure. It is noted that figere 35 is based en data for nagnitude 7.5 earthquake which ccustitutes a very consez rative basis for evaluation of liquefaction at Midland.
.
- ,,,,,. ... -... -.. ... _ _. .- n ..,, -, - r, _ _._, .m,.,, , _ +_--
) 3.0
. Utiliting this information tr.e line representing a safety factor of 15 ., has been calculated and superimposed upon the standard penetration blev-count versus _ depth for the northwest and northeast areas of the diesel generator building as shown in Figure 36 and 37 The figure also shows the line representing a factor of safety of 1.1.
It is seen from Figure 36 that a good number of the standard penetration blevcounts are less than those required for the acceptable factor safety of 1.5 Svaluation of the sands in the northwest area of the building indicates that some of these loose sands :may be connected. Figure 37 shows that the great :nadority ! of the penetration tests indicate a safety factor well in excess of 15
with the_ exception of three cases below 1.5 . Figure 38 is a sinilar plot for the anrniary building railroad bay showing that all except a few of the standard penetrations values are well in excess of the required safety factor of 1.5.
some blevcounts in borings AX-1 and AX-10 between elevations (619-623) 'show a factor of safety slightly below 15, but these occur within a limited thickness and the neighboring boring AX-2 indicate nach higher factors of safety within the sane depth range.
Figure 39A illustrates that the standard penetration blevcounts fren boring AX-9, AX-6 and AX-18 under the control tower indicate a factor of safety in excess of the required 1.5 in all cases. Figures 39B, C and D show the relationship between standard penetration resistance, relative density, and effective overburden pressure for the three areas indicated.
In conclusion, liquefaction analyses shew that there could be a liquefaction problem at the diesel generator building. Sorings also indicate liquefaction is very unlikely in the railroad bay and that there is no liquefaction prob-1er. in the control tower area.
-- _- - - _ ._ - - -.. - -... . . .
\\ - - '
3.0 , In order to clisinate liquefaction questions anyvhere at the site in Midland, a general dewatering scheme has been adopted. In this scheme the ground veter table vill be lowered to the apprnvimmte elevation of 600.
Settlement Due To Earthquake hking With elimination of liquefactica potential the remaining factor to be censidered in settlement of sand due to ground shaking. Analysis was con-ducted on the basis of studies by Seed and Silver (1972) and Finn and Byrne (1973) which considered relative density, number of earthquake cycles, ground surface acceleration level, thickness of the sand, effects of nulti- , directional shaking, and the presence of the structures. Relative density was evaluated on the basis of Gibbs and Holtz relationships. The number of earthqqake cycles were taken as 10 in the Seed and Silver analysis. Finn and Byrne analysis was based on the recorded Il-Centro earthquake. Acceler-ation level was taken as 0.12g for the SSE and 0.06g for the C3E. Thickness of the sands were based on the soil borings. Multi-directional shaking effects were counted for the multiplying the calculated uni-directicnal
settlements by a factor of 2.5 The structure was accounted for as if it was a aniferm surcharge.
Preliminar/ analysis based en these parameters indicated a cettlement range of i inch to 1 inch for the diesel generster building area. It is
noted that these esti::ntes are conserrative since they are based en the
- assumptica that the sand is drf. 3sesuse the sand vill be noist, the
- resence of capillarf force vill reduce actual settlements below those predicted.
, m ,,. - - - - _- , w -, - ~ y . ~ , - - -.. - - - - - - - -
_ - . . . 3.0
- , . i 3.3 Dewatering ' 71gure 40 is a Plan View cf Area Dewatering System. The soil as described before by others generally consists of sand and or clay fill placed on the > original sand or clay strata. The original sand generally' extends from I elevation 570 to elevation 600 with clay beneath the sand - thou.~,h in a few areas the underlying clay extends to the original ground surface.
The present ground veter level is about elevation 627 - the cooling pond level.
. As part of the original dike construction, an impervious cutoff vall has been installed amund the West, North and East sides of the area. The cut-off vall, a slurry trench or clay core, extends into the original clay till.
. The sources of recharge for ground water within the Q listed area are rain-fall and the cooling pond water from the South side of the area.
The coefficient of permeability of the soil as detemined from the initial pumping test conducted in Auxiliary Building area is less than 0.007 feet per minute. Additional data about the permeability of the soil and totsi , yield vill be obtained during tegorsry dewatering of the 7alve ?its and Electrical Penetration Rooms. Also there are considerable grain size , data available from the extensive boring program that has been carried out at the site.
The present conception is to enclose the Q listed area with a pemanent exterior dewatering systas. The devatoring system veuld :ensist of . C. . . .. . .... ..( .. . . .. . . . .. . .. .. .
_ _ _ _ -_- . ._ . .., . , ' " ' . . 3.0
submersible deepwells that vould extend to the original.cisy till.
Approximately 200 to 300 deepvells would be installed. The number required to :asintain the ground veter at the desired level would be operated and the reasinder would be redundant. There would be sufficient redundancy . , to provide for interrantion of parts of the systen. Also there vill be pwt/ 100% standbyggeneration availability.
l'he pumps would be vired electrically such that they are stassured sad.
sectioned so that one integruption does not affect a continuous length. i j- . l of the dewatering system.
.-
The gemanent interior dewatering system would be used to mop up Iround i vetor reesining within the ares enclosed by the perimeter dowatering system. The wells would be guaged as required to remove ground water that collects within the exterior perimeter system because of the rechargs from rain, shut down etc.
The ground veter removed would be monitcred to assure that no fines are being removed faa the soil.
l After an initial pumping period cf about six months the basin that is dewatered should be large enough that the permanent dewatering system could be dcwn completely from one to two weeks befors a si6nificant rise in the veter level vithin the dewatered ares vould occur. The principal source of recharge is the cooling ; cad and the rute the ground water flows through the soil frca the pond is lev.
Piesemeters vculd be located at key pointa to nenitor the 3rcund Natsr level sad alert the plant when the ground vater has risen stove s pre-determined al=' ration.
i I ., . . . . .. ..... . . _ _ - _ _ . _ - _. _
. . . . 3.0
Figne al is a north-scuth section through the area to be devatored. The deepve11s vould extend to the original clay till, they vould be spaced close enou$ to cut off the flow of water into and remove the vatar from within the 4 listed area. - Figue 42 indicates that the dewatering system would be buried below the frost depth. The necessar/ disconnecticas would be provided to posit screenin6 the 'deepvens. In area of heavy traffic a :nsnhole would be provided for access to the deepve113.
The capacities of the well screens (6' diameter) are censiderably in excess of the anticipated equilibrium flow of 1 to 10 sa per vee. ' The van screen diameter, 6 inches, is necessar/ to provide the clearsuce required for the submersible pump.
~'he ven screens vould extend the fun depth of the soil to be devatered ( and they would be enessed in a select sand filter for their full den.ths.
l Figue 43 shows that for areas where there is no objection to having a l alight protrusien above the ground surface, pitless adaptors vould be used to provide access to the vous and pumps instead of manholes.
Figne kk is a sketch of an interior permanent deepven. Snauer diameter velis vould be used to remove the water perched within the % listed aree.
These vens vould be pumped initiany and ocessionany therefore as required.
. . l I l i ... -. - -
c ' . - k.0 ANALl'"'ICAL INVl!STIGATION Be following is a brief overview of: k.1 Structural Investigation , k.2 Seismic Analysis + 4.3 Structursl Adequacy With Respect to FSAR, FSAR, Etc Structural analysis is defined as static analysis when the various leadings are applied to the structure as' static leads and then the design forces are detemined for sining reinforcing steel. Whereas, seismic analysis is de-fined as the dymmic analysis that is used to determine structural respcnse.
Figure h5 shews the various items that were reviewed in the structursl investigatien. For the diesel generator building, the original design , was governed by tornado =issile i= pact and a 3 psi vacuus loading.
"'h e seismic response for this st:ucture was relatively sM1. As an indica-tien, the calculated shear stress in the east-vest direction was k0 psi and 25 psi in the north-scuth direction.
3e new analyses that are being perfoz=ed vill involve using a finite element model to investigate the variable foundation properties. Up to nov, the =ax4-'m cracking observed in this structure has been approxi=ately 30 mils and this occurred in the shcrt valls frem the vertical duct bank icadings during construction.
The structural investigation of the service water pu=p structure revealed the following: The original design for this structure was governed by tornado =issile impact and the 3 psi vacuu= leading. Seis=1c response vas relatively low with a caAculated shear stress in the major valls of abcut 20 psi. The new analyses that will be used fer this structure vill involve , i . h
. k.0
. conventional techniques considering the valls and slabs with the piling that will be used to support the portion of the structure on top of fill.
Cracking in this stmeture to date has not exceeded 20 =ils.
This cracking occurred in the valls and the mot. Up to now there has been no detectable settlement for this structure.
The stmetural investigation of the auxiliary building penetration areas revealed the following: The original design was governed by the safe shut-down earthquake and the pipe break. The original, analysis was conservative - since it was based on a system of beams and colu=ns to simulate the large . valls and floors. As far as the seismic response, the structure was near capacity using this original ::cdel. A new analysis is being perfor=ed which vill involve a finite element analysis of the stmeture, this vill include the caissons which will be used for end support. In this structure the cracking as =easured to date has not exceeded 15 mils. n is has occurred in the valls and there has been no detectab.'.e settlement.
For a review of the seismic analyses, refer to Figure k6. A geoeral reviev is as fo11cvs: The ground response spectra is presented in the FSAR and , this is based on an OBE of.06 g's and an SSE of.12 g's.
Stick = ass =odels with foundation springs were used.
.v terial damping values sre presented a in the FSAE; ::cdal damping was limited to 10% except for rigid bcdy = odes.
The analysis technique used both the response spectrum and the ti=e history metho ds. Fcr the diesel generater building the original analysis used a shear wave velocity of 1,360 fps. Cne analysis was perfer=ed and equi;=ent response spectra vas videned by + 15 percent. A new m17 sis has been co=pleted using .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ k0
, i . a lover limit shear wave velocity of 500 fps. The new spectra vill envelop both the '500 and the 1,360 fps analyses values.. } Referring to Figure h7, the seimic analysis for the service vr.ter building f' involved an original analysis which used 1,360 fps as a base case. Then the l I-foundation shear modulus was varied by 2,50 percent. These three analyses were used to generate aquipment response spectra and the spectra used was the envelop of all three. A new seismic analysis is being done which vill , use a shear wave velocity of 1,360 rps. The piling vill be modeled in this analyses, but only to resist loads in the vertical direction. Torsion vill . also be considered in this model. The equipment vill then be reexamined for the response spectra from both the original and the new analyses.
For the auxiliary building, including the control tower and electrical penetration areas, the original analysis used composite foundation springs with the equipment response spectra videned by + 15 percent. The ecmpesite springs were used to represcnt different foundation =aterials for varicus parts of the stmeture. A new analyses vill be perfomed including the caissons under the electrical penetration areas.
"".2e equipment response spectra vill be videned by 15 percent and equipment will te checked, if this response spectra is greater than the original in any frequency range.
The different types of loads are shown in Figure h8. The first types of leads are pri=ar/ leads. This type of load results in stress. As an example, the most critical type of leads vould be vhat are censidered sech-anical leads. These vould be dead load, pr essure, vind. All these types of loads have a constantly applied force.
._ O ^ _a __ _m__ _ _ _ _ _ _- - _ - _ _ -. _ - - _ - -. -
._
. . 4.0 h ,
The next type of load, but of lesser severity, vould be seis=ic inertia-l ' load, however, these are of a short duration.
The third type of load of lesser severity would be missile impact or pipe rupture loads. These types of leads have a limited energy input.
The next classification of load would involve what is known as secondary loads. This M.' is quite common in AS!E codes. This type of load =erely results in strais. They can result from internal self-constraint. As an example, if a pressure vessel has the bottem restrained, bending =ccents vould develop which would be secondary in nature because they are due to internal self-constraint.
. Seismic displacements in piping systems vould be of a secondary nature since different support points would only move a set amount relative to each other and induce strain. However, these types of loads can be cyclic in nature.
Another type of secondary load would be a the:=al lead, such as a the:=al gradient through a vall.
"hia. type of load is also cyclic.
Settlement is the least effective type of secondary leading because it pri=arily has only one/ half cycle of load with a li=ited input. Settle =ent is si=ilar to forming =aterials which are also half cycle. Forming is used for manufacturing pressure vessels and steel piping. Pipes are rolled to a particular shape. They exceed yield in this precess, hevever, due to the low strain rates relative to ulti= ate, there is an undetectable reduction in the ultimate strength. It is also cozzen to fo:= reinforcing steel.
As an exa ple, in reinforced contain=ents the =ajor hoop bars are bent to .
f~~ . . . ! h.0 $ . shape and this involves a yielding of the steel. This also does not lead to any detatabli reduction in strength and, of course, hooks are co==caly used in reinforcing steel.
, Figure h9 sbows a sumary of the Midland design criteria. The first category is what is in the FSAR. The first is prinarily dead and live , load, the second combines the small earthquake with live and dead, the third ccmbines live and dead lo'ad plus vind, and the fburth corioination involves dead load, live load plus the safe shutdown earthquake. The final j.
load combination is dead load and live load and the tornado loading.
After discovering the settlement problems on the diesel generator building at the Midland jobsite, it was decided to add some additional criteria. As l a reference, ACI 313-1977 was used and it sbculd be noted that in this code I l they recogni:ed the fnet that settlement only affects serviceability. This l l =enns it would induce some additional cracking, which if then exposed to a corrosive environment, could result in corrosion of reinforcing steel.
Therefore, in ACI, settlement loads are only combined with nor=al operating type of loads such as live load and dead load. Using this as a base, the additional criteria shown in Figu e 49 vere created.
"he first ec=bination involves dead load, live load and settlement. The second combination con-i siders 1.h x dead load plus 1.k x settlement. These are based on service-ability.
! Since the design vind and the sali earthquake are postulated.a occur more than once at the site, two load combinations have also been added as abovn which include live load, dead load, settle =ent and either design vind or the op-ersting basis, earthquake.
J
l I ,
I I
. h.0
In sunanary, either the source of load has been removed, or additienal supports have been added for the various structures that are founded fully or partially on fin at the jobsite.. For the diesel generator building, the duct banks have been cut loose, reseving the source that caused the cracking. The service water pump structure vill be supported , by adding piling. In the amHHary building electrical penetration areas, caissons win be added. So again, either the source of load has been re-moved or additional support has been supplied.
With respect to the significance of what has happened to date, the cracking enly affects serviceability, cracks over 15 =ils vin be sealed in the future. As far as present and future actions are concerned, new seismic analyses are being perfomed and new static analyses checking the structural desigu vill also be perfor:ned. For the diesel generator building, the building vill be analyzed for variable foundation conditions.
This win be the only buildin;I that win involve applying the additional criteria since variable foundation properties will be investigated.
In conclusion, the structures are box type, reinforced concrete, with high strength and good ductility. If it were not for the diesel generator building settlement the concrete cracking of the structures vould probably not be of any concern, since all reinforced concrete structures do crack under service, and that is the reason why reinforcing steel is used. With the original FSAR criteria, and the additional criteria, together with the '
- sodifications, the structures vin be cble to safely resist an nomal type of loads and postulated events.
- . --
h.0
h.4 Soils Summary The diesel generator building settlement noted in Augast of 1978 was larger than expected.. An exploration progrsa vas initiated to investigate the seat of the settlement and "hs. Feck and Hendron vere consulted to .. discuss the evaluations and corrective actions required. Based on the exploration and the consultants recommendations it was decided to surcharge the building and su.hing area with a load exceeding the ope: sting load.
Instrumentation was installed to evaluate :ste of soil consolidation and settlements of the structure and supporting soils. The prelcad was ccm-pleted to a height of 20 feet in April 1979 . ?igares 50 through 53 inustrste locations of the various instra=ents associated with the preload program. Figure 50 shows the locations of building surrey settlement : markers and pedestal settlement rods. Figure $1 shows the location of surface settlemt plates and borros anchors installed in the fill primarily at three different elevations to nonitor the novement of the soil as a result of the surcharge. The figare also , shows locations of 4 deep (elev 535) borros anchors ins-m ed for use as reference points for the precise measurements during secondarf compressicn where the movement has subsided to a very small rate. Figure 32 illustrates locations of piezameters installed primarily at three different elevations belcw the building to nonitor the dissipation of pcre water pressure during consolidation. Figure 53 i2lustrates the locatiens of Sendex instr.:ments intended for neasuring soil rebound in order to estinate the nodulus of elasticity below the building to ched the :nnge used in dyna =ic analysis.
.
- w-vn
.- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ h.0
Figure 54 illust stes typical results of the settlement and pore water nessurements for the building. It is seen -J:st within a short ti=e after the completion of the surcharge the settlements of both the soil and the building has subsided to a very low :ste and the piezemoter water levels have declined significantly. At present the piezameters indicate approx-imately the same water level as the general ground water level (elev 627).
This indicates essentially total dissipation of pore water pressure.
A preliminar/ plot of the ' building settlement during secordar/ ccepression based on survey measurements indicates that the residual settlement of the building should be less than 1.3 inches during its sertice life.
The exploration pro.pm below the diesel generator building has indicated that the fill is quiti. variable both in the material type and qualit/. "herefore, additional explorations vere made in the rema'n1ng plant site fill to evaluate its conditicn. The expanded exploration prog:sm indicated that althou6h there was no settlement elsewhere, there were certain areas that the fill was of a quality requiring corrective action of the st:ucture involved. These areas are the aiutiliazy building, electrical penetzstion coms, valve pits, and the fill supported portion of the service water structure.
Figures 55 and 56 summari::e the fill t/pe (sand clay) below the structures and the planned remedial measures for the various st:uctures supported on plant area.
Liquefaction svaluations based on published experience at sites vnere lique-faction did or did not occur showed that Ia certain areas cf che sand fill, - a-- .-,, w-r-
. . 4.0
under the naxt:n.m grcund water level of elevation 627 and the 33I of 0.12s, the factor of safety was less than the acceptable value of 1.5 These areas are pri:narily in the' diesel Generator building.
As a result of these evaluations consideration was given to grouting of the . sands and also to pezinanent area dewatering.. The latter approach of de-vatering was proven :mst beneficial in that it could be :nonitored si:noly.
Settlements of the sands fonoving an 53E event vould be en the order of i to 1 inch in the area of the diesel generator building.
Regarding the subject of esti:sted uttlements for plant structures supported en fill, these settlements win be re-evaluated utilising the folleving , infor: nation: 1.
Settlement of the ovu veight of the fin based en borros anchors instaned in areas where no structures are involved 2.
Measurements en existing structures and foundations l
Soil boring information
Laboratory test information
Diesel Generator Building surcharge experience
These analyses viu account for additional induced settlements due to dewatering. These evaluations win be :nade and reported in the FSAR as part of the current committ:nent.
. . . = -. - --- .-_ - . , -. ,
. . . 5.0 CONSUL"' ANT'S STATEEDT (Dr R 3 Peck) I have been a consultant to Bechtel on the Midland Project, together with Professor A J Hendron, beginning shortly after the settlements were noted in the Diesel Generator Building. I speak for myself and, I hope, for Professor Hendron, who is unable to be here because he is out of the country. I will not discuss anything that you have not already heard this morning. It is :gr intention, however, to review the proposed remedial measures and to emphasize those aspects that, in my judgment, are of greatest importance.
The investigations at the Diesel Generator Building rather quickly showed that the seat of settlement was in the clay fill underlying the structure. They also showed that the clay fill was extremely variable with respect to its density, its water content, and even its composition. Furthermore, the investigations showed that it vculd be feasible to surcharge the area in such a way as to stress the subsoil of the structure to levels exceeding the final stresses that would exist under operating conditions.
After consideratica cf a number of alternatives, it was decided to prestress the subsoil by means of a surcharge. In my view, this . procedure had several important advantages. One of these is the opper-tunity to provide instrumentation, principally piezemeters and subsur-face settlement gages, that could furnish data permitting a reliable upper-bound settlement forecast. Furthermore, the procedure auto-j =atically prooftested the subsoil with respect to its future settle-ment behavior. Therefore there would be no need, in determining the . - , ,. _ _ _ _
5.0
' accectability of the foundation, to depend on the results of additional borings, samples, compaction tests, or other si=ilar activities. Such tests would be likely to prove inconclusive en secount of the hetero-geneity of the fill material, but they would also be irrevelant in view of the knowledge of the actual behavior.
- The ree tits of the preload procedure have been convincing. The observed pore pressures were small, smaller than actually anticipated, and they dissipated rapidly. Hence, primary consolidation was accomplished quickly and the curve of settlement as a function of the logarithm of time became linear shortly after the completien of placement of the fill.
Therefore, it is possible to forecast the settlement that would occur at any future time by simple extrapolation, on the assumption thst the sur-charge will remain in place. Dren this amount of settlement would be acceptable. Hotrever, the projected settlement determined en this basis is an upper bound, because the surcharge will be rencved and the real settlements will certainly be smaller. In my judgment, the foregoing circumstances eliminate any uncertainties concerning the settlement behavior of the Diesel Generator Building resulting frem the underlying clay fill.
The investiga' tion at the Diesel Generator Building also showed, however, the presence of zones of sand, including scme portions that were loose.
'"his finding indicated a potential for liquefaction under severe, earth-quakes, and the possibility of settlement originating in the sands due to shakedown under seismic conditiens. The surcharge would, of course, be ineffective to remedy this condition.
- . wr - , - gr '
.. . . .. , f- . ' ,
3
Of the various possible remedial measures, grouting, probably using chemicals, would, in my judgment, be feasible. Nevertheless, it ' would be difficult to be assured that all injected materials had been successfully treated, or that all loose zones had actually been injected.
Thus, chemical grouting would at best be a piecemeal solution. It would be difficult to give a positive answer to the cuestion whether all significant zenes that might liquefy had been identified and treated.
'Ite chosen alternative to grouting is general permanent dewatering of a large portion of the plant site. This solution has the advantage of j being a positive solution to the liquefaction problem. Therefore, it ~ provides positive answers to such questions as those just mentioned.
, The solution has the further advantage that it can be menitored effec-tively by simple procedures, primarily by the use of piezemeters. In =y view, one of the greatest advantages of general dewatering is the margin of safety inherent in the time lag that would be required for recharge of the dewatered zone if the pumps should cease to operate.
i ~ That is, the beneficial effects of the dewatering would persist for a period on the order of weeks after pumping sight be interrupted. Failure of the pumping system because of an earthquake would, therefore, not , destroy the protection achieved by the dewatering.
In addition to being a positive solution to the liquefaction problem, -l vherever any such problem might exist in the dews tered area of the plant site, the drainage will reduce substantially any settlements . that sight be induced by compaction of the sands during an earthquake.
The present methods of estimating settlements due to seismic shakedown ,
=
y, ,. - -- --r- - 'w- - - y-w - r -- w w w-w- w-mv w,,-+
__________ 5.0
. are overeensertative, because they are based on the results of laboratory tests on dry sands. Dren the settlements estimated on this basis would be acceptable. However the presence of capillef moisture in the soil would greatly reduce the freedom of the sand grains to assume a denser position during vibration. Therefore, I censider that dewatering will essentially eliminate any potential problems of seismic shakedown.
( ! ! The continuing investigations of the plant area indicated other poten-j l tial trouble areas. In my view, these potential trouble zenes have now been adequately defined by the boring program and other investigations.
t Cne such area is the location of the Berated Water Tanks. Beneath these tanks the investigations have indicated better and more consistent subsurface conditions than beneath the Diesel Generator Building. It is propcsed to fill the tank with water as a test load. The filling will constitute full-scale proof tests with respect to the bearing capacity of the subsoil. It is anticipated that the tanks will settle under the , test load, and this settlement will increase the bearing capacity.
Furthermore, by making settlement obsertations at various deaths in the subsoil during and after the test loading and by ce=bining this inferna-tion with stress calculations and theory, it will be possible to make reasonable settlement predictions that take into account the actual subsurface conditiens under realistic loadings.
The Ilectrical Penetration Structures extending from the Auxiliary Building, and the adjacent Valve Pits, are to be underpinned. This is a positive' solution that will lead to satisfactorf and predictable . w - - - _ _ - - - -- - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. 5.0
. results irrespective of the nature of the fill materials that may presently underlie these structures. The operations are expedient, in the sense that they are compatible with the general construction sched-ule. The nine caissons under each of the Electrical Penetration wings will be tested individually to 150 percent of the anticipated loading, and collectively to 100 percent of the anticipated working load. The latter procedure, in which all nine caisscus are leaded simultaneously, constitutes a proof loading that will eliminate any doubts concerning the ability of the underpinning to support the structure without sig-nificant settlement.
The Diesel Fuel Tanks are buried structures that have already been sub-jected to a full-scale leading by f*11hg them with water. The settle-ments under these test conditions were minimal.
Whatever settlement . of the tanks may occur will be associated primarily with settlement of the underlying and surrounding fill under its own veight. Since , the tanks will be settling with fill, tbe differential movements between the tanks and the surrounding soil and piping will be minimal, and the connections can be expected to settle approxinately equally with the tanks. Therefore, I do not consider that any unusual conditions exist with respect to the Diesel Fuel Tanks, and that attention to details providing reasonable flexibility will satisfy all requirements.
The Service Water Structure lies outside the area of planned per=anent dewatering. Therefore the wing presently supported by fill will be picked up by a system of piles. The preposed precedure prevides t ,._ . -, , _. - , _.,., -.. -. - _ ..,I.
-
_ ___- - f-r I ! 5.0
I L
positive support. The piles are to be designed to carry the structural l loads at their buckling strength ar.' will therefore be effective even l- ' in the event of liquefaction of the surrounding soil. Since these f piles are not clustered in such a way as to stress highly a large mass of the bearing material, as in the case of the caissons proposed for the Electrical Penetrations of the Auxiliary Building, chey are not , to be proof loaded as a group, but will be loaded individually to 150 per-cent of the anticipated working load. This procedure is consertative.
In sumnary, my overall impressions and conclusions concerning the proposed remedial measures are as follows: The investigation has proceeded in a progressive fashion. Like :nost investigations of this kind, it has not always proceeded in a straightforsard way, but has I - appropriately pursued various approaches. Although it is still con-tinuing in seme respects, I consider that it has now disclosed the significant conditions and potential problems associated with the foundation conditions of the site. As a result of the studies, a variety of solutions has evolved. Each solution is suited to the apecific conditions and problems of a particular part of the facility. However, the potential for liquefaction has been eliminated ence and for all, and many potential uncertainties have been eliminated by full-scale loading or proof testing where such procedures have been found advan-tageous. In :ny judg:nent, this is a strong advantage of the procedures adopted.
e- .. . mm
-.. - .
5 0-
s . Finally, the proposed solutions do not require unreascnable mainte- -nance or :nonitoring during the lifetime of the plant, and can therefore be adopted with confidence.
. . t $ i n . T ' - l .
c-i- e * - $ - py-.,w- - g ,,-, mv ,e .- --
'
1 ,
6.0 SCHEDULZ Figures 57 through 60 show the schedules of the four major remedial activities. The work on bearing piles for the Service Water Pump structure (Figure 57) will connaence as soon as the administrative activities were completed, probably this fall, and should be ecmpleted sometime in early 1980. Since this is an independent activity it is expected to have no impact on the overall project schedule.
Figure 58 covering the Unit 1 and 2 Auxiliary Building Electrical ' Penetration areas and the Unit 1 and 2 Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits indicates that this work should complete about mid 1980; however, the actual schedule would probably extend 2-3 months beyond the dates shown. Again this is a separate activity and would not have an impact on the overall project schedule; however, it should be noted that this verk would probably cause some additional work for construction due to congestion in the areas where other activities were tak9g place. It is not expected to be a major problem.
Figure 59 shows the borated water storage tanks activities however, this is a method of ecmpleting this activity and may not be the final method. This particular method includes a temporary cross tie between the two borated water storage tanks (Unit 1 and Q11t 2) and would take until aid 1981 for final completion. This may be the most critical schadule activity as far as the overall project schedule is concerned, in that flushing activities and testing activities are taking place in the same time frame as the preload. After further evaluation, this schedule may be modified somewhat.
Figure 60 shcws the pemanent plant dewatering system. We had previously informed the YEC that because of the preloading activities there could be an overall impact of two months on the project schedule. At this time, because of a revised testing philosphy, the Unit 1 and 2 Diesel Generator turnovers need not take place until November of 1980 and August of 1980 respectively. T.21s actually allows seme ficat ti=e in the schedule.
, - _. _. _ _.. _ _ _ - - - - _
- -- -
___ _ _ _,
s 6.0
Approximately six :nonths had been allocated in the schedule for dewatering -Ae power block area to the design depth and about 'Aree months had been allowed after that time for recharge rate testing.
j This wuld allow all activities to complete prior to Unit 2 fuel cad, and again, muld not impact the overall project schedule. The cador problem being that of site congestion and interference with other site activities. This is a construction problem and one 'Jat does not sees' to be a major obstacle at this time.
., '
_ _ _, _, _. .. _. _ _. _ _ _ _ .
i I 7.0 CAUSE INVESTIGATION The investigation into the cause of insufficient compaction of plant area fin was made by 3echtel using a problem analysis technique known as the Kepler-Tregoe (K-T) method. This approach involved the following steps:end is shown on Figures 61 through 71.
. (1) Identify deviation, in this case insufficiently.
compacted plant area fin.
(2) Develop criteria for dete W ning in which plant area fill the deviation exists.
(3) -Identify distinctions and changes which might have caused the deviation considering the subject of the deviation, where it occurred, time factors, and the extent.
(h) Develop list of possible causes using all distinctions and changes.
(5) Test possible causes for most probable causes.
It should be noted that although all areas were included in the investigation where deviations were identified by the soils in-vestigation, some deviations were thought to be insufficient to require corrective actions. Two examples of such arees are the borated water tank area and the auxiliary bui'rHng railroad bay.
In these areas the compacted fill is adequate despite some indications of localioed insufficiently compacted material.
Seventeen distinctions or changes were found to have occurred which could have been possible causes and these have all been evaluated.
Specifications, first identified as a possible cause, were not included in the most probable cause list because it was felt upon evauluation that variances from the ?SAR and FSAR and the various relatively minor inconsistencies could not have been a cause of the problem under investigation. The investigation is still under way into soils testing methods, equipment, results, retests, reviews, and .
l %.. ._ - -. _. -...,.. . _... . _, _.. .-,
,
2 . evaluations, since these were found to have contributed to the cause.
The five most probable causes remaining after evaluating the possible causes are.not necessarily in order of importance: (1) Liftthickness/compactiveeffort. Recent tests have'shown that lift thicknesses in some cases exceeded the capability of equipment being used, veriffing that equipment was not adequately qualified in all cases.
(2) Compaction equipment / qualification. Same comments as for (1) apply.
(3) Test procedures and results. This included repre-sentativeness of tests, procedures for comparisen with standard proctor specimana, procedures for taking soil tests within a lift, calculation of relative density, and use of nuclear densimeter.
(4) Inspection procedures. This included the use of a surveillance type program in the power block area for at leest part of the time.
(5) Reliance on test results. This included constmetion's' reliance on test results for qualification of equipment during the work and for acceptance of the work by Ccn-stmetica and Quality Control personnel.
Personnel were not included as a most probable cause because a review of qualifications and experience of both Bechtel and U. S. Testing personnel had shown presence of sufficient education, experience, and training to car:y out the tasks assigned.
. O e -- 4-,- r,, - - -
. 8.0 CA/QC ASPECTS 8.l' Corrective Actions This section discusses the QA/QC aspects including the probable causes identified and the corrective action taken and/or to be taken. The possible and most probable causes were discussed in Section T.0.
The matrix found on page 2 (Most Probable Causes per K-T Analysis) indicates the corrective action taken or to be taken.
' The deficiencies and items of concern from the 50 54(f) Report and the IZ Inspection Reports 78-12, 78-20 and 79-10 and corrective action taken or to be taken are provided in two =atrices and a . table. [ Deficiency Description (Items of Concern)," " Corrective Action Status for Deficiency Description (!tems of Concern)" and " Corrective Actions on a Generic Basis.7 These are found en Pages k, 6 and 11, respectively. The first of these natrices is a cross-reference showing the specific item of concern in Is Inspection Reports and in 50.5k(f). The second matrix shows the status of action based upon 50 5k(f) ansvers to date for Items 1 through 13. The second = atrix also shows status of action on Items ik through 13. A plan view of the Tank Farm (Tank Farm Boring Plan) is provided on Fase 12 to aid in locating test and inspection pits, air bubbles =apped, borings con-pleted and borings proposed.
.
-
- .- - . . . . . . ... , on: Most Probable Causes Per K-T Analysis 'l/III/'l9 q'
- lten No Possible Causes Per K-T Analysis Corrective Action 1.
Lift Thickness /Compactive Effort and Onsite geotechnical soils engineer at-the site. Also, 2.
Compaction Equipment / Qualification geotechnical solla engineer fmm the Geo-Tech Dept.in home - office to give technical direction.
- Specification C-211 has been revised such that, the uncompactedi lift thickness of the backfill material.shall be deterasined by the onsite geotechnical soils, engineer after evaluation of the proposed comrection equilment. However In no case shall the uncomlected lif t thickr.ess exceed 8" for heavy self-propelled equipment and l " for hand operated equipment. This specifica-i tion has also been revised to read, "The onsite geotechnical soils engineer shall veril'/ that the equipment used for, com-pacting the backfill materials be capable of obtaining the desired results and obtaining the same acceptable compaction effort achieved in the test pad area." This verification shall include, but not be limited to, the following: number of passes, speed, revolutions per minute (frequency), overlap per pass, lift thickness requirements and uniformity.
. Specification C-211 states,* " Selection and approval of all the proposed compaction equipment shall be on the basis of demon-strated ability to accomplish adequate compaction without damage to, or overstressing of, the adjacent structural
members".
3.
Testing Procedures & Hesults a.
Methods Specification C-211 is revised such that Proctors are made with, every field density test.
, b.
Equipment The nuclear densometer will not be used.
c.
Results/ Reports The onsite geotechnical soils engineer will review and approve each soil test report. This will include, but not be limited ' to, gradation, moisture and density. tests. US Testing will be t checking all field density tests.for cohesive material against a zero-air-voids curve. Any field test result which plots on or to the right of the zero-air-voids curve shall be regarded as suspect and cause for retest. The onsite geotechnical soils engineer shall determine all density test locations.
. so . .
.... .. _ _ _. - _ 7/18/79 a, ' ' Item o No Possible Causes Per K-T Analysis Corrective Action 3.
d.
Recests All material represented by failing tests is to be re-worked until the specified density and/or moisture is obtained. No material will be placed on any known failing material until satisfactory tests are obtained.
e.
Reviews / Evaluations See Item c above.
' f.
Personnel * An onsite geotechnical soils engineer and a part-time Geo-Tech soils engineer hate been added at the site. The,onsite geo-technical soils engineer coordinates with craft superinten-dents and rutifies QC of selected areas to be backfilled, monitors subgrade quality and preparation, calling for testing as required, lie evaluates size of fill area to determine testing frequency, monitors material and lift thickness - plac ement. Calls for tests in bormw areas for cohesive fill.
' Monitors compaction process including moisture control for - clay. Calls for tests at pruper frequency and designates location. Works with craft superintendents and QC to obtain effective remedial action on failing tests. The geotechnical soils engineer provides overview and inputs technical assis- , tance as required.
' 4.
Inspection Procedures and 5.
Reliance on Test Results . . a.
Different Inspection Methods The Project Quality Control Instruction has been revised to include a daily soil placement report which is used for each-area where soils work is being performed.. This report includes sketch showing areas of soil placement, identification of equip-ment being used, identification of supporting personnel, record-ing lift thickness measurements which are representative of the fill being placed, compactive effort used, location by grid coordinates and elevation of all tests taken and testing frequencies, types of material placed (cohesive /cohesionless).
A Quality Control Engineer will be assigned 100% of his time to soil placement. Consumers Power Company will perform over - Inspection on a sampling basis of the soil placements.
Also see Item 2.f. above, b.
Placement Methods See Item 1 above.
ta _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
. , Defici-ncy Deecription 7/;8/79 (Itecs of Concern) . f" - O' Locatimi in Location 50.54(f) Location in 78-12 Item Deficiency Description.
Page No in 78-20 Page No.
No (Items of Concern) (Item) Page No (Item) 1.
Inconsistency between specifications and I - 1, 3 9, 10, 16, 8-the D&H Report.
A & B (1)
2.
Lack of formal revisions of Specs to re-I - 1-3 9-14 7-8 flect clarification of Spec requirements.
A & B (2) (4) , 3.
Inconsistency of information within the I - 2, 4 6-8 6-7 FSAR relating to Diesel Generator Bldg A & B (3) (3) fill material and settlement.
4.
Inconsistency between basis for settlement I - 2-4 20-21 -- calcuations for Diesel Generator Bldg & A & B (4) ' design basis.
5.
Inadequate design coordination in the I - 3-5 23-24
design of the duct bank.
A & B (5) (8).
, 6.
Insufficient compactive effort used in I - 10 -- -- backfill operation.
A & B (1) 7.
Insuf ficient technical direction in the I - 10 & 11 24-26.
-- field.
A & B (2) 8.
Inadequate Quality Control inspection of I - 13, 14 25-29 -- placement of fill.
A & E (1) 9.
Inadequate soil moisture testing.
1 - 13, 15 14-16
A & B (2) (4) , 10.
Incorrect soil test results.
I - 13, 15 -- -- A & B (3) 11.
Inadequate subcontractor test procedures.
I - 13, 14 & 16 --- -- A & B (4) 12.
Inadequate corrective action for repeti-I - 21 & 22 17-20 -- tive conditions.
A & B (1) p-13.
The Bechtel Quality Assurance Audit and I - 21 & 22 17-20 -- Honitor Program failed t o identify the A & B (2) problems relating to the settlement.
-. - - - - - .
_. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
, i 7/18/79 co
- .o
Location Location Iocation in 78-12 in 79-10 Item Deficiency Description in 78-20 Page,No Page No No (Items of Concern) Page No (Item) (Para) . 14.
Effect of ground water on DGB settlement -
7
i unresolved.
(3d) (8) 15.
Inadequate subgrade preparation after 16-17 winter freeze - 16.
(NRC Question No 362.2 on FSAR Section -- 8-9 2.5.4.5.1) (5)
17.
(Cracks in concrete structural wall &
footing in the DG Bldg) (6) 18.
(Air bubbles in Tank Farm Area and lack -- -- 6-7 of action) (5) . o . , \\n _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _
.. .. . ... ....... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - -- _ -____ _ Corrective Act'lon Status for 7[10[79; Deficiency Description . g, (Items of Concern) ao Corrective Actimt 50.54(f) Discussion Items j Located on.
Item Deficiency Description Page No No (Items of Concern) (Item) Action Status 1.
Inconsistency between specifica-I - 6-8 a.
The review of the Dames & Moore Report is com-tions and the D&M Report.
C & D (1) plete. Specification C-211 revised accordingly, ' b.
Resolution of the audit findings on the Design Requirement Verification Checklist Audit con-tinues.
2.
Lack of formal revisions of Specs I - 6, 8 a.
Generic Corrective Action - Engineering Depart-to reflect clarification of Spec C & D (2) mental Procedure 4.49.1 has been revised to incorporate clarifications and instructions for requirements.
' use of Specification Change Notices.
b.
Generic Corrective Action - Reviewing specifica-tions for specificity completed. Resolution shortly.
. 3.
Inconsistency of information within I - 6, 8 Complete review of pertinent portions of the FSAR the FSAR relating to Diesel Genera-C & D (3) Section 2.5 and 3.8 have been completed, tor Bldg fill material and settle-ment.
4.
Inconsistency between basis for I - 6-9 a.
Correct settlement calculations are to be made settlement calculations for C & D (4) subsequent to Diesel Generator Building sur-Diesel Generator Bldg and design charge removal.
j basis.
b.
Generic Corrective Action - Scheduled audits will be performed on Geo-Tech section on a six month basis. The first audit is scheduled for July 27, 1979.
c.
Generic Corrective Action - Also, audits are scheduled for each design disciplines calcula-tions on a yearly basis.
5.
Inadequate design coordination in I - 7, 9 Ceneric Corrective Action - Drawings have been the design of the duct bank.
C & D (5) reviewed for possible effect of vertical duct bank restrictions in other areas. Ten areas resolved, one still in process.
D' _ - _ _ .. .. _ . -.. ..... ... .. . . ... __ _
._.
. _. _ . . 7/18/79 Corrective Action om ' 50.54(f) o
' Discussion Items ^ located on ites Deficiency Description Page No _N31_ IItems of Psncern) (Irem) Action Status
6.
Insufficient compactive ef fort I - 11 a.
Re-cvaluation of construction equipment'used for.
used in backfill operation.
C & D ('1) compaction is still in process.
b.
Generic Corrective Action - The review of other construction specifications and procedur.es to identify equipment requiring qualifications is still under way.
.. . 7.
Insufficient technical direction 1-11, 12 a.
iAn onsite _ geotechnical soils engineer and a Geo ' / h. the field.
C & D (2) Tech soils. engineer have b'een nsnigned to the ' Job.
' b.
Generic Corrective Action - Field Procedure FPC-3.000 has.been reviewed to assure clarity < and completeness and found adequate.
c.
Consumers Power Company to implement aver-inspection for soils placement and US Testing , activities in the soils area.
, 8.
Inadequate Quality Control inspee-I - 16, 18-20 a.
Project Quality control Instruction C-1.02 has ' tion of placement of fill.
C & D (1), D (5) been revised to, provide inspection rather than , surveillance and.to record daily inspection' reports, b.
Ce'neric Corrective Action - All active PQCI's have been reviewed for surveillance va inspection: callouts and are now being evaluated.
c.
Generic Corrective Action - Bechtet is working to incorporate scientific sampling plans for inspection areas instead of using percentage sampling (being used now).
d.
Consumers Power Company to implement over- , inspection for soils placement and US Testing activities in the soil area on a sampling basis.
9.
Inadequate soil moisture testing.
I - 16-20-The use of the nuclear densometer has been discon-C & D (2), D (5) tinued.
my - - -
... . 7/i4/79 Corrective Action (D 50.54(f) o, ' Discussion Items Located on Item . Deficiency Description Page No No JItems of Concern) (Item) Action Status 10.
lucorrect soil test results.
1 - 17-20 a.
The Project Quality Control Instruction C-1.02 C & D (3), D (5) has been revised from surveillance to inspection of the testing operation, b.
The in-depth review of s011 test results is still in process.
c.
Generic Corrective Action - The in-depth audit of US Testing has been completed. Two findings were a result of this audit.
One, administrative proble's by US Testing, the other by Bechtel Sub-contracts. These audit findings will be closed prior to soil placement.
d.
Generic Corrective Action - PQCI's have been I reviewed for adequacy of documentation callouts and are being resolved.
, e.
Consusers Power Company will implement an over-inspection of US Testing activities in the soils area.
f.
Bechtel has directed US Testing to check all field density tests for cohesive material against a zero-air-voids curve. Any field test results ,, which plots on or to the right of the zero-air-voids curve shall be regarded as suspect'and cause for re-test.
g.
Bechtel Geo-Tech has re-emphasized to'US Testing. the importance of taking accurate tests.
11.
Inadequate subcontractor test I - 17-20 a.
Generic Corrective Action - An in-depth audit of procedures.
C & D (4), D (5) US testing has been completed with co problems found in the area of the test procedures.
, 12.
Inadequate corrective action I - 22 a.
An in-depth review of the Ecchtel Trend Program for repetitive conditions.
C & D (1) Data has been performed by Bechtel QA Hanagement with no items indicating trends found.
. CD - ! .
. . _ . - 7/18/79 . Corrective Action .b(
50.54(f) Discussion Items Located.on ' Item Deficieucy Description Page No No (Items of Concern) (Item) Action Status Training sessions hav'.been' held in' Ann arbor,7 12.
(Contd) b.
e Jackson, and Midland site to all~ Consumers and-Bechtel QA Engineers and auditors to increase their awareness of the settlement problem and discuss auditing and monitoring techniques to increase audit eff ectiveness.
13.
The Bcchtel Quality Assurance .I - 22 Same as 12 above.
- Aiedit and Honitor Program failed C & D (2)
to idenrify the problems relating to the sectlement.
14.
Effect of Eround water on DGB -- As discussed in the K-T Analysis,the effect of settlement - unresolved.
- ground. water on the Diesel Generator Building.
settlement would be insignificant had the compac-tion of the material been to the proper density.
15.
Inadequate subgrade preparation -- This als.o has been discussed in the K-T Analysis ' - after winter freeze - and has been eliminated as a cause to the Diesel-Generator Building Settlement.
16.
(NRC Question No 362.2 on FSAR -- This has been addressed.
- - Section 2.5.4.5.1) 17.
(Cracks in concrete structural -- This Ims been~oddressed in a previous presentation, wall 6 footing in the DG Bldg) 18.
(Air bubbles in Tank Farm Area -- Air bubbles have been mapped as indicated in the and lack of action) sketch of the Tank Farm Area.
' An' inspection pit has been dug from 628' 4 to 616' + in the Tank Farm Area indicated with 3 in the sketch.
The pit was approximately'20'x20' e 628' and approzi-mately 10'x10' @ 616'. The material from 628' to 624' , was soft wet and disturbed material. The material * from 624' to 622' was a transition area. The material from 622' to 616' was very good hard stiff clay with - some sand pockets. There was no evidence of under-mining from the air bubbles. The air pipe is approxi-mately @ elevation 611'. The excavation was dis-continued due to the adequate material between 622' qi A 616'. ~ < .. A . -
,- m 7/18/t9 ' p> - Corrective Action O 50.54(f) Discussion items I.ocated in Item Deficiency Description Page No' No (Items of Concern) (Item) Action Status 18.
(Contd) Four borings are proposed in the areas of bubbles , indicated on the sketch. Two of the borings are located where previous borings were taken during the soils investigation, to correlate the effect of the air bubbles. hao are in progress at this time.
" ~ .A new air line has been placed 1.a the steam tunnel and the air line in the Tank Farm is no longer in use.
, . O . e . . _.
_ _ - _ _ _ _ - . 8.0
7/18/79 Correctire Actions on s Generie Basis The final review and update of the PSAR comunitment list continues and will be com-placed by January 1, 1980.
Review of Engineering Departmental Procedure 4.22 " Preparation and Control of Safety Analysis Reports" has been completed and no changes were required.
A reytew of. sections,of, the FSAR is being performed.
A Quality Assurance audit will be made of these three activities.
. $
e j . . __ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - - - - "
mmm.
8.0
7/13/79 Z l
= .- e
< - . . e % N
, o ' s U ..
f_\\ -. . l:..* - < = l E ' \\ e= L
i . .
,
- n - e d E
3
,, .
~ \\.
y . , .
s %
..l coe E= s U
- K **
u s m EN /" " Q U a.
=. e
- .
O O.
e a . -
- M (D
Jc" " @ J U - - -t- = c -
.., c.
- -
% %
c o o
l l - ~ = n a !
- .-
R . - N e, i - ,, - ( <%. M ... s
- , . . 8.0
' 3.2 ' ah:,ist Fill Resumptien Se following figures (; ages 3 through 19) describe those Consumers Power prerequisites which must be completed prior. to resumption of - G.-list backfill. Scme of these prerequisites were referenced in II Inspection Repc t 79-10 and are so indicated on these figures. Following these figures is a matrix showing the status of corrective action (Pages - 20 through 22).
. .
e g - - - w- -
-_ __ __-.. __.
_ -. . . _ . ..... CPCo PREREQUISITES PRIOR TO l ' ! RESUMPTION OF Q-LIST BACKPILL
. ! Item _Hg., Prerequisites 79-10 , i 1.
lOENTIFY CONFLlCTS WITHIN FSAR' e ' i 2, 10ENTIFY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN PSARI j e AND SPECIFICATIONS OR DRAWINGS ' 3, IDENTIFY INCONSISTENCIES OR OMISSIONS
WITHIN SPECIFICATIONS i e 4.
RE-EVALUATE CONTINUED USE OF " RANDOM e FILL" IN ZONE 2 AREAS
' , l % e = Located in Indicated Document c.uo. u. ' . e . ! ....
_ ._.
.
b CPCo PREREQUISITES PRIOR TO.
' . RESUMPTION OF Q-LIST DACKPILL (Cont.)
. Item A Prereculaites - 79-10 5.
PROVIDE: , i Plow plagram of Necessary Steps for Quality Central and Assurance of Soll Work Specifle Organization Responsible Specific Procedure Used > , l Specific Acceptance Criterie l . i 8.
ASSURE THAT ALL " CLARIFICATION 8" AND j " INTERPRETATIONS" ARE RESOLVED VIA ,
OFFICIAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE NOTICES
' l r un
e = Loc *d in Indicated Document a .s es i . _. _ -. _ _. - ' i
_ __ _ - .
- --- r . .. o I CPCo PREREQUISITES PRIOR TO c RESUMPTION OF Q-LIST BACKPILL (Cont.)
i . , Item .N L flategulaltes_ R10
! 7.. APPOINT SINGLE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR
! EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: i l Directing Construction Aspects of Soils Werk Direeting Design Aspects j Directing Quality Control Aspects l
8.
INSTlTUTE 100% INSPECTION OF SOILS . ! PLACEMENT WITH CORRESPONDING INSPECTION i ! RECORD DOCUMENTATION OF SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS INSPECTED IN EACH CASE
i ( , . - i o,....a io i.,ai-...a n... . / !;- !.
.- ._.
.. . ._ _ ' . . .... . ... . CPCo PREREQUISITES PRIOR TO l RESUMPTION OF Q LIST BACKFILL (Cont.)
i ! i j ltem i A Prerequisites U-g l i j 9.
RE-EVALOATE CAPABILITY OF EQUIPMENT BEING e { USED IN RELATION TO MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LIFT THICKNESS AND COMPACTION
REQUIREMENTS 10.
RE-EVALUATE APPROPRIATENESS OF CONTINUED
USE OF NUCLEAR DENSOMETER, WITH ITS l MEASUREMENT ACCURACY BEING
OUESTIONABLE RELATIVE TO MOISTURE CONTENT SPECIFICATION LIMITS OF "PLUS OR l MINUS TWO PERCENT OF OPTIMUM" !
e== Located in Indicated Document a o.n u _ i j i .
_ _ __ . __ _ - . _.
. . .
-. - . -... - i CPCo PREREQUISITES PRIOR TO RESUMPYlON OF Q LIST BACKPILL (Cont.)
k item , Sih.
Prerequisiles 79-10 . 11.
RE4 VALUATE SARs, SPECIFICATIONS AND e PROCEDURES RELATIVE TO THEIR ADEQUACY IN ' SPECIFYING: Points in Process at whleh Measurements or Test are to be made Frequencies of these Measurements or Tests Conditions under which New Laboratory i Standards Must Be Acquired 12.
ASSURE THAT METHOD EXISTS.THREE e l DIMENSIONAL AND VOLUMETRIQ FOR i l IDENTIFYING SPECIFIC LIFTS WHICH ARE ' INSPECTED AND TESTED E
( e = Located in Indicated Document ) a o.n u ? ,, ! L -- - - - - - - -
. _ __ - . --
e .. o .... . i CPCo PREREQUISITES PRIOR TO . i RNSUMPYlON OF Q-LIST BACKPILL (Cont.)
l !
n.. j No.
Prereaulalian_ 7_E10
J ' l 13.
ASSUME NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS ARE e l OlePOSITIONED i, ! il !
ASSURE THAT FIELD DENSITYlMOISTURE TEST l THAT PLOT TO RIGHT OF ZERO AIR VOID CURVE ' l ARE UNDERSTOOD , i !' e is Loested in Indicated Document a o..u.
l
. i ! ' , i i -- - - - - i i
, .. . . 8.0 '
STATUS ATTACHMENT 7/18/79 0F 14 PREREQUISITES Consumers Power Company Ites Number * ! Action (s)andStatus - - 1.
Identify all conflicts within PSAR, Project Engineering and Geo-Tech performed a within the FSAR, or between the review of subsections FSAR section 2.5 pertain-PSAR and the FSAR, and correct ing to backfill operations to eliminate incon-these inconsistencies via official sistencias, etc.
changes to the appropriate docu- ' monts.
Project Engineering and Geo-Tech performed a ' review of the Dames & Moore Soil Report.
Resolved CPCo-FMO commentir on FSAR Section 2.5.
Completed via Rev 7 to Spec C-211.
, . 2.
Identify any inconsistencies between Resolved CPCo-QA comuments on Specifications the PSAR/FSAR and the detailed speci- ' C-210 and C-211.
Completed via Rev 7 to Spec
fications or drawings, and correct C-211.
these inconsistencies via official a changes to the appropriate documents.
. 3.
Identify any inconsistencies or Same as Item #2 above.
omissions within the specifications ~4 and correct these inconsistencies via official Specification Change i Notices.
, 4.
Re-evaluate the appropriateness of Specification C-211 revised to redefine random ' the continued use of " random fill" fill with special emphasis on soils supporting in Zone 2 areas.
structure. Completed via REv 7 to Spec C-211.
This will be accomplished through overview by the onsite geotechnical scils engineer.
. 5.
Provide a flow diagram of the steps A combined flow chart has been prepared illus-which are needed for the quality trating the backfill process and the respons-control and assurance of soils work ibilities of the onsite geotechnical soils and assure that for each step there engineer, Geo-Tech soila engineer, Soils Quality
is a designation as to the specific Control Engineer and US Testing. This flow chart organization primarily responsible has been placed in Field Instruction FIC-1.100 .
for the action; a designation of the "Q-Listed Soils Placement Job Responsibilities
specific procedure to be used; and Matrix".
! a designation of the specific accept-ance criteria for the step.
,
- Per: (1) Meeting minutes from the April 24, 1979 Bechtel/CPCo meeting on resumption of Q-listed backfill.
(2) Added action items at the April 26, 1979 Diesel Generator Task Group Meeting.
(3) JFNewgen letter to TCCooke BCCC-3995 dated May 4, 1979.
!. m
= s v ., _y,, ,.-- + -~ .m ,. .----<m- = -..... . .4.
-w.----.-,, .,.e-m,m.
. -, - -, e - -. - -,.
_ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - 8.o
7/18/79 Consumers Power Company Item Number * l Actien(s) and Status 6.
Assure that all " clarifications" Engineering Departmental Procedure Instruction and " interpretations" are resolved 4.49.1 has been revised to incorporate clarifi-via official Specification Change cations and instructions for use of Specifica-Notices.
tion Change Notices.
7.
Establish a single individual at The following positions have been established: the site to be responsible for a) Casite geotechnical soils engineer.
each of the following: b) Geo-Tech soils engineer.
directing the construction aspects of the soil work; directing the d S& QC Meen design aspects; and directing the Their responsibilities are defined in the flow quality control aspects.
chart described in '5 ' above.
8.
Institute 100 percent inspection of Bechtel QC has revised the Project Quality each lif t placement with a correspond-Control Instruction PQCI/QCIR for backfill ing Inspection Record documentation placement. Revised PQCI/QCIR calls for of the specific characteristics inspection of backfill work by a full time inspected in each case.
Soils QC Engineer with generation of a daily report for each area of backfill worked.
9.
Re-evaluate the capability of the Hand held equipment has been qualified for the equipment being used in relation two sands to be used. Qualification of equip-to the maximum allowable lift ment to be used on cchesive =aterials are still thickness and the compaction re-in pro gress. All equipnent vill be qualified quirements.
,in specific soil.3 prict to its use.
10.
Re-evaluate the apprepriateness of The use of the nuclear densometer has been dis-the continued use of the nuclear continued for record inspection use.
densometer, with its measurement accuracy being questionable relative to the moisture content specifica-tion limits of "plus or minus two percent of optimum".
11.
Re-evaluate the SAR's specifications Geo-Tech has performed this review.
and precedures relative to their adequacy in specifying the points An audit has been performed on US Testing by in the process at which the measure-Bechtel to determine the adequacy of their soils ments of tests are to be made, the testing procedures. The Audit was performed on frequencies of these measurements 4/25 - 26/79. Two findings on administrative or tests, and the conditions under policies were found. One against Subcontracts which new laboratory standards must and one against US Testing. Corrective action be acquired.
will be taken prior to starting backfill.
- Per: (1) Meeting minutes from the April 24, 1979 Bechtel/CPCo meeting on resumption of Q-listed backfill.
(2) Added action items at the April 26, 1979 Diesel Generator Task Group Meeting.
(3) JFNewgen letter to TCCooke BCCC-3995 dated May 4, 1979.
_ . . . -
. _ 8.0
7/18/79 Consumers Power Company Ites Number * l Action (s) and Status ~12.
Assure that there is a method, on Bechtel QC has revised the Project Quality a three dimensional and volumetric Control Instruction PQCI/QCIR C-1.02 to cover basis, for identifying the specific this.
lifts which are inspected and tested.
13. Assure that each nonconformance For each Q-listed area all Discrepancy Reports report (regardless of the type of and NCR's (Bechtel and CPCo) will be fully report) is dispositioned.
dispositioned and closed out prior to placement of backfill. This will be covered on case-by-case basis prior to backfill starting in a particular area.
Additionally, P.E. will release areas for back-fill which are listed in MCAR 24 as questionable areas on a case-by-case basis by memo or TWX.
14.
Understanding the field density / Bechtel has directed US Testing to check all moisture test in the Oily Waste field density tests for cohesive material against Area that plotted to the right of a zero-air-void curve. Any field test result the zero-air-void curve.
which plots on, or to the right of the zero-air-voids curve, shall be regarded as suspect and cause for ratest. Bechtel Geo-Tech has re-emphasized to US Testing the importance of taking accurate tests.
, 1) Meeting minutes from the April 24, 1979 Bechtel/CPCo meeting on resumption of ( [
- Per:
Q-listed backfill.
' (2) Added action items at the April 26, 1979 Diesel Generator Iask Group Meeting.
(3) JFNewgen letter to TCCooke 3CCC-3995 dated May 4, 1979.
.. . b
- ._ _____ -________ __ l V-I f 9 0' LICESrD ACTI7CIES A.T CFEGF3 TO FSAR l ' lith respect to the Site Fill problems at Midland, Constners Power - Company has received several documents from the :TRC requesting information. This includes questions via 50 54 and the FSAR. There are still some questions yet to be answered and it is our intent to ' answer these by amendments to these documents. '4e will be keeping the NBC informed by means of further 50.55e reports. Upon cespletion of the corrective actions and answering all questions, the TSAR will be changed to update it to the as built condition of the plant.
As indicated in reply to 50.54, the FSAa is being re-reviewed for technical consistency with respect to project design documents,
consistency between FSAR subsections, and documenting the PSAR l c:nuaitments have been dispositioned. The re-reviev is scheduled to be completed by January 1, 1960.
l l l e em A l'
. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o
. l< -
,[-- !'I, - , i tj .=: =. , i i
. g - - I q.
y h...n.. . / ' ' . - V,,f ., ~ Q - , . \\ w~ - ' t .
- a
c t , / _, .i > %#n,r '. i ! 1] .
s % l .C e , IP '\\\\ ' i M5 N ' TO IJI,hr.. - ', A ,
,
y .v.
vsqs-,\\, sw . $% 0p l - -. . , ,. + t.
t'. tg 'A i - . l'k . $.@ 3 \\\\ '
- - , j y a,k.ys,. *M[ll,k'.,,rt _.
n iy,t p- _.
i
. , i , , , I f I MJ l I, N I S _, '* ! s i 6N.lF ', u m b ' _, / h s . 1i v . a - - , . i y-i " 33 -! /.* NJgl y , _ - . i ! sd , f. h I.
? )f ? $ ' e'\\. i s . '- , te(
- ttet a r
. s -
- c
~ . . , I.
~ l - s . -. i l f ' -
m. 5 l ' i i I . !# I i i , i ' ' ' ! i
. I i i i ' .. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! -
i . . $ .. ., -
ti - . , > a a a Sj r f ig IN = ~ c.
. . si i
- :
I i i : 1 I II ! ] in , . __ w-- j I ~ lli . . i
I lI i .'..u..
iu %.. . ....... . I)f sit = l
- .....
...
,I - - e - I.
.I 1
- -
- ! I-
l
- II g.1111 l
...i.. .
g.
.. . i ,, e .i j;.1I, lp.li, i
,,,. ....,, ......... , II e...8 I III .s..I. , ....!...!..!..l,eli. i 3 il - L illic:imunle lll l I:. ' = l . a.. . I..} l.
l . , , i - , i
3' I j ! l.. . I .
. i,~.
...........i...i... - 3._
- ll h t 1:
l it I i '
yglr ' - 1' !!I!gg;
- _
k' l li ! Il ili ' l s ,; ! j l $ massans b N{ i ll !I ' ll.
\\ . I
- [.. l.......I....,l l
, I, g; ll I I
-., l ', , I i, - ' , ! I t !,
, , illt il ! i i , II ! ! ! !a.I I.i 1 I I 1 I e . l
l
a e _ -.., _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ ,. _ , _ _. _.. _.., _.
..
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. . . . . . . . . . . . . , sia
- i
--l a i I g
y m . ,;h - I I l 'l jil l - -- M
. l il 2 I - 3 in il I I sj Ig i l- _ , .
- -
?. - -- . . . G= l G= l T . / C / No 7, N
N fg1 - a - . -- s .. . .g 7..._,...q .. e - ~'.] M_ l {a /h
i.
- i.
_
n
- o
%. W L==m% i Hn ,i
!
. l;.
- l l;;
y .- . ...
r;=: G= 1 n= 1 . j .m.m y... - u .y ! I-~ l g i l H! !!! - - - ~ l g ' d k ! !
- i!
' n' ) :: d.('.........! L..t O.. - . _ , . . .. i;:- G._.
- ' ' ,1.
- '
. - . y . _s e
- ha h
- ! . _, m . .: . ,
ll g 'A . ]m( -
,
1 - l I
i i
U L . ! 77'~~~i fT"If'" . E
!i
- l :::
G3 I"r2l G I ! l '. !!!
. -. ... .. l
l.I I l ! . l!! - E , ' .'...a=.4 12:r:: '::: / w /: g /g % 3 e + g e te I- , ,q , A s
f 1 '4 .' rt gl ! 8~
W ., --1 d * 5t-) . b { c P l
- - .-
A i = C.
>* I if I . a Q i s 8, l n g s l Q
I ' ')
I -
0 - i t4 I
.< a l t y
'
8s
n, . ') t t f f f f f I I I J
E N A A I N $ , .
4
4
+
4 N R}ure. 4 . y____.,___.___--- - - - - - - - - - - - " ' ~ ~
. . r 1 ' /- , , < e , n .d W w . L J L J INSIDE DIAMETER OF CONDUlT = 4'4 " OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF MANDREL = 3 43' ,e - , ~% - j DIAGRAM OF MANDREL (RABBIT)USED TO CHECK CONDUITS i l MICLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY i ! RAltill T I l't1R 1:LF.CTRICAL DtiCT
FIGURE OA?E 4 24 79 .. - ---, - . -. -. -. . -.. -. -. . -, - - - -. - - _ - -. -. - - -..._ -
lI If h s s " ~ F{ !,,h ' 3}P NN
- Y
vir $1r , .
[*i . q]f y]1 ' . ., . liili - d'l Ill ' Y'.nsi A g M - g till - - !!! ~ x , -l , ill ll _._.[#(dN[!. ~ .. c-o m , _ o L I '\\- l t ij]- L T1 Al)' i
a 4,- - y - /( & . hn l : i esn.y...- J r i.
x
f (- Il [ r!f"* Cli,
, s a . 9( .o ' j x j
3 . ${ d - Il'] ' g;j, {i-d}m - ! l
' ji ,i>
, - . g' l .: ,d ,. i . $ e I ' . . - -- _ _ - .
_ _ _. I 1978 1979 JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
~*
x % . ......l q ............... % . x....... - R y ...., 2 ....... Em
w d ' ~ $ -, - . - ., , h ' 's' ._.
s ' ~
,I D ' ~ ' ' ' ' < s _ 3 x . - s m-i ~ . ... ..., x$
' o 's M Z" * - - " ,
\\ - bh u
- ' - ', N.-c ' '- go I . . _... 20 W yv - m s m s ' . ' ' - 15 M ~x St RCHA 1GE LI NE-d SURCilARGEg - -_
- 1-10 $ y = I / - 5 $
- - - -- r- _
-- o .s - - w>< N .!,!,l DIESELGENERATOR BUILDING .,
AVERAGE PEDESTAL SETTLEMENT VS TIME .. . T' !
2
4 ,, - , ' DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING . . - -. - -. - -
. . -, . . . . , , . , , , , .r 9,
- i'
j 8-ll !; t '
- 'a I r - - I I
I ll ! ! 1 %
F I h ,: I ,1 , 11 l;- 1I -
j'* j i l',r* l1 l-l l d - +! I it a p.yil21 . i i,.lir.ri j j.
- m-
- ==
_ _ l i g !, s - ' . i. m .n - l ' h, lI - %ll l ~ . ' ' - - . a !; .... .... . O - ' *
Ci:ly i:,.;ji.'.".? : ;.: . ! i ..! . :;;;r.! i::;; :.;l';.1. p. i:.,;. i'1 .
g . hl .. I l s...I l "*. l l l - k .......... Ill!! l} !!I fil i! l !l}
- _ ..... ... . _ $ bi!: - ~ ,! : [: : ? I it i.i e!",1.!!
>. - ~ f I !if,dh b l e"i.)iN!,Jewe" & l!h M !h lliid 'N c ! af, ;t& l d!h A . i ) 'm j Mid! !!Wjbtahk N@D@;:ldllbg# 'M j s Fllf'j hij !L ;iiKiW 'b3] %
. - ,
\\
v.;1p:: ::: 3::g~. n,- n
- n,;
,. .w.
, . -::a
- ::
.
- 1,
- ,.. -... _ i _ , . . s
s . i II f.
. i t e r
if 1.
. .
- 1..,,a.
' '
- !
..,j n...,iM..!I,$, ?, ;i...i . V's,. . . .... ', d i i i.,,,.. o,,,, in .... '* ' E , . - , l
! i; /' ," h !! $ ' , . ! l ! )iO!Oli ihhfll b ' ihQj f/ f f l' O !:.h ' y - W w s i $gu f' if.,Mq;wpc r g[J,[ j M, 0lll - '
- hhI [
'j '
4 ' ' i d.,w gMy
ni i n' q!hhy p/s 9(. f e u-e , [ [! f ,' l [ + ' ' ' ' - q ,
j a t < f'., ' 7,
o . .o, j'-
- g}
, , l: t ( ' l ! ' c p, ' .o , ., i,. iD,) j / ) J ' ..! J i 'lh b , j I ' .I,.i . - ' j I < b;'.il ) il,0;,
- 'I,
' ' ' < l
IlhD Y j,kI ( j !,lI , f ' ' ' , i a 1 r. :. -no - ja er: ::e: !ilitp!:
- ._.
-
- :
s .
- ..
wm.,wa l l i.
. , . __ . I
. ..- _. . , . ,.,.6 . , , . . . . %9*
.: i . . f ,, .? - . s .' l l l
il il rr - - . . .s i l li I +1 i ! ! l I !! . - _ . .= , - .! - i !, - i . ,, . _ l I ' _ k,' _ v .a . . g . _ _: - - ,,. * $h ~ a a
i a
, i i lh I I! ll l ' ,, ,, i j _i N R Eprinlig i l ll I 1lll !!'iIl i i _i hii% ksh Wil' !ld! ill n,,.li!j!I ll! illi
Illi! ll h! -
.s.. ......,m.m....... .o, o n g o o.. n n,,m ..n n,,, ...,,s.
- ,,a,..,,.e,..o....m.,,
.
i j, l ! p! a - - - i
, . . . ' ! l
c,
. . . . =,. . r .s.
.L.I 8,0 .
- i 3-Q
. . i.
e .. o = gi , . . {;{~-i- !.nnnin! mn.n no,,,, niin..', i,ndo I,...,n,,,,,,,,,,,,n,,,,,,,n,, ' i E ..n.., ...o,,o.n.
- g11,.i y-y p g l ll p p r F l - et i - 9 j e n a n ,!
- ! hl l.' nl i
jf.- , > - . J/ l
- r_,.'w.
. 0 911 / _ jf _ . E l a
l l l ~
, , - . . i !
n !! n OJU lilad !I In il I .i L.!Ldi.ni i.ell !il&l j l - mi \\[i !!T-pyjq.j ' yN ~! l l j" pg!\\i. q!gyppgll - i , L \\.\\ 1, A l l h.li 11k iilkls i % \\.N1 t: . ........ .. .. .. ..,, 3p : ,, m.. m, .................m........................ ...... .........
i _
a
I ' , l no.
u,,num e '
e
_,
____ - , ( - DAYS AFTER 4-7-79
jo 100 1000 k DG-24 (WAld N D i i g DG-4.PEDESTAU g *. " a _ .- g0.25 - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - 0.25 s I t [; $ 0.50 -- %( - m DG-18 (PEDESTAU. QK x o ,
- ' **
" - ' - - - - - 0.50 s E _" % 5 - g El ( DG-3 I WALU t;- ci 0. 75 - - - - - - 5 3 - - - - - - - - 0.75 mz \\ s , .%9 % bh1.00 ' - - - - - 1.00 m.;
E! 1.25 - - - - - - - - - - - - = - - 1.25 E $ 1,9 __ _ _ . . . _ ._ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ .. - 1.50
9 1113162O 26 $ 16 31
DEC 1982 ' -~ APRIL ~- MAY ~ - JUNE = .,, U, DG-24 TIME IN DAYS n n . ' 00-4 _
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING
," SETIlfMENT Vs LOG TIME , DG-18 SINCE COMPLETION OF SURCilARGE ON 4-6-79 - - - . DG-3 - l
.. _- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , [5.0 ' 3. A 3. 6 , / 4.2 4. 7 n . - . . / N - ' 6'0 ~ ^ p--- l ~~~--} t ~~ ---~~-m . r-- g $*0 l ' - i i
, i i I I 6.0 . ' @ 43 l l [ t l l ' ) \\ ) L ] \\ g,s )
) , y s - ' 'i ! y! ! / - i i
8 - I i L_ _ _ _ _4 L ___ J L _ _ _..:i( - ' ,/g* . _ _ _ , . -- . - . 5. 7 " 8.4 5.9 6. 7 / " 7. 3 l DIESEL GENERATOR BullDING TOTAL SETTlfMENT OF WALLS FROM 7-14-78 TO 6-29-79 IN INCHES ~ (20 FEET OF SURCHARGO i ! ;: ,8
- lb ll
. e .. -
r-
1 I l u n! ' ,if., = _.. _ p,t - - ' m
,,, . _ -. q ,
.. : - ,
b.
' - . I
==. m_.
I .,r. g
. ! *.. t .. r a . ,,
- e.
.r - .e , .. ,t
. .. , . . ,. . . .. .. t... . .,. . e ... i ,.. R .N. a l _ _.
.... ._, olif"'y..T- *.e ! ll --
--- r- - - ~ - - ,u ,_ _.
.. d , ...._, j, -~ j;.. .. l
- r._.- -. _ <
... .7.,--- . . ...J.J......,. , .
- ,.
.y.. ................... ..., , ,Il l l s' -..Q I ! -,..............u.
w .......... i . .. -et l, ' %: - n .a all ... .........e[ i rh - . . 'y -
/
af lI. !. I ..i i
,. , , }1!! l, ' ! ** f I.
! l
I ' N y , li - s ,
i , < i - '
- 'Q fl (
l ll i - . f i ,f /"I'l (/ isN - ~ i i . .n
- s ' s i j & ,us' s i
t l s . ,' I - s l' I, - se s d !
. '. r '[l . l.
s . ,,j i.: N -
-- h ! .' 'f ! ! ]f llI ,,
af .1%. s *( > s , ,
, I $ {\\N.
'43 l
' ' b.
"
- 1 g
. l.l: . I m s
!I.n../-s.
, ., e - i : i + .
g . - .. ..\\ {.f .) ~ , ; !L P i . "[ ' 11 's s + l l 'i ll l.
i.
- - 4* , , . . . p' '. , r-- g, g+ --. . - .. g< .
'l k
I
% Mn i $bl! ilb '. i l9
, ', ' ' 2x - . .,\\ N . ~ _a_ \\,1'.M-
_ _ -e N x _ m ,' l g.
i \\{ s . - ll au m-i w g , , , ' j ' P . - ni , o/ l.
. , dl 2 , s'.il
t 'l ,. -
[ . , ?ggg l < , s - L ' - s i,6 i.
- - - i w s a , ' , . - , . l (D -- [ a' _.t- - b,,,,, - 4.,. , __.. l '..i ' .. '....,. . _ .. _ . .. .. - - . ,.,,. _........ . . a l w
- _-.2...-
, _
- ".4.'.m......,....,,.f......****,.....****,,,j..
f'. =***tta.'- ' ~ ~ ~ ~_~_~.~f1 m
l p-y'. ..- r Q.. Q k . _ J._ u........."' ..... ?.. 't'. ~ k.
~ ~ y 4n - dz.
...; ~ ~'-l^..... i......
- ~~~~~~' f ./
' ' @' '. g ... .. W .. J w.*. I.
.s ' .. ..
_ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
- o 4 4 000 O O O g O
0 O - --]J . sv ho ' ' = , . h 3TO O,_ _ _ __30 O O _ O I 'g g = ag q , ,M O _ _, 4
- O
<j g< g O '~~~-~.7 - wnaga =:-
i I zw 2 s o t W
I
- 04 s a g
' hE
I ES: ' * g e o *_ _ _ _ _ _e - 5-90 g
O
ac253 O aae O 0 :, O4O e e - oago t. - , , ,,, g o - 4 4 m "' ( 00 0 gg . g ., - - - - -,_ _s _ _ _4p w I y X
,4 4 I g E O l' I '
., l
$3 6 *d e a 4__----s,___%_c O e =z E2
- c a= o O
L.
'.o 5 E, - a o
, , _ o 4 o 3, E,
u ,, g ,,O=-------____g
g o , ,5 ~ I z $
i
=2 o I . I G -
O l l s
m.
. - I
O *_-g-- _ s, _ _ _ _ _ _g = R , y73 a- '
- L-
- ] 3 c
- L i25 l ['
rO Li a O Is 44 2 m E G e 4 e . . "' k"" %_030_ U @@Q - '
! q. I g o e l. GQ l
l g I O O d O ot______sEToYo,'p' i a -=
a , CI Ma O a o
o c2 OO
O l TUL?I 13 e O O . - - , -. _ ~ . - - -- - - - _.. .-
..._ .-_ _ . . . 7*YR PECK 87'AL [SEE F/G. 8 - 2 nn r / r N , - ) , ,
8AY / 8AY 2 8 A Y.8 8 A Y d.
..
- \\
/ A '
34 /c* . TYP . . . .,a sa u u w ' . PLA N . . . .
,,. , - -
I I I I I I I I l SECTION l.QCAUUG UCL~d
- Q 4 4
,,
-. N
v m
4 - I t n _ . .. _ MICLAND PLANT UNITS 1 12 r-t- , i CCNSUM8S FCW8 COMPANY i SECTION ozzsz:, m m sea . / *'2/G WEST ?La s src : css j rlG. 4 an ~ n -- - -- - - - .. .. .. - .. -... . . - _ - _ _ -. ....
. . . l ~1 s . t.
.-
.! ._,, '
- 4
- . . ,
. , I . . - - ,a .*:I g ......p r.. j (I f i--4 ; . .. O-"--'.:.. ., e,l.li. !'. t .s ... s s . .. &I li$ i 3 / ! . - 1,), u
"~ ' P w' ' I _ .-- __ of g;i%;,,._; . e.
.a
- ._........3.%.___.,
.- ,,,,,,,, ..,. . 1....., .. . ,i -, u
- .
w -i.m;.:..t..___u._ . :
. .a !
, ;.,. , i . s. r.... . .. h ' } ,4
e g ' ..... . : . . I .. . g . - ,:r t
i ' i .
,;......... 1___._... . ...
- .:-g,...- - _. -. L -- --- - ];
, p ,!,,. . ,p
g j,y, a, 2,:....,............._, ,. .. _ , - , . .
, . ..,..., : ,. . . _.,. . .. , ,m..s_.., , -. , , . , , .
- .
.. . . . . . , "~~~~ ~ ' ' ,' ' ' ' i (j_.
,, p * ).', ' ' .,'.s. '~
' b - i,
. . ..- ' ...._______..____...a.- - -'.. -.. .
- -gy{ :::::.y ::. J ;
i . { , 'l--., j , g ,... ... D,,:: j .. _ _ _ _... ..., , ] 3I l ' ' -. .
_, . . l j,l ,k,.' $[!
l $,[.. ~- ' a
y
~ _~. s:.,-- . , - , .% ., , . - - .
- -j
.. - ,%. .. _ _ _., , . r.
....h....__*.*.*.*.*___** '
g ,
=. , .. .. , ,..-.s....-..a. . - . . . . y; . I i , m. . I ,
l I
- . , , l .: n .....__l. ___ ' . . . - , IIs....... ... .....____...h., . e--- -- 1!
- '.. h r 'm., 58
. i ': :te: :=; 2,.:
- -
. i . I l - ..... '. .. (
- - =7. : ' ' y i . I -
- ! . ll* " s u
- _
p'. 1; - n i i._ i , ' {l P-l'$ , .,
- ,
., : i - ' dass? , 'i !' ' FIG.15 ... . , _ _.,.. ., - -. - - - - - -
--.
' e
l . mmenee.#..e * p== 4* + S - . l H u i: " l2: =J / e
- .
b
- i
l z .* .m - , L
L . . , N , s % F"' % fU ' [t.
L.
s i" N % %
mm % ' s y . ' , __ , .. L.
, ,i s ' !' [ T i . [ g ' . s
m -- s % E . W ~ L[ . . %s 'N % m.
s ' \\ F: . . . . .n s u' - < l pNi:
- :
w. =.:l N d A- ,I
lI N b - ~: i - ' . ._ li l I ,
.i ll g i - - > n k bI . . - - - . -. - - - - - -- - -.. -,.p y y, y -
.r--
,-
.--,,9
,- r. - - ,am,,-- ,n--, --
. . - _.
! EL GS7 6%', ,. M /. De" ' m.,d ' EL G3olo'
- m. Say.s. ; ro,.
,,
_ s - a.rve _.
n - e
a r__________.
, - W , su ' w a
i %
' - . . o m
m.
_ - - - , - .. 9 e K+ v " - t-._.---__-_ lGp'* C l\\
\\ er-9Fr -. gg.gyg - . ,. 41'- 4Vr - _ R Abl - rs.r-d r EL G37L G'/i L l
- ,gt ag4 gu e __ J l s-EL G2Bic GLEVATION V6-lLo' ! MICLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 3/f354 s/a gge
- ccNsuuans gewas ccus4Ny PGC23TAL
DIESEL GENERA;CR . fPEDESTAL F G.1 7 o= - " <, 34:14 _.
, _ _ _ _
. - . . . c...L.
- . . .... . ' 86'O" - - 43 '- O' g 7'-3 ~-s c/'- 6 32 317(2 0~
. fery AaouraN.
$ 2, j, - . - 7-- ,. 3
N . m - M
' t , y _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __.
.__ _-_ _ -.. ._ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ _ . i Q . - ,, 'tr --
"o.
.m .I O . N , . m si N% .i v J, f I L , O,, - .~ SERVICE WATER STRUCTURE PLAN A T EL. 634 '- 6"
- {.=G.18
' = '~[ - - _ _ - . . - - _.. _, _. _ ... ., _. ...___.__,._..__.,__,__.m.
... _ _. _ _
. . ,- i . ' . . l TDP DF aDEE
!!W $$$'-0 . - WM1N 454W ' . I i
l T ' _ i . wae fBOIICN(D NAI.
d N 2d7 ' ,3 i '9 A \\ \\h' EAWILL kN Y . . _ l (B) _ i - & N / A 4@%*%w \\eoTTOfMAT / WW 5di'-O' f'HATURAL MA15.ML J ~ . MIDt.AND Pt ANT NITS i & 2 NSUMSS PCWS COMPANY TYPICAL SECTION i CLOOKING WEST) sm:cz wurz succ uar . SERVICE WATER "=5= STRUCTURE FIG. 9 = ":"" l . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _
i i m b =,01 ,, i
e ei O 6i / .. - o
% i
- 6 e t
..---i.
1' ..--,- , g g 6e t ---.J I 1.---. 3 1 4 1 1 I I I ' -
, , i I 8 ,....J ' I t.
. --, e I
i a 8 i ,' t 9 --l 8 8 Y
- d.
= m a t
- 8 d
, i g g - -- g I O -
, - m - < w --. , N O l . , , . E g g -. ""C ' l ,
'
y
- .
L --. 'a i
- . QC2 w
- e D
, -q W - i i , N N
" O *- -m.
% t I N
'y~ l i ( -- ,,
- -Q t
," +[i- ,. --- - "$- I '
g
w w O h ' i %x % y I I og g ,------a i g w..._. 3 I U ' k l ' et i wR
l ' n ' % i a D i I %g= ' i n e.--..a , 6..-- q g
I I i - .i l ' = i i - i , !'M Q = , e ei
- ,
,
. . I . , I ti! . I i-G. 20 s.c, I , i I ,,.-- - - _.,, - - - -.. _ - -,, ,, _ w- , -- ,,..,, - -
- - - - - - , . .. DL*LL +E22 = 2790" ' 16 MLES e100*/MLE=.1200" ' . ' l ' a.essht2 I ~ i I i . PttTURE Mitst,C.KMIllD g I = ., [22,. 6.35! C* ~
a.a+c, r ,- a Aar a. esso-y .. l Q
n t ; @, _ ) / a. a r-c
. \\ ls - DET K fT\\ a.Wil N.,/ $ % PILES ' l \\ , - w 't SECTICM S ? G 2\\ v . .- _ .._.. _ ... -. - -..
_ - _ _ _ . - . " - .:.c:w.a u w.n.,, c e... a 0 o C L t a ( ] ~ 3, * : ::,j . .,.. ..., ... -, . . . . DY 25% TO ACCCUNT FOR STEE'L RELAX /A/G, CONCRETE CREEP AND ELASTIC SHORTENING.
' _ - 4- - . ' I Y -- - , ) --SLEEVES (M) ! A ! . l . -cd . - ~ i l ! ' BEARING & Q , -BEARING )$ , . . p .t{ -- -- -- - - p
. = =. =. =
- _ l i i W %
-
-_ _.j ;. , a - ANCHOR BOLTS ML'- ' i %k (rrn) ff SM/M /i! Il \\'! ' /
' l l _.
- rk PILES
_ Lt -- v-MTA.IL m V F G.22 _ - - - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e mmmmme any. e o e
- im e +
1 1 . me--s I .I = ~ - o
ke "a W
.n.
. .
- \\
t I / . I,- . l e l - = 'e
I
JI g=r =. -
..I . asu %
z-
i i !8
e
'
= ~ . e .f. l l lp p~a. d =in l.
i i
_ ,, ,. p~ + -,- -
_,. - -, _ _ -__ _ -,.- - --- -- - _
I e* < b "k A , f.
'-s =-A p.
O> ' .E 5.".'< - ,4 .. w.
' > . N C fd
- c z 3O-5- =
=C Z ME EE V oe P* A
== =O .
ef v
b E .; o .4 . d - Q V th
- o
.
- .
i% M $ D
- e
.
- dj a
a L.
... i.i ' .;
.. . ,
" 'k j I I AME L I .
M. *;ls ' .<. . _ '. ,.:. .' . & I w m a . . ... ,s.
- , - 4m . - .m c j, - ' r i b. d -+ . e e e e e me-uSD e
__ J
6 g X - ( . - . h p \\ \\ T\\ x ' ..
- .
$ . g
- M
. l\\ A.
. -.y s w.
\\ , e . , ; IMS ' . . ,,3< \\ ~a-r'en e,%.
4 }fp , .. g l
e \\ - . . n.
i . . *$f
x
- s = > s ..
8 . w . =us \\ ! CDem
U. dD l < i l l .... . .---._.
. _.
. .e - O .- i
.M-g ,,' ,,O y ' ' . ., g / s , \\j-j '.,,"m ' l.
- =;n i s _
y sg . , k( , '
i
- i
78 .i , D m.-! 3- !, s,l \\y0 i- -
. 2, , (;t %
.4 . M ' - I %E h.1
. k* n.s . i !- l
ON -
- . .- - :- i< % _h l N i ! f' > a( ' l ':
% > i v, . u . ' (# T.
-c N M %g X
'J + g ,
.,i e% y Il Q g' I . I t % xN% - . - . O
. D '$ .c'. s.
.i sm s.
- N'
3, N,
\\1 we ' -= ' %. - O g =.,.. , i - . - . -.. .. . .. -. - -... - - - - -. - -.. ..
_ - - - - - - - - . .- .. -. _ ...... - - .
%.
'i
,r i i,' . - i - .
a I . ajt ' J ~
'a f
$ .r i ' ' ll,67I - 5 l fj, !
i - ' .> - ., r , .y
- jjl
! , ' - l" 'a , ,1 ?
e .
{ i !j p=m- - - 't [ -)I ,!
7
J ( h 4'i i
ii L=_g
'& J l ) ' _.L.32M f ' 1: .! . g,,u -! i -
b = E ? . ! . > >q g )
. . !
U"% m ^ O
===-
f,j .. )l k k'f o , t o 1;
~ . !I
.a a e - i i - -
y y > g.
- '
e-
..
8 .
1 = . - . . ' I - } 't - i, '.a . $ t{' g - - a .)
, - g [3
- U
. , I*ig h- ! e
d u _ _ i- _ _. i._ __ _ i _ -. _. _. i_.. _.. i.. i.
i.
t i t i it
5
i _ =ur i t - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ DUCT BANK DEFl.ECTION - d b T . L=100'-O' . - - _ , f'c - 3000 PSI Ea(HODIFIED FOR LONG TER CONSTANT RADIUS OF - 1,734 Ksl CURVATURE IS ASSUMED DEFLECT 10H PER ACI 3/8 -77 SECTION 9.S.2.5) FOR A DUCT BANK 43 " x 18 ' DEEP b WHEN STEEL YlELDS = 43 " FOR A DUCT BANK 54" x 35' DEEP b WHEN STEEL YLELD S z 15 " FIG.28 _ _. .. _ - _ - _- -
ll i .l t
' .
AR).
eQ g h .
r.
% np
_ j.
_ - %% ye ' . - - _ ql>:- }% . yk ) _ e e 'j .r x.
o e s.
e ,g ~ _ e.
a w . k ts t _
se re r ~ . s w , ~ ,.
- n
_- wP -h-t s
' L 5 7 .- l ,d, M ' - x ' - - , L n 5 8 A .M ', ,N - t h# . - , ~ N . , wy - w -
- o m
t ki hYm;- s - aM - ,\\hw a-u ta A . i,u . rw M } " eu x tr - ha )A' 4e w f
@lw h1A-
A 9 ^ - .
- ^ ' -
l - _ w
. il ' _ [ d . tiJM f 'Wa m\\- .g
c ,
- o
' w c
hhw .o w.
- N
' ,w A %NWw h .
L a t w ks <to u.
- P % .g . g si. k _.
- _ _ ..., I' F ; ., > e 3 0 s h / ' ' 3,s
- \\ r k .. s l,. , Q' gJa P , o ' u O}y' + - ( - t' s.'* ' t -- ' j
w , LN f - y x s A , I . / . _ - _. N _ c- ,,,,/
f - -
l
I ! g ..
i
r a ai ' r e w >g.
a,i ns i ss y s.
.
uu
szo ria w l, w2 ., "w 'ar i
'm,- a* c"* o . u" v _ c . _ ~ - ' s m. a% e dRh4
- y g
N64._ ge
- @
MN -,S= -- _6 ,_ e e p e
=- ~ ~ @ il e@ @ l
s s.
l t ?.. - ' o!* b'Y obf I r0# l oSiil o ;0f f i
.. .i.
@ l m !! i t ,1v h)O.' l
EY lC- ' - i
Sk ?:.? it = - - .. .. ,. - ss - su ... .,
R.
.) -4 'f 25.
, . h- - i .t i = N
v . N.,[- -- -,;
iK " - , l-( ) . '.n ,. , p g
, f & .i.ht_ \\E *
.
'-- .; S +;v.: T ~ g
L., ~,/',4}
! & , ' m
- e
.. $. g 4j g 'IFF L ,1.
"
- .;
' E i kl b. :'k
- .@@
? . M NJ b{
i
. $g$'N3p h l - e . mA . - > \\ c,k,l
'w., . . :tg h.x w z i , \\ >- "tW
- p
< ' .= \\ c4 9 e-a - , $[ s9.
Ek I I ' Q.:
- i \\ ~* b \\ \\ 5 '{g A.g: -- yp8d,_,1j.: 8@
' , i_ h . 4., .., -
- ,. 3., e%.
, i (s,,l..h..~- . sfu 0/ . . - $. ~ } \\. . - - a , . d ".,7 -h, @ d ? \\ \\ y t! p Q ',/ _ ' M \\ t l
'h, =-
~g S .
p x %.
k l ' . t 'l
i l,[x h ;*, @ Il > t a t I ' s . D'*lil}I.. w E' l '
g ' l I . arn - rin ni
- 4W9 Mvirric.ermir ff$ &
.... ... -- -- - p
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ... _ _ _ _..._. -_.
. . _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _. ,. - _ - - - _. - -. .- - - . . . ' . . . L K ~
.
1E CnAuf c0L.
sLos. col. 1? ' " - " 'fl Aux.aLoa.
l
ELECT. PEN AREA I TURBINE \\ hl . I Bl.DG.
l -
i i ' , I il ' ,
J" e d SHECTING WITN
. Gn0GT BENIND A.t , REQUlMfD i ' .*----)FEACTdR BLOG.
a DEWATERIN6 WELL
TURB/Hf RLDd.
. l \\, - y STEEt,4'=0* MIN.ACCES$) MEMBERS AT BASE SLA8 -- '"} 14. (,/4 *. 0 *A
\\- l TCP ( y'. l ' *-. * . ,.. unsa,T,,La.,,,,,, ... A- _
- .
. ..... . . . ' '
- a 4RE
y._,---__,, ._ 30/L,y g, PLACE,W/- , - -.. - - - - -. -,.. -.- -{, , gg yggg7 - i- .m --Q . J
. N - .* .
- I 3 K j
l . .,. ., . . . ,. ~% PsxM suPPoMr. - - - - - J .
< - i l
f s < . CMi&lNAL SLOPE l / V gg* g y p '.s* ' 3DrL PROTECTION - y ) _ , , 'y c0NcntTE g
r c s r - ! i
. 1, gj-4 - ' t . - , ~ 7 / CON 37" P50 ~fL'58W G'-s f ' PCMMAAlfMT SUPPORT -- -,- N , ^ . ]k_ ',
. _ . - - -. -. - ,. <_ , ,, q - -l ~'" ' FOR TURBINC BLDG * ' N ' {'"*^X i l TfM00N ' 6AtLEY
- eI t
e.
EL. 572' 3" , _ ,. L-- =-J. ' .. APROX. BOTTOM ""Wi'*' 0FCA16/NAL EXCAVATION TYP/ CAL SECT R& B/ . .p
- w-
= e
, . _ _ _, _ _, _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _
. . . . . fpuix au ar sq . ... ... .- . ~ . 3-t ..s.~,, . , N y / / / - '.- Y, ' / .} / ~. . [y\\ ,- p ' " " ' ' ,.. -' TEMP )RARY
/ VALYC PIT 3 . -' SUPPORT
' . vN - ,- v . , s _ < _.... L.1% 7 ;.A EXC VA*D "] {"" ' l4"!%,, C . asurusa-et*9^"**'"'"'*' -uu to n"'sa aw 8 - pe> > , a arma i . ~e -- i x - .., a,a,, a,, c.. my " ' ~ ,R b i-4 (na wra *.0 , L.
' I QK Q . ' ... , % ' 'b $ l' .- twit late- ^ , 9 y ' y? N.4 - a...:.,...%..,t k,y. $. v g< ,. Lw.,,+{---,\\ .. . .n.9 ~ / ,s , , - s: ;; , , <> s..,1 .r oa - - .se.m x.
s'#1. s. r. s . .. N'. r..,. . ... t,. e.. ,- y , w ..- . t:,f : - ..., . -
- -_s_g pf_f l._____
e ... , . ._ y . , .- , e g, .,,., ,, ,..j,,. , . , . ..t -,- ,.. yya.- r-+ - - -@ x,,. ww.
.. ),a wm / / / +'or / / - y' ,,, ~ ~ ~... ~.lu t' ~ g
- ~
. sa .- a m es o
'12cox . _ . < sz ,9 - - [ W l.S [2b ?.E g S g (3.s _ _ _ _ ___ h- -Q (4_) et dif*> 96 h8.
_ ! . 11 5 10 5 to' @l1 . y
- g 5, wir1&ssa.o x i
i (_ - -s fg ydwd; w awr*a 7.e 'twitym@ 6 -- T - ._;-' - ._. . - a:y war s o a:y > n '.
3) . . a:,. n . . e:y n 4f, , - g,,,s, .. . A
ar *s tn wn l ll IO
8 a,p,y 4 l2 PLAN - + La % .
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ., - - -.. - -. , . ~ EXISTb FOUND'N, ' ,..g..,. - ' . , ?.*b:A*ph.
. ' 7 N,...;'. h hs Y, - i . 3.._.
... _ __.
.o I-
- ~
I , 4' ' / W WEDGE'G
E STAND BRG lt, j .
7.,,e-. s w n w----~ ':-r
I - PILE ' PIER ! ~ ,, P CAISSON S TEP 1.
STEP 2 . , l . ! i i i I ii,!.: .m I ' l i WEDGES / - ln B. -JACKS i p r;,. !.
a , .+ I l I i , a I , , _.. w _.
, (O O _ t i sec ea - sec a-a . . STEP 3 STEP 4 PRESTRESS PROCEDURE R 6.
- . - _ _ - - - - - - _ - _ - ____ -_- _
. .. ' . - . . . , ~ STRUCTURES SUPPORTING SOILTYPE A. AUXILIARY Bull. DING Medium dense to very 1).
CONTROLTOWER - dense lad.d.
2).
UNIT 1 ELECTRICAL Dense to yerf dense and PENETRATION ARE4 with layers of loose sand and soft.qJay ' 3).
UNIT 2 ELECTRICAL Medium dense'to dense PENETRATION AREA HDd with medium stiff ^ ^
M um very dense sand.
B.
FEEDWATER IS01.AT10N ~ .. VALVE PITS 1.cose to dense sand and 1).
UNIT 1 medium stiff to very stiff slay.
2).
UNIT 2 As UNIT L C.
SERVICEWATER PUMP Soft to very stiff.qjay_and STRUCTURES loose to very dense sand.
m sW san @ & D.
BORATED WATER TANKS Medium to stiff sandy clay E. DIESEL FUELTANKS to.qjay.
F. DIESELGENERATOR Soft to stiff clay and loose SUILOING to dense lgad.
SUMMARY OF PREDOMINANT FlLL TYPE AND
CONDITION BELOWVARIOUS CATEGORY I STRUCTURES SUPPORTED ON Pl. ANT AREA FILL maz 1:- . .., _ _ -,, _.. - _, -, _... , - . - -.., e-- , .-,-<,- -
. - - . . e Liquefacticn; stress ratic bcsed cn estimated acce!ercticn O Liquefcction; stress ratio based en gacd occa!eraticn data o Nolicuefaction; stress retic bcsed en estimcted cccalerction O Noliquefceticn; stress rotic based en good ccceleraticn deta' , 0.5 , , i i , , , , / , , I
. .. ' - Lower bound for sites f where liquefcetica cccurred \\/ J.
' , y0.4 - / -
' N ,' W.
, e l . / - G / . . - e o e /
. / u
/ o
/ e o g ,3 . f _ . - _
e . ei .5
j e - u.
. ' e' O o 0.2 -
- e
- O g . u,
g e.
A o U , O
O - o 50.1 - x e g o - u e , s ' O I ' ' ' ' ' ' O
0
20
30
40 , N -blows per 'oct
CORRELATION SETWEEN STRESS RATIO CAUSING - UCUEFACTION IN THE F1 ELD AND PENETRATION RESISTANCE CF SAND. (cf ter Seed et ct) . Y' 7.3 f I l ._... ._.
_.... - - - - ' ~ l l [ .- - - , -. -
_ . I "N" VALUE - BLOWS PER FOOT
10
30
50
70
. (634) 0-DIESELGINERATOR BullEING Bottom of spread footing 628 ft.
., - -
.- ,, ,,
' ,, , ,, a
' ' .. b
9
.
.# - p ' p * '.,.
' l . . ,
d
,
. M~71 .
- MIDU6ND UNITS 1 & 2 7220 - 101 NORTilWEST AREA
i i Y.I ,",', STANDARD PENEIRATION RESISTANCE VERSUS
DEPTil FOR Tile NORTilWEST AREA 0F Tile DIESEL GENERATOR llulLDING . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __
. . - .. _ -... .- . -..... - -.. - -.... . .. .... . - _.
. . . "N" VALUE - BLOWS PER FOOT
10
30
50
70
(634)
I I . DIESELGENERATOR BUILDING ! Bollom of spreal fooUng i a ' ' '
a ' a a ~n & & ' " . .' ^ ^ '. ".. a E a-a / / a < 'Em '6 4 - \\\\ M~,7)
! - MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2
' 7220 - 101 NORTilEAST AREA ,
9) ' i ... i ti . [.i STANDARD PENEIRATION RESISTANCEVERSUS "I DEPTil FOR Tile NORTilEAST ARfA 0F Tile DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING ! ! ! - - -
____ _ - _ _ _ -. - . . "N" VALUE - BLOWS PER FOOT
10
30
50
70
0-i i RAILROAD BAY Top of slab 634.'5 ft.
Bottom of slab 630.5 it.
, " -
q- . . o '
l t $ . ! . . . f M* 7) '
<, g o g 20 -,-- q , ,
f " ' . o . p ,
f . o .a
3- -. o-o .o . , , ,
. . e AX - 2 ' . 7220 - 101 e AX - 1 . MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 e AX - 10 l I , ,
- 1
' ?A . STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE VERSUS ' ~ DEPIll FOR Tile AUXILIARY BUILDING - RAILROAD BAY . - _ __-
.-. .. .. -.. . _ _ - - .. _.
. . t l ' i l "N" VALUE - BLOWS PER FOOT l
10
30
50
70
0 . o . \\
o o i > O
l o .l
-q e .
! 'm
l I e " l r 3-
g 20 q g = , . , - I l y , ! M=7)
m e ( d \\ l '
CONTROL TOWER Bottom of slab 608.5it.
,
o AX - 9
7220 - 101 ' i e AX - 6 i MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 - = AX - 18 l l
- i
- 1
.!.!. STANDARD PENETRATION Bl.0WCOUNT VERSUS i . .
- n DEPTil FOR AUXILLARY BUILDING CONTROLTOWER t
>-
. k - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
_ _ _ _. ______ -
- , u
, . aw Q .
E . - S ' b ~ = g = @ " W
2 s- & g ! $
S -g i ea E ! @ E a@ s i e c ' t '& ' ,
I / , g ' $ Il / E I .! / i i ' a, ! /e ,g
! !E l { I ' l
i a ' N I /\\- / ' , sa r
g , -
l i' / i < i 'A ' , / .@
, . @i [ l __!-( / f -~$ - a ~ ye clT e e }n k J$ , , , .w , a , 4; , ,_ s l
h ' GSd) I'dGSS3'dd h30' DOS'd3A0 F'7JP.I 393 r - \\ .\\ t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _
. . . . - SG; , . . . . . . . "N" VALUE - BLOWS PER FOOT
40
80 100
g i i RELATIONSHIP BElviEEN STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE, _
RELATIVE DENSITY AND EFFECTIVE - CVERSURDEN PRESSURE {
td . d .. t.n m'
v: N.- e M
- O
q O o O( e , $ - -
2 o'~ g
o $
- a m a-C- G b 4 e
' - ,
- ll3 (RAILROAD SAY)
$ 7220 101 W MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 y O o AX-1 > - U-
- AX-2 mg e AX-10
i ~ ' '
\\ \\ \\ 90 % i 50 % '0% ! 30%i 60% 30 % . 20".
40 % ' r r a.: 39c . . . . . - . - . -. . . . . _- . -. -. - -
_ _ _ _ ____ . . . I .., . - , ' "N" VALUE - BLOWS PER FOOT ' - F
40
.T 100 '
- i i - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STANDARD . PENETRATION RESISTANCE,
' ' RELATIVE DENSITY AND EFFECTIVE ' j QVERBURDEN PRESSURE , ' .\\ - <coNTRcL Tc.ER, e.
s m,,, .d k - MIDLAND UNIT:1 & 2 lf { M \\ ! i-2 ! h \\ i m . l u . o - E i \\
m i = l = To.
. q " m . - G o C1.
! \\ \\_*
@4 , ,, I !
\\f
m E {
-
A ow5 > I o AX-9 ' y l .M4 $ e AX-18 , . ( 6-l .
I' b ' l \\ \\ 50 % 70 % 90% ,,0% t 6C% 30 % . = 20"i 40% . r ca.: m . \\ . .. . . . . . ___. _ _. _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -_ _ - _ _ _.__ _ _ - . . , . .. _.. .. -... _... -. _... .. _... _ _. _.... ...... +A ' ' ' < 1- = Q-LISTED AREA ! [
E X T ERIOR / I PERMANENT / ' l / l DEWATERING '[j l ' l SYSTEM / . i - s!. , t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, t . I , , ' ./n n' un's t' / / / / ag,a,7 /,/ '
, - [ j / at a ' ' l / / 4 MlLpAV / ' g aulLanne' 9ERMAN1i l / e e' / INTERib / I - l REACTOR REACT 0A' l DEmiER% , l , l / LDS / BLp0. ' g sygyg l
_ / ~! l I.
I - - -. l A064N ! RJBLINE* ' l DLDB.
/ /_,l // /* **/ / / ' ' - ' / '/ TuRSINE / SUILDING J / , l PEHMAIJENT I l ' ' , - l sNTERIOR piESgL gENEjt4TDJ'! / ' / DEWATERING f
lsysTEu / a.pdse ' ,/ , , f ., , , l y g. l,,. ?, -' ' sussus / m y y-SEgygCE \\ p' /j ,/ I .' WATER p ..g \\_ . l PUMP-P A l 8TRucionE , i - E X I E H10H j g PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM A .l CIRCULATING WATER e,i / INTAKE SiauCTuaE TD , n
.. _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ -__ -._ ... I I ~ l CLASS AuxlLIARY SUILD4NG TURBINE SUE. DING DeESEL TANK GENERATOR Sun. DANG PL ANT GRADE Q.- - IE LEVATION l w , g-l W[ \\ 634' . , q , (,y .- - . j-J - l l sEE DETAsL@ l , sEE DETAIL h . PERMANENT DEWAT ERING SYSTEM - . - - - - -, -. I SECTION A-A , F! l'l r.
- .
i
. _ l _ - - . ... _ , _ . SURFACE ELEVAr10 s p . - p {
r !* STEEL MANHOLE j 'l WITH COVER // l ,f m 4' p ' - - - f l
l l < r.LECrnic ceCemeCr swirCN
f ' ' f s PUMP DISCHARGE [ - ' / , p OISCHARGE / / l s - r, mLvE - . = , , - s , f k
- -- H EACE R PfPE
, - , .... h ELECTMic} ' [' ' d ' - - . ' I, j
- - < WERES .. l . / y I .
f " , .
RISER P!PE . . >
- SELECT SANO FILTER
_- _ __ w ___ , __ - _ _ . - - '
WELL SCMEEN . . - ~. ELEC*RIC W1Mt . .. S - PUMP AND WELL gC 28MERSISLE PUMP ig.] cs ut-Q ' (.* . I 7:CGI--4-l l ' _, _ _ _ . .... .. .. .-.
. . cAllonitor SNAwf= PiTLESS ADAPTERS FOR SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS-4" & LARGER WELLS ' In a snappy subnie sible pump installation, the well Snappy pitless adapters are certilled water-tight under casing is estended above smund, se excavation is the standards of the Pitless Adapter Division of the made around the casing and a hole is cut in the casing Water Systems Council (PAS.D.
below the frostline. The Snappy casing fitting is theo Scappy pitiess adapters are available for well sizes attached to the casing aroiand the hole to provide a from 4 to 5 inches !.D. and for drop and delivery pipe delivery pipe. The pump, suapended from the snappy sizes of 1 and 11/4 inches I.D. with either ciamp.on drop prpe litting, is lowered into the won with the or weld.on casing Gttings.
neck of the dmp pipe fitting pointed toward the casing Gtting. When the neck reeshes the level of the casing FEATURES fittlag, the 5asppy actassor autoesticsity laserts the FRQ57PR00P No heating required. All water con.
duits see burimi below froshe.
neck with as O ring seat lato a socket la the casing Gtting and locks it there thus providing hods a support PUh6P 15 EA511.Y SET - by simply lowering pump for drop pipe and pump withis the wed and a Guid into weH suspended from dmp pipe Gtting with neck tight conduit between the dmp pipe and the discharge of the latter pointed is the casing Gtting direction.
PWP 15 WRY PURED -- W f'mwW rat suppo ed teh a o en th eck ite drop pipe with hoist. and then manually puning con.
drop pipe fitting is unlocked and withdrawn from the I"I ** * ** E ** '* socket by a manual pull on the conarol cable thus re.
t.0W COST - Regular well easing is used all the leasing the drop pipe fitting from the casing Gtting so way.
Extra cost of larger upper weil casing used that the pump can be lifted out with the hoist.
with spooidype units and expensive pit or weil house Snappy pittees adapters with weld.oe casing fitting construction are eliminated.
are approved by the Boards of Hesith of 3Eichigma and CORRO510N PROTECTION - C:arnp.on and weld. ort 71scanssa.
However. 71sconsta approval requires casing Gttings are galvanized gray iren and stainiess factory solding of the essing Gtting to the well casing steel respectively. All parts within the well casing except for :esidential water systems serving no :nore are either hot dipped galvanszed or constructed of than three fam Iles.
corrosion resistant :natertais.
Continued (' _ _.. _.. . _.. -.. .._ . _. ... S'" ia , ....,i ', - .. b (N[. .l #
ca e.,, .- ['y '{ ruaies , ' -, ! ! M ' !! p d (u.
. d\\
- m :
l
- i
' F m u a-
r. _ a.
.l.'I.
h I, ' i i a.
x
- v'
x .cn== - t i r2 ., i i= . , ,,.ess
"J" - ,,, mi i [ j [eb y [h ~#- ' ! "
4 E _ _I) F" i l t J... s .a! I .1 _.
,.e.
ir ~ .
- _.a
T e , TEl.ATED U.S. PATgNTS: 3.035.732 3.054.02: 3.t:3.335 2.'128.0s: 2.155.070 2.*23.007 2.4*2.373 3.7** 386 2.3C2.d: ) !VANSVtt.l.g. #tSCONSIN 5 5',8 l ~n r
- HCNg: iSCSI 1825100 f
i recniax civinen F'~CP.I -I s i i ' - . ._ .. -. - .. _,. _. -, - . . _ _. -,, _ _. _.
...
.. . , )
m . ' 29s 5w J < W ' Z W J b W < Z
W
C A CD - H L
d
J y W W W
H
<n .. , e9 k i 9P T . u.... n......... u.. n l ,,,,,, ...............,,,., . , i .O _- - C3 - l Ja.
I W Q.
~L
- t l
l N ' .J,
>\\ l $j . O . O i l - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -.
___.. _ _ _ _ - _ _ . - ,
STRI.'CTI!PliL I?WESTIG!TIO;,' , (1) ORIGI!iAL DESIGi! (2) SEISiiIC fiESP0f SE . s (3) NEW NiALYSES 7 ::7. - 5 __ _ _ _ _ _ _.. , - . . . . _
0 SEISMIC A!!ALYSIS GENERAL (1) RESP 0.'iSE SPECTRA PRESE!TED IN FSAR (2) STICK PASS E0DELS ',IITH FOUNDATION SPRI:!GS (3) !%TERIAL DAf: PING YALUES PRESE!TED I;i FSAR (E0DAL DAMPIHG LIMITED TO 10% EXCEPT RIGID EODY EODES) C' ) SPECTRUii RESPGliSE A!!D TII:E HISTORY EODAL Ai!ALYSES
DIESEL GE!EDATOR BUILDIi!G (1) ORIGINAL (V = 1?E0 fps) - ONE A.'!ALYSIS EQUIPME!T SPECTRAWIEb!EDBYt15% (2) flEl (V = 500 Fes) - !!S1 SPECTRA WILL EiVELOP E0TH V=530F?SA.'!DI?E0 FPS s . O = . . m .. . . ... . _
_ _ _ _ _ i L . I - . . SEIS!IC NiALYSIS ' t - SERVICE WATER BUILDIi!G ' (1) ORIGINAL (L = E50 fps EASE CASE) TiiEi G VARIED . BY t 50% - $0UI?i!E!T SPECTFA E!VELOP (2) i!&l (V = UE0 Fes) - PILIliG IS MOD 9 R FOR VERTICAL - DIRECT!03A;!DTORSI0iiISC0::SIDERED AUXILIARY BUILDIi:G (Incwns C0?!TF.0L TO',fER #1lD ELECTRICAL PS!ETRATIOi AREAS (1) ORIGINAL - 0:!E N!ALYSIS USli!G COM?0 SITE FOU?; DATIO:! SPRI!!GS WITli EQUIFIEli RES?0:!SE SPECTRA WIDE;ED SY 15% (2) l1B1 - O!!E Ai!ALYSIS ItlCLUDI:!G CAISSONS UiDEP. ELECTRICAL PEiETFATION AREAS, EQUIPEE!T RESP 0i!SE SPECTRA WIDE!ED SY t 15% i nnz -:
~ -_
_ . . .
TYPES OF LOADS PRIliARY 1.
PEC!!AllICAL (DEADLCAD, PRESSURE, HI:iD, ETC.)
- 2.
SEISiiIC I:!ERTIA (EUT S'iORT DURATIC.'!) r 3.
MISSILE II' PACT a PIPE RU?TURE (LI:i!TED EiERGY) SEC0!!DARY - 1.
INTEPl!AL SElf CONTRAI?!T (A) SEISiilC DISPLACEiEiT (CYCLIC) (s) TliERFAL (CYCLIC) 2.
Sta itJIEIT (1/2 CYCLE) . 3.
FORiilNG (1/2 CYCll) r::czz. ~ ' -
. . MIDLA!!D DESIG3 CRITERIA FSAR . (A) 1.40 + 1.7L (a) 1.4 (D + L + E ) +... a (c) 1.25 (D + L 4 W) +... (a) 1. 0D + 1. 0L + 1. 0Ess + (E) 1. 0D + 1. 0L + 1. 0Wp +... ADDITIO!AL CRITERIA (A) 1.0ED + 1.28L + 1.05 SET (s) 1.4D+1.4 SET (c) 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0W + 1.0 SET (a) 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0E + 1.0 SET a D: DEAD LOAD Ess: (SSE) EART"CL'A':E L: LIVE LOAD W_: TOE!AE0 E: (CEE) EART:iCL!AKE SET: S' i i LEI'EliT t o W: DESIG?i '!IMD i . e b + _ .
i .
O O O J n , i m= sm T ~1 ' % _----_ - s _ __ _9 O <8 i = m= i i
5g g i e_. 3 2
=
I w e gg g______.
e ,_____- g I *G * O O z -
G w - - i i g - m m ' - $E$ I ' o. - - - _ - _,_ _ _ _ _ '. O s
e - m < 9m = ' _ - w i g ar c-o i c zd <w3 3 w I . .I _.
M I I Im = y Oe de___.____,
50 eSe
= ._.
o c., m o o w' l-- >-- C -, - O O g g _ zgm . . - _ m < Z f Z - w ew O.
" C
C __
-ga ~_ _-_ , I
- -
w c-w I m w m z I w
l 3 0 w- . - l 1, l Q @ $Q i a -_ -___., _ _ _ _ _ _n_ w - O - - - . , , i ( ~ f -l.
cw------- ___ _ _-@ i _- i i i . i \\ l b = __--___ me _- e.o a.s a.m# .-r V.
- O , e e e t / . e - -% ---, , ---w g--w,- -,, - -
ern<-m-w w-
-'ww w'y-M f w--*-'=e---ur-=-'
r-*w
=v--ve--we N----4+=--W =---m'w-we W+-T w - gt'*--'--- u-- '-are-* F---*-2-
U i O . + 000 o zw A S_ C Oo O _mc 3d= J $8 ' ' O -=
f ~1.
g r--- qpoo g ga - S - - _ _ _ _ _ _., og.
s i i 5m - - I
o2 O I 3.w g . I c- - o 't__ Y _ _ - C E Ci - -" g5 o _ . Q 0000 - i i g - O ~' I [ .. oc o m a mm , - - _ - - -, - - - - -, E_ w a ,
m a =0 !
_
- 2-l m
~ $Ug - og i m z = 0o i I m m a $ <e <m o I J g
m C ' - - - - y __ E_c - m
m h *$a ~,. _ ~ ' ' -> g M.
_ l"mC U O 2 - iC i w !. $ III, C i m f C (
'
c m2w e - " - * * * * " * g W'W U = s__.
Q
! , - t I $ Iw o g
2% I n C - mGw = o i c i _ MM% I p_ _ J COO C L "'~' C ' " - _ . - . i - I I [ - , C - ~ . C 5' ] r -@-- _-- 9 o_o_o_-- -
l l -~ l I o O o =. soc 3e C i _____- , f
C
C oc o o C . C C T = ?.I r- _.
m -, - .c--- --,y-y-,.--%---.rW-"=,e-w - - -. g-w+-Ay--.g-a,---y9
w..ee.
-e.-- -wwww-me+ye-we,e-e --w--u. awed
.w----e---,w.e--. =-
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - l . , . 4 4 , ! }' J - , ,
4
( ' l F
44 " ' J L.
s _4_ _ _4, ____.
i =
3 I I I I C =.4 l
2 ( _- . e--- J
4 444 a @3 444 - . _= _ _ i i g e g" - C W 4 4 CO ( p d
> . _w - _ - 3- - 4, z< < g.- - _ _ _ m $ g oc -_ b d_ l O I Z 4 4 I a e.
i , ww - A
1
=C d - = m: -
i f.. - _.- J mw
4 ~ i._ - _ _ _ _ %
gg j , s$ 2C ' _ . ~~~ L - , , a i - - ~ F
O b- .3 w > Z - o .nc w r= _--
4 4 i
,
a
- -
I w
I g m W _ l w % O
Co - l L I C 1w g .) L - - __ _s p - . _ _
I I , f - l.
, . e__-__ -
EN
4 I I
l - ~ l -- j
L_ __. sTg f ~1
4 TUL"8.I 52 _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
-_- -__ ._ , - . . U C
m C >g w.
1 .
(-______ s___ _n . l l g tJ -
M Q l g > i mM g I Eh L I H
,______; z c t-- @ w C_ --s , p ! - g. =u m . O _ _
s 3 9 ' ' - = , - (
[ C-2 C . x w Q o.n p_
g---_ q g e .. V t W i g_ _ I t C1 g - -
i 2 C { .I g l Cc I C2 -
== H M c L_, I
l c2
- - as
.. ge '______s
J es e
t a Nc _ > & - g Cg , - aw _ ' ' - w "' z-2 w Cw e-e , w -- g.
s__3 gw w =" g J t.n I m I w w - i C_ I _ g L I C M C g t, _,___, ----- J _,,_ a _ - ___ I I i
.. 5~ 3 e
.____--
I -
I - I I
I I
- l i
__; ,_ e _ _ _ _ _, F
7:m n _ _ _ _ _ - - -.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_ ! t . i l
y3 ' % , G2.d i y ' . - ga %:5 - . .. .
- r
>5 ,4,. ' ' . n.== y3 - a . e b.. a. e ~ / $0 ed M t '. w . . $>,q w2 o
ih l i-4g*$!!
a %; 2 7 ". ' - l $ .z_dh, .) 95g ' . l.
- 5 h:=%;". f.
a 5 _, <a - . ,, . j
- s o w
. '? !,;8 ' . -
. ~
g
. . . - .x-z 5w - .
. ac ,, . T . .T . ,. - g c,, ' , .,y
- ,
i o -, . . , . d ' he 1> $ Il a '
/ - o w . , I ,
r . . - . ~
' ' { /,, -lj $ g' }, y /
I i " -lt lfI
- f
/
' s -
! g
g ? vN \\ . e i 3- . /
r - , \\ u ~ s . a l i !g!!// C E ' E
- : i
<
y / is !.
f . - r s .y ' W aJ n, g' a. y - i.,, - o, s
- yN F
C :
- :-
. ,,,,
a- , $)7 ' ' = $ '
- e a w.
, o d3 J,1 - - f , =s
yd r
> +$ 5 I' - " c- - ',' V " -
e g3
- ;
c t.
-
gg-
+ .
- -
<<a
=. - - - . , + .J $2 C
CU "- * e e f E' y $ g3 $ " 'J' 8 -J > , < 5s E s - .a - =
y ,
- - . n . c $.../ , - - m.
- ~,*.
1 - 3. 6 r" a o
- ha.E wH I $ E '
9i {' #
- 8
"nt$183 '
. . [2
- !
!
t - d m
- * * * j2 a ~ < -
.0 a t: :: : e4 : : ' 2224*29tvn1vne 43 * t, LN N ]M.2d,' Jgg trJAy "1.s N o t 4T A J*.3 ..
- ^ ^ #-
? '* $ r - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - -. _ _
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _.
__- __ _ _ -... . __ _ . s
NO. of SUPPORTING PLANNED i STRUCTURE BORINGS FILL TYPE REMEDIALMEASURES I A.
AUXILIARY BUILDING l 1).
CONTROL TOWER
SAND NONE* l 2).
UNIT 1 ElICTRICAL ! PENETRATION AREA
SAND & CLAY UNDERPINNING ' 3).
UNIT 2 ELECTRICAL i PENEIRATION AREA
SAND & CLAY UNDERPINNING i 4).
RAILROAD BAY
SAND NONE -
B.
FEEDWATER IS0lATION . VALVE PITS - j 2).
UNIT 2
SAND & C Y RP N l C.
SERVICE WATER PUMP.
i STRUCTURE - PORTION ON FILL
CIAY & SAND UNDERPINNING !
- GROUTING IS PLANNED BELOW MUD NOT AT AX - 9.
.., hb ~ ' i (*8 l
SUMMARY OF FILLTYPE AND - I PLANNED REMEDIAL ACTION
- I
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - NO.of SUPPORTING PLANNED STRUCTURE BORINGS FILL lYPE REMEDIALMEASURES , ' D.
TANKS 1).
DIESEL FUEL OIL l ' ' STORAGE TANKS
CLAY NONE 2).
BORATED WATER STORAGE TANKS
CIAY NONE E.
DIESELGENERATOR . BUILDING
SAND & CLAY ' SURCilARGE F.
UTILITIES 1).
PIPING
SAND & CIAY NONE 2).
DUCTBANKS
SAND & CLAY NONE' 3).
VALVE PITS
SAND & CLAY NONE l l .
- - < H < E! SUMMARY OF FILLTYPE AND
PLANNED REMEDIAL ACTION . _. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
- -. _ -- G " - m g,% e .we a a-O S ., f " .. . =- d
@ds ' d i e ,a pe > s >9 - ~ C ,
. e* k ' l
, ' e m , l i
- O - .
wy NW I ?
h h
- g l
I
' A -
- g e
I af.
' , d 7,F_. e -- ig: e , , D . i O 't p l $ ' '
> . l
s
2 ! $* i _.. _ _ _ . _ _ . , ! u, o i .s e ff ' '. - - , L _1 _.
i ! - l 7 xr - , ~...
-. - . __ . l _ __ _ _ _ __ -.. -. . -. - . -
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ __
- e S
O O _ _.. . ..a,-. - -... - -
4 "L o 8-ig g l y
- r______
- . , . - < , Eo i ! l5 - EE ! $ l
' g
o , .
- $
e, t s ' y $" $ --
8 s < 2: m'
+
fg . e ! .
- ? .
g -
- '
!l
.
- f
! L ! [, '
$__. 1 { .. G h k $5 ' ' s $, a ,._{' S
v.
g- = = g :,
g ,,, g - - s i gr ' .oV gy& - -
N d W E w---- J5 m-5l - ii Igo o e
-o e - s l lsll j'3 g/d $11o e Ado
l-ig" 31,5 g ge ,o is-e. ! -_tM _ __ 20 '
==u _ O we = = - me +.ame =. s
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -- a 9- _ . . I l . ee se-o l
go
- ga
. p________._____ ' l>,e ,
_, f
$~$
,o* O g . @ ,g- . , E $h $N3 ' o r y J . g - oi
c_ _ _ __ __ __ _ q ) _ f ', y g o a iS f g$3 .a S .
e," d
ll .P
- 3 go
f
1o2s i jiit $d wg . ( $
Y g26
- I
5 fi a b $ i '
g . g -
E ! g S __.
- MMM 6MMM_ h $g[ rz
- . , + _ .m-, = - - n.- oe~ - -- ..., -, . =n n - . . -.-.. -. _ _ _ _ _ _____________.____ ___
ms_ .,- N en we ~'~ ~ - -. - - , I ' . . - - - -. 5 ; - a , f 4.) I ' A c /$ f
E
. ,
si e rla/sd s w
g , --
i
s I#hdhi ).. ! $. ll sg I . !g li . . . . &
<> _.g._ o s-. j.
s. ( = ;a g R t ^ a l p
m -- y
h HIC 2.s* . p o s-x g g , - -- s , } :i
g o SO
- .- a gc,) g 5 !' i g "lb> !! ~ s
t gi 3 l f
3,d ! o
h l; fik I -- g o e - e - , , - .
o a .g E.
$. ll s s,.T . i _ _. _ _ I $I__ _ _.__g t aI _.
_ l s ' .=za u . - . . ' ., _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _..,. _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _. _.. _. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ -. - . . . - - -- _ - _ _ , . __. _ _.,_
_ _ _ - - - _ - - - . . . .- . l . CRITERIA FOR IMSUFFICIENTLY COMPACTED PLANT AREA FILL - (On a "To Date" Basis) , . .
- SETTLEMENT GREATER THAN EXPECTED
! l
- RESULTS OF 50lLS INVESTIGATION
, i G 06ub 23
D id a
- - - _.
__ .-. .- .- . - - - . .- -. . - . . . - , -
l - . - - SEISlalC CATrinohtv I . . ! - STRUCTURES OCd FILL .- . . ! i e AUXlLIARY RUILDING(Parl) -
- SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE (Part)
- RETAINING WALL AT SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE
, ) i -
- BORATED WATER TANKS
, i !
- EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS
' , ' ! !
- SERVICE WATER PIPE LINES AND VALVE PITS j
- FW ISOLATION VALVE PITS i
.
- DIESEL GENERATOR RulLDING
- ELECTRICAL DUCT HANKS (Pari)
hl
- EMERGENCY DIESEL FUEL OIL & BORATED WATER LINES El C
- i
, ' , I {
l - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - .- . . - - , . INSUFFICIENTLY COMPACTED PLANT AREA FILL , WHAT is . Is Not Distinellons Channes . DG Bldg Aux Bide Time Differential Control between Placement Tower of Flil and Constr of
Facility Diesei Tank Area Plant Area Plant Fill Not Dike Placement Method Dikes Controlled Borated Storage Tank Area ' Specification C-211 Lift Thickness '. SW Pipelines I ' Aux Bid 0 Elec Pen Areas Moisture control , FW isolation Viv Pits SW Pump Structure (Part) Frost Protection Aux Bide RR Bay Materials Structural Backfill Emer0 Diesel Fuel Lines introduced Borated Water Lines (Spec C-211) Elect Duct Banks (Part) , il h} SW Viv Pits Acceptance criteria Helled on Testin0
omum ' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -
__ _ _. _ _ . _.. _ _ _ ._ _ __ _ _ _ !
- ' . . . ! -
I j - ' p INSUFFICIENTLY COMPACTED PLANT . ' AREA FILL J WHERE AND EXTENT . ' . is . Is Not Distinctions Changes ! f Plant Fill Area Plant pit.e Small Areas increased Test Frequency
and Location
" Different Contractor (Bechtel) , ! , Struct Backflit introduced ! , . Hand-Held Equipment ' i
i Nonuniform Compaction Methods - , j Open to Cooling Molsture intrusion in Ground I { Pond
i G069fbOF '
..
' k ! D t*l { h ! i i
.. _ _ _ ~ . ' y . i i INSUFFICIENTLY COMPACTED PLANT ' AREAFILL WHEN . la is Not Distinctions Chances . During Placement Pond Filled 3178 Moistura intrusion
, of Plant Fill !ssed Stockpila for Weathered Material - .Dorrow aller'3f 77 - . Initial Moistura i l
content
.. . Material in ' - - ' Stockpile? 1977 Dry Year Final Moisture Contant Late in Sacklill Own Walght ' Operation Settlement (Cales) 'i I g a een o.
... On' _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .-_-
_. __.. _. _. .__ -- __ ___.
- _ _. - .__ _ _. _. _ - _.
_ .
.
! .
- l.
INSUFFICIEtJTLY COMPACTED PLANY ' - A HEA FILL (Cont.)
' WAIEN , , , - I l la
la Not Distinctions Channes ! Durine OC Chan0ed to Susveillance inspection
- Placensent of in Susanter 1978 Procedures i Plant Fill - Personnel ! .
Quaillications
,
Canonia OC ProGrant I Discontinued SlF7 , . Canonle Worked 8777 - el77 I j Chan0ed Moisture Control ' Method 8l77 - 3178 ' i 1' . 1974-75 Slowdown Personnel - Mohllization
} Bactitel '! U. S. Testine , Spec C-211 lasue:t & Revised to Include Clay Materials N H l4 $s a o. a o.
-4 r i < -. - _. __
. . . . .. - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - . . .- ' . - POSSIBLE CAUSES s Possible ' - - Distinction or Chan,ge cause Comments 1.
TIME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NO Cannot Cause insufficient . PLACEMEMT OF FILL AND Compaction - CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITY 2. PLACEMENT METHOD , Lift ThicknesslCompactive Effort YES Equipment Capability Excseded in Corialn Areas Compaction Equipment VES Equipment Capability Exceeded in , Certain Areas Type of Materiala NO Compatibility Confirpied , Moisture control NO Period of inadequale Moisture Control Occurred after All but Top Few Feet Compacted Compaction by Flooding NO Problem Occurs in Clays Also 3.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA: NO Testing to confirm TilEORETICAL COMPARISON OF DMP COMPACTION VERSUS ... } SETTLEMENT )d - i , ., 9; aceos as . .. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ - -- - - - - -- - - _,
-__ -- .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _. _ - _ .
\\ , POSSIBLE CAUSES (Cont.)
Possible l Distinction or Change Cause Comments l . 4.
SPECIFICATIONS NO 5.
SOILS TESTING YES Investigation in Process ' Methods . Equipment flesultslReports flotests Reviews / Evaluations i Personnel , . 6.
TEST FREQUENCY FOR SMALL NO Problem not confined to Small ARGAS Areas 7. DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS . ' Personnel Qualificallons NO See #18 Different inspection Methods YES See #15 Placement Methods YES See#2 l .
- !
Ej o o.m o.
t *1 , J': ____________-__--- _
- }}