ML19347D980

Requests Answers to Listed Questions Re Procedures & Methods Used in Siting Plant on Flood Plain

ML19347D980
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	04/01/1981
From:	Gadler S MAPLETON INTERVENORS
To:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8104140561
Download: ML19347D980 (2)

Text

% t Stev J. Gadler, P.E. 2120 Carter Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Telephone: 646-5005 5c-%9,T30-@

4 DOCKET NUMBER April 1, 1991 b e'

A

&^&uw '*'

ll \ n fn"o r -

UsNRc & W<l, % Q li/

4 vw 4 d C

40 APR 101981 Mr. Joseph Hendrie B5 -

--i 's 7, e,#' %.j O /S U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Offce of the secrutry

• ,p Washington, D.C. 26555  % ' Samc8 6

& f' N N .W% g A /{'Il

Dear Mr. Hendrie:

A q.

n twAg -

d 12 Recently, intervenors in the Midland Nuclear Plant Hearings requ information be furnished to the Mapleton Intervenors regarding scien-tists and engineers and studies involved in siting the Midland Nuclear facility on the flood plain across the river from the Dow Chemical Manufacturing complex within the City of Midland.

Serious questions have arisen with respect to improper siting pro-cedures and methods used in siting the Midland Nuclear plant on a flood plain, and therefore the potential hazard to public health and safety.

It is incumbant upon the NRC to show that all due care was taken, not only in actual construction, but in the initial design for this site, to consider special hazards such a site might pose. Geologically, the instability of flood plains is well known. There are a number of factors which should, among others, have been considered and accounted for. Some of these are:

1. What are the rates of ground water flow at the site, and direction of this flow?

2. What hydrostatic pressure differentials would be encountered by foundations laid here?

3. What is the chemical composition of the ground water?

4. What is the potential for liquidifaction or other decomposition and destabilization of the type of foundation composition and .

construction in this site?

5. What is the stability of soils and/or rock in which the foundation footings are sited?

6. What potential alterations in the surrounding groundwater'might reasonably be expected to result from contamination of the ground-water from nearby potential sources of pollution, and what might be the effects upon the stability of the surrounding soil and rock and the foundation materials?

7. What is the 100 - year flooding potential for"this site? And;what' effect might maximum flood levels have on all the above' questions?

8. What are the levels of seismic activity for this site?

9. Have geological engineering maps been prepared for this site prior to construction which show the potential for earthquake activity and expectable intensity thereof?

10. With regard to underlying bedrock beneath the floodplain materials, what is its composition? Are salt layers or layers of fluctuating hydrostatic pressures present?

, ..)y t .

810,41.4o5 % 6 6

- . = _ . _ _ . -

k

11. Who were the scientists, engineers, geologists involved in the siting?

12. What studies did they make?

13. If so, will studies be made available to Intervenors?

These are some of the questions which must be addressed, and should

.. ave been addressed, prior to construction. It is encumbant upon the NRC to provide information to the Mapleton Intervenors.

Sincerely,

• N Steve J. Gadler, P.E.

Technical Consultant to Mapleton Intervenors cc: Mr. Wendell H. Marshall President, Mapleton Intervenors I

w l -

l l

l _ _ . _ _