ML20040F442
| ML20040F442 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1982 |
| From: | Hood D, Kane J, Singh H ARMY, DEPT. OF, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040F437 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8202090202 | |
| Download: ML20040F442 (45) | |
Text
s, 02/05/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL
)
50-330 OM & OL (Midland Plant Units 1 and 2)
)
1 TESTIMONY OF DARL HOOD, HARI NARAIN SINGH, AND JOSEPH KANE CONCERNING THE REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR THE B0 RATED WATER STORAGE TANKS Q.1 Please state your name and position.
A.
My name is Darl Hood.
I am a Senior Project Manager in the Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
My name is Hari N. Singh.
I am a Civil Engineer in the Geotechnical Branch of the Engineering Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, Chicago.
My name is Joseph Kane.
I am a Principal Geotechnical Engineer in the Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Q.2 Have you' prepared statements on your professional qualifications?
A.
Yes, copies are attached as Attachments 1, 2 and 3.
g~.gceda 0? LCM p
~$
,r go_
8202090202 820205 PDR ADOCK 05000329 T
PDR d
. Q.3 Please state the nature of your responsibilities with respect to the Midland Plant.
A.
I, Joseph Kane, have served since November 1979 as the technical monitor for the interagency contractual agreement between the NRC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter the Corps).
By this contract the Corps has been assisting the NRC Staff in the safety review of the Midland Plant in the field of geotechnical engineering.
In my official position at NRC and as contract technical monitor, I am involved in the safety review for the Midland Plant, particularly with respect to assessing the adequacy of remedial measures proposed by Consumers to correct the plant fill settlement problem.
I have assisted Mr. Hood and Mr. Singh in the preparation of this testimony.
I have also been actively involved in the Staff's concurrence to permit Consumers to proceed with surcharging the valve pits.
I am responsible for the answer to Questior 15 in this testimony.
I, Darl Hood, am the Project Manager for the Midland Plant application for operating licenses.
I have served in that position since August 29, 1977, when the application for operating licenses was tendered to the NRC for acceptance review. My responsibilities include management of the Staff's environmental and radiological safety reviews.
I am responsible for the answers to Question 5 through Question 7 in this testimony.
. I, Hari Singh, became involved with the Midla. ' nh at in May 1980, when I became the Corps' lead reviewer on the geotechnical aspects of the Midland Plant. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission had signed an interagency agreement in September 1979. This agreement requires the Corps to provide technical assistance to the NRC on geotechnical engineering aspects for the foundation design of structures at the Midland Plant. On May 7,1980, I joined the Corps' team of engineers and geologists from the Geotechnical Section of the Detroit District, who were engaged in reviewing the foundation design of the plant. As the full-time lead reviewer, my responsibilities were to coordinate with all Corps reviewers, examine their comments, perform my own review, discuss comments with the Section and Branch Chiefs, and prepare final letter reports for transmittal to the NRC.
I am responsible fo> answers to Question 4 and Questions 8 through 14 in this testimony.
Q.4 What is the purpose of this testimony?
A.
This testimony concerns the geotechnical engineering aspects of the design of the Borated Water Storaga Tanks (BWSTs) for the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, and covers the following topics:
(a) Brief description and chronology of events related to the plant fill problem under the BWSTs.
(b) Remedial measures proposed by the Applicant, and the Corps of Engineers' evaluation of these measures.
i
. (c) Applicant's boring and laboratory testing, and the Corps of Engineers' evaluation of the information submitted by the Applicant.
(d) Evaluation of the Applicant's foundation design for the new ring walls.
(e) Conclusions and responses to contentions.
Q.5 What are the functions of the BWSTs?
A.
These tanks provide the initial source of borated water for the emergency core cooling system and the containment spray pumps in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident or a steam line break accident.
Delivery of some of this water to the containment is also needed to establish a sufficient net positive suction head for recirculation cooling flow to the core after a loss-of-coolant accident. This borated water source is used as well for controlling core reactivity during various accidents and normal operating modes, and is used during refueling. After refueling, the water is returned to the tanks and may contain a small amount of radioactivity.
Q.6 Describe the BWSTs at the Midland Plant.
A.
The Midland Plant has two separate and identical BWSTs, one for each reactor unit. Both are located outdoors in the " tank farm area" north of the Auxiliary Building, as shown in Attachment 4.
The tank serving Unit 1 is located at the west side of the tank farm and is designated 1T-60; the tank serving Unit 2 is located at the east side of the tank farm and is designated 2T-60. The tank farm area
. is enclosed by a reinforced concrete wall or dike whose function is to contain the spread of raficactive fluids if released by the tank.
The top elevation of the dike wall varies between 637'6" to 640'.
The bottom of the tank is at elevation 635'.
The tank farm area also includes two other tanks, but these are not safety related.
The BWSTs were fabricated by Graver Energy Systems, Inc.
Each tank has a volume of 67,959 cubic feet, and stores about 500,000 gallons of borated water with a minimum concentration of 2,270 parts per million at atmospheric pressure. The solution will be maintained at a minimum temperature of 40* Fahrenheit. Each tank consists of a cylindrical shell 52' in diameter and 32' in height. The bottom 8' of the shell is 3/8" in thickness, while the upper.24' is 1/4" in thickness. The bottom of each tank is a circular plate,1/4" in thickness, essentially flat with a slope (deadrise) of 1/8" per foot toward the center before initial loading. A self-supporting umbrella-shaped roof, 3/10" thick, is welded to ring girders at the top of each tank, and rises 6'9-3/8" above the shell at its center.
All tank material is type 304L stainless steel. The tanks are designed to ASME Code Section III, Subsection NC, Class 2 Components. The tank is also designed to American Petroleum Institute Code API-650.
. As shown by Attachment 5 the tank botton is supported by a reinforced concrete ring wall filled with compacted sand. The upper 6" of sand is oiled. The ring wall has an inner radius of 24'.
It is 4'6" high and l'6" wide, with spread type footings that are 4' wide and l'6" high. A compressible 1/2" thick fiberboard impregnated with asphalt (known commercially as Celotex) is located between the tank bottoms and the ring walls. Forty evenly spaced anchor bolts,1-1/2" in diameter, are embedded along the periphery of the foundation ring wall, and anchor the tank to the foundation by anchor bolt chairs attached to the base of the tank.
Each tank foundation also includes a valve pit (larger for Unit 1 than for Unit 2) which provides access to the piping connections to the tank and houses valves for the fill and drain lines (Attachment 6).
Each valve pit is 10'8" high and extends 4'8" below the bottom elevation of the ring wall foundation. The valve pit walls are l'6" thick; the top slab is l'6" thick; the bottom slab is 2' thick. A depth transition from 6' to 10'8" occurs at each intersection of the ring wall and valve pit to provide a continuous ring wall through each valve pit. The tank foundations are designed to seismic Category I requirements.
Q.7 Describe the chronology of events related to the plant fill problem under the BWSTs.
A.
After July 1978, following discovery of the questionable plant fill, the Applicant began a program of field studies in various areas of l
. the site.
By 50.55(e) Interim Report 3 to Management Corrective Action Report (MCAR) 24, submitted by cover letter dated January 5, 1981, Applicant informed the Staff'of the locations within the tank farm area of:
(1) Bechtel borings of August through October 1978, and (2) a test pit. Subsequently, in Interim Report 4 to MCAR 24, submitted by cover letter dated February 23, 1979, the Applicant-stated:
Action required for Seismic Category I structures on plant fill were discussed with Dr. R. Peck, Bechtel's consultant, in a meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on December 8, 1978. A discussion of the current status of these Seismic Category I structures is given below.
a)
Tank Farm Field studies in the tank fam area show generally stiff to very stiff clay backfill with some soft zones and occasional medium to very dense sand backfill over natural soils. Current plans involve filling the tanks and measuring structure settlements. Loading duration will be determined based on predictions of future settlements. No surcharge in addition to tank loading is planned, but settlement measurements will be continued after completion of preloading.
The present foundations for the BWSTs were constructed between July 1978 and January 1979, prior to Applicant's submission of these reports.
The Applicant, in 50.55(e) Interim Report 7 to MCAR 24 submitted by cover letter dated September 5,1979, described the results of an investigation of the effects of air bubbles observed in the southern part of'the tank farm area which were generated by a leaking
. underground air line at about elevation 611 feet. The report stated:
In order to investigate possible damage to the compacted fill in the area and potential limits of removal of any unsatisfactory material, five borings and one inspection pit were made. The locations of the borings were generally near points where air bubbles were noted. The inspection pit was located near the Seismic Category I east borated water storage tank (BWST). Locations of the new borings are shown in Figure 91.
The borings indicate that the material below the top 4 feet is satisfactory and consistent with previous investigations at the tank farm area.
The top 4 feet of material at the locations of borings T-22 through T-26 (see Appendix B), placed as temporary fill to allow access for drilling rigs, will be removed.
The inspection pit shows poor material from elevation 628' to 624', and marginal material from elevation 624' to 622', which is localized to the area of the inspection pit due to previous excavation and construction activities in this area. The material was satisfactory from elevation 622' to 616' and consistent with previous material noted in the subsurface investigation at this area. The inspection pit showed no evidence of any undermining due to air bubbles. All unsuitable material, as deternined by soil testing, in the tank farm area willjbe removed and replaced by suitable compacted fill-under the supervision of the onsite geotechnical soils engineer.
As previously stated in Interim Report 6, the BWSTs will be filled with water in order to perform a full scale test of subsurface materials.
Furthermore, settlement observations will enable reasonable settlement predictions that take into account the actual subsurface conditions under actual loadings.
Subsequently, by 50.55(e) Interim Report 8 to MCAR 24, submitted by cover letter dated November 2,1979, the Applicant reported that all unsuitable material identified in Interim Report 7 had been removed andtheareahadbeenbackfilledtoelevation632 feet. This report l
l
. also provided the results of analyses for two plate load tests conducted in the tank farm area.
The Applicant completed construction of the two tanks in December l
1979, and the tanks were filled with water for the load test in October 1980.
On January 22, 1981 the Applicant notified the NRC's Regional Office pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e) of an overstressed condition of the BWST foundations (Attachment 7). The report indicated that a structural analysis showed that the allowable moment capacity for the dead load and differential settlement load condition was exceeded in several locations of the foundation. CPC also noted in the report that visual examination of the foundations had revealed cracks as wide as 63 mils (.063") for the Unit 1 tank and 35 mils
(.035") for the Unit 2 tank. Site visits to inspect the BWSTs were made by Messrs. Joseph Kane and John Matra on Janaury 27, 1981.
Corrective actions for the foundations were discussed with the NRC Staff as part of the structural design audit during the week of April 20,1981, and in meetings during the week of May 4,1981. The Applicant's interim 50.55(e) report of June 12,1981(Attachment 8) identified a three-phase corrective action procedure consisting of:
(1) surcharging a portion of the valve pit and its surrounding area, (2) integrally constructing a reinforcing ring beam around the existing ring wall, and (3) resetting the tank on the existing ring wall to the original construction tolerance, if required.
i i
. The first phase of the corrective action has been addressed by Darl S. Hood in testimony with respect to a Licensing Board question concerning continued construction, presented during the hearing session of July 7, 1981 (Transcript at 1097).
It was there noted that the NRC Staff had no objection to proceeding with surcharging of the BWST valve pits, provided that Staff and Applicant could agree upor, an acceptable program for monitoring of settlement and potential structural distress during surcharging, and on the need for disconnecting piping leading to the valve pits. The Applicant's monitoring program was discussed in an interim 50.55(e) report dated July 21, 1981. The Staff and Corps of Engineers discussed the July 21, 1981 report with the Applicant during a telephone conference call on July 30, 1981 and during a meeting on August 5, 1981 (Attachment 9). The Applicant in an interim 50.55(e) report of June 26, 1981 stated that the four 18-inch lines and the four fill and drain lines for both tanks had been cut.
On September 25, 1981, the NRC issued a letter of concurrence on surcharging the valve pits (Attachment 10). The first increment of surcharge was placed on October 28, 1981, and the third (and final) increment was added on November 25, 1981.
.The Applicant's plans to repair the tank foundations were further det;cribed in a design report forwarded by an interim 50.55(e) report dated November 13, 1981. This design report included:
(1) drawings showing the details of the surcharge operation and the reinforced
- 11 ring beam around the existing ring wall, (2) the design and acceptance criteria for reinforcing the ring wall, (3) loads and loading combinations, preliminary seismic analysis and inservice inspectionplan,(4)applicablecodesandthescopeoftheQA/QC requirements. The design report was amended by an interim 50.55(e) report dated November 24, 1981 to include the final BWST seismic analysis, the final summary of the calculated loads, the BWST foundation maximum design loads, and capacities of interface shear connections. The amendment to this design report is discussed in the testimony of Frank Rinaldi and John Matra.
By cover letter dated November 10, 1981, the Applicant forwarded a Woodward-Clyde Consultants report entitled, " Test Results, Borated Water Storage Tanks, Soil Boring and Testing Program, Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2, Midland, Michigan," dated September 11, 1981.
This report documented the soil boring and sampling program and the subsequent laboratory test results for the fill and natural soils at the BWST. The report also included curves of settlement with time, beginning with the start of the BWST load test in October 1980.
By intsrim 50.55(e) report dated January 11, 1982, the Applicant submitted a report prepared by Structural Mechanics Associates which described a BWST finite element analysis performed to verify the integrity of the tanks. The report also indicated that one bolt chair might have yielded to a small degree and recommended that it be dye penetrant tested. Applicant noted in the cover letter that w
the dye penetrant test had been performed and that all the welds of the bolt chair passed. Applicant also noted that it had decided to restore the tanks to a level condition. This report was discussed during a meeting with the Applicant on January 13, 1982 and during the Staff's design audit on January 18-20, 1982.
It is also addressed in the testimony of Frank Rinaldi and John Matra.
Q.8 How has the plant fill problem affected the safety of the BWST?
A.
In February 1981, the Applicant reported differential settlements-between the ring foundations and the outside portions of the valve pits due to loading of the tanks with water. This settlement caused significant cracking in the ring foundations of both tank units.
The Applicant concluded that differential settlements between the ring foundations and the valve pits had occurred because there were larger foundation areas under the valve pits, and thus lower foundation pressures on the soil beneath the pits, than under the ring foundations. The differential settlements which were experienced due to the unequal foundation bearing pressures resulted in cracking the foundation walls of the ring wall.
Staff believes that the adequacy of the cracked ring foundation wall to safely support the BWSTs under more severe design loading conditions is questionable unless the proposed remedial measures are incorporated.
. Q.9 What remedies are proposed by the Applicant to correct the problems related to the safety of the BWSTs?
A.
The Applicant's proposal to correct the problem includes the following:
(a) Surcharging the valve pits. The first step in Applicant's proposal to stabilize the tanks involves minimizing the existing and the future differential settlements by surcharging the valve pit areas. The details of the proposal are shown in 1. Surcharging the valve pits will cause their foundation soils to consolidate, which will in turn reduce the differential settlement which presently exists with the ring foundation for each tank.
(b) Constructing a new ring wall integral to the existing cracked ring walls. After precompressing the foundation soils beneath each of the tank's foundations with the test loads and those beneath the valve pits with the surcharge loads, the Applicant proposes to construct an integrally constructed ring beam around the existing cracked ring wall to restore the structural integrity of each tank's foundation.
Q.10 Has the Corps of Engineers evaluated the Applicant's remedial measures?
A.
Yes, as related to foundation stability. The structural integrity of the proposed integrally constructed ring foundation is being evaluated by the NRC's Structural Engineering Branch. The Corps' evaluation includes the geotechnical engineering aspects of the
. design such as surcharging, adoption of soil parameters used in design computations of settlements, bending moments and shear forces, and in modeling soil conditions in the finite element analysis.
Q.11 What are the results of the Corps of Engineers' evaluation of the rcmedial measures?
A.
The Corps of Engineers agrees with the Applicant's proposal to surcharge the valve pit areas of both units, subject to the requirements stipulated in the NRC concurrence letter of September 25,1981(Attachment 10).
The soil elastic moduli used by the Applicant to compute the long term bending moment and the shear force in the proposed integrally constructed ring foundations are reasonable. Because of uncertainties in the November 13, 1981 design report with respect to the use of the short-term elastic moduli, the Applicant should document that the long-term soils' elastic moduli, as provided in Figure 9 of the November 13, 1981 report, were used in computing the bending moments and the shear forces as shown in Table 2
" Summary of Calculated Loads and Capacities of the New Ring Beam."
Q.12 Have you reviewed the Woodward-Clyde Consultants report submitted by cover letter dated November 10, 1981 regarding soil investigation and testing of the soil samples obtained from the BWST areas?
A.
Yes. The report includes, and I have reviewed, the following information:
. (i) Log of Borings - Appendix A (ii)
Index Property Test Results - Appendix B (iii) Particle-Size Distribution Curves - Appendix C (iv) Strength Test Results, UU Triaxial Compression Tests -
Appendix D (v) Strength Test Results, M Triaxial Compression Tests -
Appendix E (vi) Consolidation Test Results - Appendix F (vii) Supporting Data, UU Triaxial Compression Tests - Appendix G (viii) Supporting Data M Triaxial Compression Test - Appendix H (ix) Supporting Data, Consolidation Tests - Appendix I Q.13 What is the Corps of Engineers' assessment of the Woodward-Clyde soils report?
A.
The Corps of Er.gineers finds that the explorations and testing of the foundation soils have been performed in an acceptable manner, and the results provided in the report are reasonable.
Q.14 What are the conclusions of the Corps of Engineers following its engineering evaluation of the soil testing report and the report on foundation design entitled, " Design Report for the Borated Water Storage Tank Foundations," which was submitted by the Applicant on November 13, 1981?
A.
The Corps of Engineers concludes:
1.
The surcharging of the two valve pit areas concurrent with the load tests of the soil under the tank can reasonably be
O expected to reduce the differential settlements and, as such, reduce future uncertainty as to differential settlements.
2.
The soil parameters, which include the coefficient of secondary consolidation, drained and undrained shear strengths, and the moduli of elasticity which were used in the design analysis of the BWSTs, were established in an acceptable manner and are satisfactory.
Q.15 Are you familiar with the contentions which have been expressed by Mrs. Stamiris and Mrs. Warren with respect to their concern for the effect of differential soil settlement on the BWSTs?
A.
Yes. The contentions which identify these concerns are as follows:
4/20/81 Supplemental Contention 4C of Barbara Stamiris:
Remedial soil settlement actions are not based on adequate evaluation of dynamic responses regarding dewatering effects, differential soil settlement, and seismic effects of... c. Borated Water Storage Tanks....
Contention of Sharon K. Warren 1.
The composition of the fill soil used to prepare the site of the Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2 is not of sufficient quality to assure that pre-loading techniques have permanently corrected soil settlement problems. The NRC has indicated that random fill dirt was used for back fill. The components of random fill can include loose rock, broken concrete, sand, silt, ashes, etc. all of which cannot be compacted through pre-loading procedures.
There are portions of Mrs. Stamiris' Supplemental Contention 4C which have been addressed in past hearing sessions, and some remaining portions which are to be covered in separate testimony prepared by other NRC Staff witnesses - F. Rinaldi, T. Cappucci and R. Gonzales.
_ 17 -
With respect to Mrs. Warren's Contention 1, we do not agree that an accurate description of the random fill which was placed as backfill at Midland would include loose rock, broken concrete or ashes. The concrete which has been identified by borings and excavations in the plant fill was intentionally placed during construction instead of compacted fill, but this concrete is not considered to be in a condition of broken pieces with large voids that may be typically found in a random or waste fill. To our knowledge loose rock and ashes have not been discovered at Midland in the foundations of seismic Category I structures.
The preloading which was performed in the Diesel Generator Building und the BWST areas improved the denseness and engineering properties of these foundation soils. The NRC Staff and its consultants have attempted to assess the effectiveness of these preload programs.
The assessment of preloading the Diesel Generator Building will h covered in the presently scheduled March hearing sessions.
Insofar as the BWSTs are concerned, remedial measures which have been described in answer to Q.9 and are presently being carried out by the Applicant eliminate concerns for unacceptable future differential settlement. Following completion of surcharging the valve pits and ring foundations, the remaining differential settlement will be small and within acceptable limits that are safely designed for with the proposed new integral ring beam.
0 e For the. reasons stated above the Staff does not agree with Mrs. Warren's Contention 1 that pre-loading procedures and construction of the new ring beam have not corrected the soils settlement problem for the BWSTs. The Staff agreed with Mrs. Stamiris' Supplemental Contention 4C at the time that contention was filed because the Staff believed that remedial measures which were then planned for the BWSTs because of the settlement problem had not been adequately analyzed. As noted on page 9 of this testimony, the Applicant neither identified its corrective action plan until June 1981 nor provided design details until November 1981. Having taken these actions and those previously noted in this testimony, the remedial measures now planned by Consumers are supported by adequate analyses and are acceptable to the Staff. Thus, the concerns expressed in this contention have now been cured.
0 7
og LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1.
Professional Qualifications - Darl S. Hood 2.
Professional Qualifications - Hari N. Singh 3.
Professional Qualifications - Joseph D. Kane 4.
SWST Partial Site Plan 5.
BWST Configaration Sketch 6.
Piping Inside BWST Valve Pit IT-60 7.
J. W. Cook Letter of February 20, 1981, with enclosure MCAR-48 dated January 29, 1981, and Interim Report 1 to MCAR-48 dated February 17, 1981 8.
J. W. Cook Letter of June 12, 1981, with enclosure Interim Report 3 to MCAR-48 dated May 29, 1981 9.
Sumary of August 5,1981, Meeting and July 30, 1981, Telephone Conversation on Surcharging BWST Valve Pits 10.
R. Tedesco Letter of September 25, 1981, on Staff Concurrence on Surcharging Valve Pits for BWST Foundation
- 11. BWST Foundation Surcharge Program P
(,s.sm:.3?'i AW ~
f Obb
ATTACHMENT 1 DARL S. HOOD OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS I am a Senior Project Manager in the Division of Licensing Office of Muclear Reactor Regulation.
I am responsible for nanaging licensing activities by the Commission with respect to Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
I have served in tne position of Project Manager with the Concission since August 1975. This position provides for the nanaging of radiological safety reviews of applications for licenses and autnorization to construct or operate lignt water nuclear power plants.
As of April 1980, the position also provides for the nanaging of the environnental reviews of such applications. I assuned responsioility for
!!idland Plant, Units 1 and 2, wnen tne application for operating licenses was tendered in August 1977. Other nuclear plants for which I have previously served in tnis capacity are one standardization design of Westingnouse whicn is designated RESAR 414 (Docket STN50-572), Catawaba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Occkets 50-413 and 50-414), and River
~,
Bend Station, Units 1 and 2 (Dockets 50-458 and 50-459).
Between June 1959 and August 1975 I held two sequential positions witnin the Muclear Power Systems Division of Combustion Engineering, Inc.
(C-E) at Windsor, Connecticut. After tarch,1973 I was Assistant Project !1anager for the Duke Power Project. This position orovided assistance in directing all efforts by C-E to design, fabricate, purchase and license the nuclear stema supply systens, reactor core, and associated auxiliary systems for Cherokee Units 1, 2 & 3 and Thomas '.
Perkins Units 1, 2 & 3.
The cosition assured that all aspects of the contracts were cet and that safe and reliaole systens were provided to the required schedule and at a reasonaole profit to C-E.
I assisted Duke Power in preparing the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) and provided for all C-E licensing support for tnese units.
I also provided coordination of all other nuclear plants referencing the C-E Standard Safety Analysis Report to assure coccatibility with C-E standard reference design. Until tiartn,1973, I was a Project Engineer in C-E's Safety and Licensing Departnant and was responsible for licensing of nuclear power plants. I coordinated the preparation of the fiillstone Unit 2 PSAR and FSAR and the Calvert Cliffs Units 1 & 2 FSAR and interfaced with MRC, the utility, architect engineer and all C-E functional departments on licensing suoport matters.
I ensured that NRC criteria, standards, and guides were incorporated into the nuclear steam suoply system cesign.
2 Between August 1966 and June 1969 I was a Nuclear Safety and Radiation Analysis Engineer in the Nuclear Safety Unit, fluclear Division of the Martin Marietta Corporation at Saltimore, Maryland. The purpose of this position was to perfom hazard evaluations for nuclear power sources applied in space missions. My primary duty was to determine public exposure to radiation for.::alfunctions occurring during the intended mission. I also determined means by whien the hazard potential for nuclear space systems could be mitigated to the extent that nuclear safety critaria wers let.
I conducted research with regards to the develooment of suitable criteria for permissamle exposure levels and their probabilities, taking into account the dependence of acceptacle risk on the benefit to be derived. My primar SNAP 29 (Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power)y assignment was with the project. My evaluations of this nuclear power source included the formulation and application of computerized models for the transport of fuel released at high altitudes, in deep ocean and in shallow waters.
I derived models for these release areas to incorporate the activity into human food chains and determined the expected ingestion dose, the number of people involved and the exoosure probabilities. Innalation dose was determined for radioactive fallout from the hign-altitude release.
Cetween February 1965 and August 196G I was a Nuclear Ouality Control Engineer witnin tne Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics at 3roton, Connecticut. Tne purpose of this position was to provide control of quality for naval reactor systems, components, and shielding during the construction or overhaul of submarines by tnis shipyard. My primary area of responsibility was shielding. Duties included estaclishing procedur2s for the inspection of fabrication and installation of lead and polyethylene shielding, and resolving problems in complying with these or other shielding procedures. The position required a knowledge of nuclear theory, SSW systems design, 3ureau of Ships contract and design reouirements, non-destructive testing techniques, and quality control requirements.
Between November 1963 and February 1965, I was an Aeronautical Engineer for Nuclear Propulsion and Power at the George C. Marshall Space Flignt r
l Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Huntsville, l
Alaeama. I performed investigations of the nature and nagnitude of tne l
nuclear radiation environment, shielcing systems and safety systems associated with proposed nuclear space venicles for candidate space cissions.
- le ween Novencer 1963 and college graduation in 1962 I held various positions including enief of a missile electronics training unit at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; student at :he 'J.S. Army Signal Officer's Orientation Course at Fort Gordon, Georgia; and Marine Engineer for ordinance and special weacons witnin :ne Design Divisien of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsnoutn, Virginia.
. 1 received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering from North Carolina State 'Jniversity in 1962.
I am a ceccer of tne Healtn Physics Society.
L
~
ATTACHMENT 2 STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF HARI NARAIN SINGH, P.E.
Name:
Hari Narain Singh Address:
855 Hinman Avenue Evanston, Illinois 60202 Professional Licenses:
(1) Registered Structural Engineer Pennsylvania - 1970, 16552E.
(2) Registered Civil Engineer - Pennsylvania - 1978, 16552E.
Education:
(1) B.S. (Civil) - 1956 - University of Patna, India (2) M.S. (Civil) - 1969 - University of Colorado, Boulder, U.S.A.
Completed 30 additional semester hours beyond M.S. degree at the Univ. of Colorado.
Canpleted 14 additional semester hours in geotechnical engineering at Wayne State University.
Professional Experience:
A.
July 1981 to Present: Civil Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Central Division, Chicago, Illinois.
8.
October 1978 to July 1981: Civil Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit, Michigan.
C.
April 1978 to September 1978: Civil Engineer (bridges &
foundation) Arizona State Highway Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
D.
March 1970 to March 1978: Civil Engineer, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Franklin, Pennsylvania 16323.
E.
September 1965 to September 1969: Graduate student and-Research Assistant, University of Colorado, Boulder, U.S.A.
F.
May 1959 to July 1965: Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar State, India.
Posted at the Ranchi School of Engineering (1959-1961) and the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, India.
' ~
1 2-t G.
April 1958 to April 1959: Assistant Civil Engineering, Government of India (Tripura Administration), India.
H.
July 1956 to April 1959: Engineer Assistant (Civil),
. Government of Bihar State, India.
Summary of Experience:
Twenty-four (24) years experience in civil engineering activities which include teaching, r.esearch, design, construction and maintenance. Completed design and reviewed design for more than fifty (50) bridge structures and their foundations. Carried out soil explorations and foundation investigations for structures.
e f
I
+
n
,+
l l
ATTACHMENT 3 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
~
NAME:
Joseph D. Kane ADDRESS:
7421 Miller Fall Road Derwood, MD - 20855 EDUCATI"4:
B.S. Civil Engineering 1961 Villanova University M.S. Civil En-'neering 1973 Villanova University Post-degree studies, Soils and Foundation Engineering University of California 1972 University of Maryland 1978 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION:
Registered Professional Engineer (1966) - Pennsylvania 12032E PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY:
American Society of Civil Engineers EMPLOYMENT POSITIONS:
February 1980 - Present Principal Geotechnical Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 1977 - February 1980 Geotechnical Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 1975 - May 1977 Soils Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 1973 - October 1975 Supervisory Civi]. Engineer Chief Soils Design Section U.S. Army Corps of Enoineers Philadelphia District January 1963 - August 1973 Civil Engineer Soils Design Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District January 1962 - January 1963 Design Engineer McCormick - Taylor Associates Philadelphia, Pa.
Professional Qualifications
- and Experience Joseph D. Xane PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
1975 to Present In NRC Division of Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering Section, Mr. Kane has specialized in soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Exceriences in this position have included the following:
a.
Evaluation of the foundation adequacy of proposed sites for nuclear facilities with respect to design and operational safety. This work has included evaluation of geotechnical, soils and rock mechanics, foundation and earthquake engineering related aspects.
The results of this review effort are summarized in a safety evaluation report for each of the proposed facilities which have included nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel reprocessing plants and uranium mill tailings waste systems.
b.
Serving as a technical adviser for soil and foundation engineering related aspects in the development of regulatory guides, acceptance and performance criteria that are intended to assure construction and operational safety of nuclear facilities, i
c.
Serving as a technical representative for the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation on.the NRC Advisory Group concerned with federal dam-safety.
d.
Serving as an instructor for the Office of State Programs in the training of state personnel who are responsible for construction and operational inspections of uranium mill tailings-embankment retention systems.
1963 to 1975 During this period Mr. Kane was employed with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District and attained the position, Chief Soils Design Section, Foundations and Materials Branch, in 1973. Professional experiences with the Corps of Eagineers have included the following:
a.
The embankment and foundation design of four large multi-purpose earth and rockfill dams with appurtenant structures (spillways, inlet and outlet structures, control towers, flood protection facilities, etc.).
l Responsibilities ranged from the initial plinning of x
Professional Qualifications.
and Experience Joseph D. Kane subsurface investigations to select the most feasible sites through all design stages which were culminated in the final preparation of construction plans and specifications. This work included planning and evaluation of laboratory testing programs, studies on slope stability, seepage control and dewatering systems, settlement, bearing capacity, liquefaction embankment safety instrumentation and slope protection.
b.
Served as a technica'l consultant to field offices charged with construction inspections for assuring completion of structures in compliance with design analysis and contract specifications. Participated in the development of needed modifications during construction whenevre significant changed site conditions were unce' _ red.
c.
Directed the efforts of engineers in the Soils Design Section in other fields of civil work projects that included the embankment and foundation design of levees, waterfront pile supported structures and disposal basins for the retention of hydraulic dredge waste.
1962 to 19G3 Served as design and project engineer for private consulting fi rm. This work included the design of large federally funded highways, a race track and-various structures constructed to provide a Pennsylvania-State-park marina.
HONORS AND AWARDS:
-~'
1972 High Quality _ Award _._.. =..
Outstanding Performance Award 1978 l
t l
O a
/,-
BCIATED WATER STORAGE TANKS s
PB1270A1 S"TE PLAN
/
/
EVA? O ltuX DO'LERBLOG COMBINATION SHOP rq RR TRACK A N
yDIKE I
I BORATED WATER QTK Q T'/.1T-60 2T-60 / STOR TANK (BWST)
BWST OILY WASTE TANK 4-WASTE N
BLDG OILY f
\\/r
/ VALVE PIT (TYP) r Q RR TRACK B
[
l.
s R ADY!?.0 E BLD C.
A'_'X!LIARY 3'_DG
/
/
/
G 152910 s
x ATTACHMENT 5
( BORATED WATER TANK I
l l
M 7'-0" AUXILIARY BUILDING 32'-0" i
DIKE WALL
\\.
- s
'1L i
~
C 3 z
g
\\
\\
18" DIA PIPELINES COMPACTED ANCHOR BOLT CHAIR
]
/%" ASPHALT IMPREGNATED BOARD i
7 ?
OILED SAND ANCHOR BOLT l
.h._
CONSUMERS POWER COMPA $
MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 &
y BORATED WATER STORAGE TAN m
FIGURE 1 G 1834 [13
L%
ATTACHMENT 6
~
f 3
"e,s
. g+-
's
's xg')ge,p s
ove st; i f- (,o A
T
\\%\\s n
\\
,.C d'
,oE
\\1 5
.s,
.d sh v
to
,f s.
-[
.s e
g,el;s s' N' \\
g 6*
z qf3e 9
p z
b
,N
- w,. ELfoE9 -
4 N'o s
/
S'-
4 N'6<,
31
.b
,.,sY e
.~
\\
u%
j
/
- +.
- L
'O,.$
\\
\\
\\'
\\
.g D %
'N d2
\\
\\
o
\\
~
x\\
ATTACHMEtiT 7 2
w c e.
Vice benis=# - hofacts, Espeares.g ad Conmeetwo 21s wese Mans nn Avenue. Jesason. Misasosa de2ot + 4 17) 70s-oeso Si-03 #1 Generes offices o
ss February 20, 1981 6
Q, m
, ~ _
m Mr J G Keppler, Regic a1 Oirecter Office of I:spectic I Inf:rce=:est US 3uclear Regulatcry Ccca:Lissic:
,eg,cn..
799 Recsevelt Read Gle Illyn, I!. 60137
.3 n-ICDLAND FRCJIC"2 -
o a
- CC*C:' 30S SC-329, 50-330 CRACZS :2 3CRATID *a*ATIR STCRAGI TA.4 FCUNIATICH T
7::,I:
0.h.9.k9 UF::
73*10'01, 02362(S), 01100(I) SIRIAL: 11201
"'his letter centi =s the 50 55(e) ites cc:cer:1:s the existence cf crscis in the bersted water s:crsge ta 1 f:undatics. This cenditics vas re;cr:ed by tele;hese ec versatics te R Sut;his and 3 Gallagher, US2C Regien !!!,
or 1= -n e ~~r ='- 3 81.
I :lesure 1 provides a descri;ti:: of the ec ditics and the pla= ed
- crrective actics.
A:cther re;crt, ei-her interi cr final, vill te sent c cr bef:re April 3,
.yd,.
/
/
s l"
/.
~4R3/ir Incicsure 1: Management Cerrective Actic Reper: !! CAR-1, Re;cr No '-5, dated January 29, 1981 and Assceisted MCAR L5, :: eri= Repert 1, dated February 17,1961, "'"te Existence Of C:schs i: the 3 crated *4ater Stcrsge Task Feu::iatics - Uni s 1 and 2" CC:
,ec.. ;r. s 2 -.
Oirecter, Office cf !!anage ent Inf:=atic:
'4 ?;:grs= 00: r:1, USGC (1)
/7 RJC:ck, USNRC Resident ::spe :::
8 Midland.Tuclear pla=: (1) 81000870
~
S
e 2
Serial 11201 31.o3 ji CC: C3echhoefer, ASL3 Panel GALinenberger, ASL3 Panel FPCowan, ASL3 Panel AS&L Appeal Panel
.4fCherry, Esq MSinclair C3Stephens, USNRC
'dDPaten Esq. US3RC PJKelly, Esq. Attorney General SEFreeman, Esq. Asst Atterney General C aylor Esq Asst Attorney General
'4HMarshall CJMerritt, Esq, N Great Lakes QA Mana6ers I
l 1
l l
I
-r.-
.-r
Enelesura 1 CUAUTY ASSURANCE PROGRAM 0 2 l 2 88JANAGEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT SM3fl MCAR-1 REPCRT NO.:
48 JOB NO.:
7220 Q NO.:
DATE:
January 29, 1981 1 DESCRIPTION' (!nciucing References):
Excavations on the Borated Water Tank Foundation for Unit I disclosed cracks in the areas identified by the recent analysis as possibly being overstressed.
This condition has been reported to the NRC by the Consumers Fever Coupany as a potential 10 CFR 50.55(e) item.
RECOMMENDED ACTION * (Ocnonal):
1.
Detersine the inpact of the condition of the ring foundation on the tank's inte-grity and ability to perfors under all required conditions.
2.
Deternine what further actions will be required to maistain the design criteria for the Borated Water Tank to perfors its inte::ded function.
3.
Coordinate and issue the first interis status report by February 9,1981.
REFERRED TO:
'I Ersw r.g C Construction C CA Msnagement C
C Procurement 4
ISSUED SY
' 10 *i/$
W / 30 $/
a e o.a-g. /,* M.A. Dietrich I
il REPCRTABLE CEFICLENCY:
l po g n *,g, N ':
ENT:
Janua-v 22, 1981 i
NO 3 YES
/#
l F
(
, = = = - - -
c i
i
' lil CAUSE:
CCRRECBVE ACDON TAKEN:
1 I
l' l.
I I
AUT5-CRIZED BY.
I l
a l
,o o.en.eee.
e4oiernse og one oisminutio=
onee srauc o.
cme co=s-= oc to w ceca mo FORMAL.REPCRT TO CUENT onosso er=.e
- c. awe ano, c. iaos
(!f Section !! AccfHes) 0.=
e.on op p=OCu*ta.ewf 88CCI M C. men ison or pec.' Caft.nC=6
- Cu(C* ConsEm t.om SP80 Ca 4 04 o=ce u cvassua. ca a=cacts o.sta CCRRECTIVE ACTION IMPt.EMENTED co smuc o. oa
==cac =em tmge a on meca seccupennewt n.on sur usa cu.un ma sm==a Cf supemwh3m VERIFIED BY tesene. n :: c. crevie e ane at:acn reverence occument.
a ca sw r> coo.
Section Number Page of
~
i Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation 022437 SUEJECT:
MCAR 48 (iss ad 1/29/81)
The Existence of Cracks in the Borate'd Water Storage Tank Foundation - Units 1 and 2 i
INTERIM REPCRT 1 DATE:
February 17, 1981 PROJECT:
Consumers Power Company Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Bechtel Job 7220 Introduction The 52-foot diameter, stainless steel borated unter storage tanks are 32 feet high and rest on compacted, granular backfill material contained within a reinforced-concrete ring well. On one side is an integral valve pit that houses connections and valves for the two 18-inch diameter pipelines that service each tank. Figure 31.1 from the response to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f), question 31 is attached for reference (see Figure 3).
During the load test on the Unit 1 tank (conducted in compliance with the response to 10 CTR 50.54(f), Question 4), a discrepancy was noted between measurements of settlements recorded at the jobsite and the computed displacements derived from the structural analysis used at that cine. As a result, the analysis was modified to include a finite element l
model of the soil subgrade. A number of analyses were completed using various values for the modulus of elasticity (E) of the soil. The results of the analyses predicted that grecter than allowable moments existed at several locations in the foundation structure (see Figure 1).
The foundation at these locations was examined to verify whether visible signs of high reinforcement strain existed. Cracks were found in the l
structure at those locations indicated by the analysis as having greater than allowable moments. The largest crack measured 0.063 inch. Sub-sequently, the Unit 2 tank foundation was also ewsmined; similar cracks were found, and the largest crack measured 0.035 inch. The smaller bearing area of the Unit 2 valve pit partially explains why the cracks in the Unit 2 tank foundation are smaller than the cracks in the Unit I tank foundation.
l Significance of Cracks The cracks in the foundation structure of the Unit I cank indicate that high reinforcement strain exists in the ring wall foundation. As shown l
in Figure 2, the tank's outside periphery is attached to the ring umil l
foundation by equally spaced anchor bolts that transfer induced forces l
through an anchor chair. A check with jobsite construction personnel indicated that all anchor bolts were installed in a snug-tight condition l
w
+-
m.
Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation
)
022h37 j
Interim Report 1 1
February 17, 1981 Page 2 4
consistent with installation requirements and were in contact with the top of the anchor chair when the tank was erected. However, recent field observations indicate that gaps exist between the anchor bolt out and anchor bolt chair in several locations around the periphery of the tank; whereas, in other locations the horizontal plates of the anchor bolt chairs are deflected, indicating high tensile stress in the bolts.
This anchor bolt behavior results from the distortion of the foundation ring which is caused by differential settlement; this agrees with the l
conclusions of the modified structural analysis. The tension induced in the bolts is similar to the tension induced by a preload phenomenon and does not affect the ability of the bolts to resist design loads.
Al-though the ring wall is cracked, it is capable of providing the neces-sary dead load anchorage for the anchor bolts and confinement of the tank foundation support asterial. Therefore, resistance will be provided i
j for externally applied forces which induce tension in the anchor bolts.
Because the tank is made of ductile material (stainless steel), it is capable, through plastic deformation, of redistributing resulting j
loads. Although failure of the tank to hold water is not considered l
probable at the present time, without remedial action future behavior is difficult to establish.
i Corrosion of the reinforcing steel in the ring bean, combined with increased displacements, may cause problems in the future. The concrete ring wall confines the foundation material which is loaded by the tank; this confinement causes hoop tension in the ring wall. Cracks equal in size to those observed in the ring wall expose the reinforcing steel to the groundwater and atmosphere. If the reinforcing steel carrying the hoop tension were to corrode significantly, the ability of the ring wall to resist the hoop tension would be reduced. Redaction of overall strength of the ring uall, combined with ' increased displacements (both l
vertically and laterally) of the ring well may occur, causing stress concentrations in the tank near anchor chairs.
Based on the foregoing discussion, we believe that the cracking of the ring beam does not create a present safety problem for the tank. However, without additional extensive analysis, it cannot be conclusively shown that the safety of future plant operations would not have been affected if the deficiency had gone uncorrected. Therefore, the condition is being treated as reportable under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
Probable Cause Review of field observations and analytical investigations leads to a preliminary understanding of the probable cause. When the tank was loaded, the bearing pressure en the tank area was increased to appoximately 2 ksf greater than the valve pit area; however, this 2 ksf differential was not accounted for in the calculation for ring beam reinforcing. As a result, the valve pit restrained the tank foundation from settling uni-formly, causing bending at the ring wall / valve pit junction.
f E
.T
l.
Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation "C^^ 's 022437 Interin Report 1 February 17, 1981 Page 3 g
Future Actions A number of corrective action alternatives are currently under consid-eration that ensure the barated water storage tanks ability to perform its safety function:
1.
Surcharge the valve pit to reduce crack widths and reduce the bending moments and, if required, reinforce the ring foundation l
2.
Partially excavate the soil beneath the valve pit to increase l
the bearing pressure under the valve pit and, therefore, reduce l
the bending monents in the ring l
3.
Use as is, sho,r that the intended safety function can be fulfilled for the expected service period 4.
Surcharge and then disconnect valve pic 5.
Partially or totally reconstruct the foundation structure Analysis of these and other alternatives is ongoing. A discussion of alternatives will be incorporated in future interim reports.
Submitted by:
I Reviewed by:
/
LH4'arhsMI,)r_
h Approved by:
-CL Concurrence by:
M/'
s mj <
m 6
Fmogs i
+
/
02243,7 V4t]19%l9y
/
t l
lCCk{loeVr latsc.p 01 A'IM+%s^+ GMSW1 qgggys3 W M 4dtc.u q q
- M%'f l
N a.3 m.,.. q N
ddtfl Sv6{
g f
I"Y l
"W *t *"
'ApflMA'{6 uup g em LieAtT4 of G.Tce*Ts 4 o
R*. W4tA}tod 14hT1-
/
TALW p T iM-v
\\.
~
54ons F_
022437
+
(
/
p l./
/
w-w u.y una w p 1
/
/
e
\\
hb i
I Al0.Q'
~~
[
i e
S not M '
'8 AW S
's hNCh05 $
\\
i; 1l l
1 Il w
1.s'
~
- 02
.D q
M>
%" (D i
l j
I e.
I l
[
t 6
( BORATED WATER TANIC 922437 I
e.
db AUXILIA8W i
I 57 J" k
i Borrou r.ATs (SLOPE UP 70 Q,1/8"/PTJ DIKE WALL e - s I
~[ %
?
i
,4 %
C
(
M 2
r 1
18". IHCS 2 1
l CILED SAND VALVE PIT 1
COMPACTED SAND FILL i
A 1/2" ASPHALT IMPREGNATED a0ARD
.=
7 N.'-.(-
AsaEsTes PAPER
,e
.k*
OETAll dpt i
i
\\
t CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 Section Through Horated am l
- T. ~.
h*atar Storage Tank
'~a" l
Foundation and valve Pit l
Figure 3
i 1
ATTACHMENT 8
.e y
aT T*
--- 7 -}
'.*,',',,.I Vice Pressdent - 1%;ects. Engmarmg i's Jermie W Coods
,[
..a' ad Censamesma 81-03 #3 Pwn.n me.e. J.cm,on. us 4ezoi. siri isa.cus o
- w. ctw.= is4s w :
June 12, 1961
~s
/
/,
./U'
%y
" J G Eeppler, Regional Director D
\\
w C}
office cf Inspection and Inforce=ent 71 te US :Tucles: Regulatory Cc= mission 01-j(m, 1 sg
/- -
aegica AA
.,,, g#c.2%o 799 Recsevelt Read
- r, f
o Glen Illyn, Il 6013T l/
of /pN, l g' o
lCDLAND FRCJECT -
DOCEITS 30 50-329 AND 50-330 CRACKS I3 3CRATID WATER STORAGI TANK FC'JUDATION F:12:
0.h.9.u9 UFI:
73*10*01, 01100(I), 02362(S) SERIAL: 12015 J W Cock letters to J G Keppler; Sa=e
Subject:
References:
(1) Serial 11201; dated February 20, 1981 (2) Serial 11528; dated April 3, 1981 I
This letter, as were the referenced letters, is an interi: 50.55(e) report cencerning the existence of cracks in the borated water s:crage tank l
fcundation. describes the status of planned recedial acticas, which were 20, 1981 and M.ay k, discussed with the NRC Staff during the veeks of April 1981.
either interis or final, vill be sent en or tefere Aurlst ik, Ancther repert, 1981.
L AH3/ir 3,
Management Ccrrective Action Report MCAR 18, Interim Repert Inclosure 1:
dated May 29, 1981
~~)
\\
t-CC: JDirecter, Office of Inspectica & Z fercement J
Att yr Vic:cr Stello, USHRC (15)
Cirecter, Cffi::e of Management
[ !
Infer:acien i ? cgra: Ccarrel, USHRC (1)
RJCeck, USHRC Resident :: specter
(
Midland Nucles: Plan: (1) 8 I0 6 : 3 c 313 3
1
.1 :
t.
- =..s1 la;15 A c.a h*r..!.l.e.a.ar. i.c '.a n..C P. f..aam. i. r. a s i O. n..,m,..w.i r..a e..~. 3
.2 f.1 Q l 5. l 7
SUBJECT:
MCAR 48 (issued 1/29/81)-
The Existence of Cracks in the Borated ~Jacer Storage Tank Foundation 'Jnits 1 and 2 INTERDi Kr. PORT 3 DATE:
May 29, 1981 FROJECT:
Consumers Power Company Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Bechtel Job 7220 Introduction Management Corrective Action Report (MCAR) 48 was issued on January 29, 1981, followed by two interim reports. This report provides a su= nary of the progress on the corrective action for the borated water tank foundations.
Background
The overstressed condition of the borated water tank foundations was revealed by a structural analysis which indicated the allowable moment capacity was exceeded in several locations in the foundation structures.
A visual inspection at these locations showed cracks in the Units 1 and 2 foundations. The cause of the overstressed condition is attributed to the differential bearing pressure between the tank ring wall foundation and the valve pit.
The design of the foundations did not account for the additional bending induced by differential bearing pressure in the ring walls.
Corrective Action A three phase corrective action procedure has been developed. These seasures and their current status follow.
Surcharging a. Portion of the Valve Pit and its Surrounding Area a.
(see Figure 1): The technical specification to perfors the sur-charging and nonitoring of the foundations has been prepared. and.
is currently under review.
The surcharge operation will consolidate the fill beneath the valve pits, thereby reducing the amount of expected residual settlement over the 40-year life of the pianc. In addition, surcharging will reduce the distortion of the ring walls, partially close the exist-ing cracks, and reduce the tank shell defor=ation.
Or
-w t
i,
=,
d =
6'.
= -
- 1-4 R3 b
OGCO'S!['STJC!siss PiGf6.03iCnd CCT CtZ
=
t 031512 MCAR 48 (issued 1/29/S1)
SUBJECT:
The Existence of Cracks in the Scrated Water Storage Tank Foundation Units 1 and 2 INTERDi RtPORT 3 DATE:
May 29, 1981 Consumers Power Company PROJECT:
Midland Plane Units 1 and 2 3echtel Job 7220 Introduction Managenent Corrective Action Report (MCAR) 48 was issued on January 29, This report provides a sus =ary 1981, followed by two interis reports.
of the progress on the corrective action for the borated water tank ioundatiou.
Background
The overstressed condition of the borated water tank foundations was revealed by a structural analysis which indicated the allowable moment capacity was exceeded in several locations in che foundation structures.
these locations showed cracks in the Units 1 and A visual inspection atThe cause of the overstressed condition is attributed to 2 foundations.
d ion the differential bearing pressure between the tank ring wall foun at for the The design of the foundations did not account and the valve pit.
additional bending induced by differencial bearing pressure it the ring walls..
Corrective Action These A three phase corrective action procedure has been developed.
status follow.
neasures and their current Surcharging a. Porrica of the Valve Pit and its Surrounding Area.
The technical specification to perfors the sur-l a.
(see Figure:1):
charging and monitoring of the foundations has been prepared and is currently under review.
The surcharge operation will consolidate the fill beneath the valve pits, thereby reducing the anount of expected residual settle =entIn additio over the 40-year life of the plant.
reduce the distortion of the ring walls, partially close the exist-ing cracks, and reduce the tank shell defor=ation.
l
, _. _, _ =.
~
30' Chi 3!.A33CCiO M CfMC-S$!Ond' t Ort.x)tesuun g7,q,9 6
MCAR as Interis Repor. 3 "ay 29, list.
Page 2 Integrally Constructing a Reinforcing Ring 3eam Around the Existing The ring beam is sized to resist b.
King
- Jail (see Figures 1 and 2):
all the inposed loading from the tank, including the additional bending induced by the residual differential settle =ent between The analysis and final design the ring vall and the valve pic.The shear from the existing ring vall will be trans-are underway.
ferred to the new ring beam by dowels e= bedded in the existing ring The cracks in the vicinity of the dowels in the' existing ring The resul-vall.
val! will be repaired to ensure proper shear transfer.
torsion in the new beam due to eccentricity of the load vill be The cant considered in the analysis of new beam and rebar requirements.The 18-inch fill and drain lines vill be cut prior to surcharging.
process lines have already been cut.
Resetting ths Tank on the Existing Ring k'all to the Original Con-struction Tolerance if Required: The tank vendor has been re-c.
quested to develop a procedure for resetting the tanks.
_ Future Aerion Ice =s The corrective actions for the borated water storage tank foundations structural were presented to the NRC as part of the Midland projectand neetings with the design audit during the week of April 20, 1981, The open ice =s generated in NRC staff during the week of May 4, 1981.
this meeting regarding beam design and its effect on pipes penetrating the valve pits have been addressed in the previous section.
The design forces and stresses will be sub=1cted in future reports when detailed analysis is complete.
the current 1
d#
Submitted by:
s.L/
O t%.V '/
I Reviewed by:
Lm j:
p R(.e,M.
l
_ n A.
Approved by:
~
Concurrence by:
Y mr l
/
3D/SL/bjs(C)
I
?
h[
-+ 4&
{
u? 5&.
? f.
, 3- %
g g
-*' U % ~
~
-~~-m___.._
U 3 I 5 i,7 i
e
_I
/ i/ h
/;-i/
existing ring wall I
f l>
/y\\
f' N.
N
-/
=
,a71 L',***$ /
",/ %#
es p-___ ___
,o g
l additional ring beam l
I existing Q
~w I
proposed surcharEr area.
t I
plan SWST IT60 (27-60 sim.)
Figpre i REMEDIALMEASURES FOR BWST FOUNDAT10N STRUCTURE f.2/j h. M M 6isl~f ^ ' %E CahRP i;"Ji2E'-arg.ig,,',';pgz,'g-gfe;4{g>g;,
l i
t I
i 03r5l2 y anchor We w a-wte.*
4 l,,
li" asphalt impregnated board 88 I
t.o.c. sL 5 5'.0" I
- L..s.:,f.? y N m.
.,?.@n
?
o e.,;.3 WAY reinforced as required
/
/M\\
-- exisdng ring wall j
,T
?
- propowd additional g*
\\
ring beam N'f dowels Ns
/
y. -:e=X=+-
=
l m
N e-e e-concrete WI V
.g.
A.
N A
l secdon A Figure-1 REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR BWST FOUNDATION STRUCTURE l
1
- - - - -+ ~.-.. m ugw. ec ~;..
.. - - ~,.. -. -
[-
("
[?
e I
,[/
ATTACHMENT 9 f,
- c,,^
o UNITED STATES
' //
/jy.[i,.-.,y i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
/. g wAsmr.crou. o. c. 2osss
..,=q/-
. SEP 11 b. i
%,'..O o
Docket Nos: 50-329 OM, OL and 50-330 OM, OL APPLICANT: Consumers Pcwer Company.
FACILITY:
Midland Plant, Units.1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF AUGUST 5,1981 MEETING ON SURCHARGING OF VALVE PITS OF THE B0 RATED WATER STORAGE TANK FOUNDATIONS On-August 5,1981 the NRC staff and its consultant, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers met in Midland, Michigan with Consumers Power Company (the Applicant), Bechtel, and the Graver Company to discuss plans for surcharging the valve pits adjacent to the ring foundations of the Berated Water Storage Tanks of Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Meeting attendees are listed by Enclosure 1.
A s'ummary of this meeting, and summaries of followup telephone converrations, are provided by Enclosures 2 and 3.
As noted within Enclosures 2 and 3, staff review of the surcharge plans is ongoing and certain documentation is needed for staff concurrence.
LY' Darl Hood, t Manager Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated e
9 4
e g v '( u
R--
2-A bsa
~W4-A.
/
/
- l-e ENCLOSURE-1 Attendees August 5, 1981
!!ame Organization D'arl Hood
!!RR, LB i4 Rich Jamrozy Graver Engineering.
G. M. Ault Graver Project MGMT-H. N.- Singh '
HCD Corps of Engineers -
S. Lo Bechtel Power Corp.
K. Razdan Consumers Power Company.
D. Budzik, Consumers Power Company-Al Boos Bechtel Power Corp.
S. Rao Bechtel Power Corp.
!!eal Swanberg Bechtel Pcwer Corp.
.J. D. Kane l'RC, NRR, DE, HGES' I
I e
+
l 1
0 I
t 4
f ne'.:: a e I-
/
RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION Date: Ju'ly 30, 1981 Project: Midland Recorded by: Joseph D. Kane Talked With:
CPCo Cechtel NRC COE T. Thiruvengadam A. Soos D. Hood H. Singh D. Sudzik S. Lo F. Rinaldi '
R. Ramanujam R. Hernan R. Landsman, ISE J. Kane Route To: FOR INFORMATION G. Lear L. Heller D. Hood W. Paton F. Rinaldi R. Landsman, I&E H. Singh-J. Kane
~
R. Cook, I&E Main Subiect of Call:
SURCHARGING OF BORATED WATER STORAGE TANK '!ALVE PIIS (REFER TO J. W. COOK'S LETTER OF JULY 21, 8.981 TO J. G. KEPPLER)
Items Discussed 1.
Since Consumers' reference benchmark, PBM No. 1, had been established in the plant fill, the_ Applicant was requested to provide past survey records on this bench mark to demonstrate that PEM No. 1 is stable and unaffected by settlement of the plant fill.
(This issue is now resolved with the submittal of the survey records to R. Landsman, I&E that show PBM No.1 is stable).
2.
Consumers was asked to address the present structural condition of the stainless stcel Borated Water Storage Tanks with respect to existing stresses and strains induced by past settlements of the tanks and ring beam foundations.. Consumers was asked to e:. plain the basis for the statement in I: CAR 48, Interim Report 3 dated May 29, 1981 which indicates the proposed surcharging of the valve pits will reduce tank shell defo rmations.
(This issue was again discussed at a meeting held at the Ramada Central Inn, Midland, Michigan on the evening of August 5, 1981. Participants at that meeting included representatives from Consumers Power Co., Bechtel Corp., Graver Co. (Constructors of the BUST), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the NRC). The telephone conference call of July 30, 1981 and the Argust 5,1981 meeting established the following:
~
No analysis of the stresses and strains which presently exist in the a.
BWST has been made. The Graver Co. has visually inspected both Units 1 and 2 borated water storage tanks in the field and have indicated there are no visible signs'of structural distress. Graver Co. representativesindicated that based on their experiences, tanks with similar designs to Midland have safely withstood significantly larger settlements than the values recorded at Midland.
An analysi's of stresses and strains in the tank structure will ultimately b.
^
be provided by Bechtel in conjunction with the design of the pcoposed
~
remedial measure which requires a new reinforced ring wall to be '
constructed along the outer periphery of the original wall which has experienced cracking.
The original design report by Graver Co. on the borated water storage c.
tanks is filed in Consumers Q/A document files under No. F7220-C-18-126.
(J. Kane has requested R. Cook, I&E to obtain a copy for NRR use).
d.
Certain measures would be'taken prior to and during surcharging (e.g., removal of nut or anchor bolt, measurement of lateral movement of anchor bolts, etc) to support the position that surcharging the valve pits will not cause stresses to be induced into the tank
' membrane.
Based on verbal information and discussions presented by Consumers and its consultants, the Staff and its Consultant's concern for the surcharge inducing additional stresses has been. satisfactorily resolyed.
The Stsff will require proper, written documentation of the commitmants and the information which were presented including the anticipated settlement behavior of the ring beam foundation un' der the surcharge load as discussed by S. Lo.
3.
Since surcharging the valve pits is Seismic Category I work, Consumers was reminded of the need to have an established Q/A surcharge program-that is acceptable to the NRC prior to proceeding with this work.
There are practical limitations on accessibility to the disconnected 4.
Category I pipes (which penetrate the valve pits) during the surcharging An agreement was reached that requires the involved pipes to be operation.
profiled for movement before the surcharge load is placed and then after removal.
If the measured settlement of the pipes after renoval exceeds l
one-half inch, an analysis of the stresses induced in the pipes will be made using the actual measured settlements along with a reasonable estimate of rebounding that would have occurred upon load removal.
e
,, a The indication by Consumers' in their July 21, 1981 letter to use a crack-
'l width in' excess of 20 mils as the basis for stopping the surcharge 5.
Unless documentation acceptable program is unacceptable to the NRC Staff.to the Staff is present to 20 mils, the Staff will require the 10 mil criteria.
Consumers has agreed to provide design calculations which 1ccate the 6.
This information will be used neutral axis in the valve pit structures.
j' to develop criteria on the lon'gitudinal extent of cracking'during j
surcharging in order to prevent cracks from extending into the J.
j compression zones.
NRC has requested that the documentation identified in items 2, 3, 4 and 6 The Staff would not be in a position i
above be submitted to I&E and NRR.
to concur with Consumers proceeding with ihe surcharging of the valve pits Resolution of until this i.nformation is received and favorably reviewed.
item 5 is still required.
i I
i t
l l
e f
i i
1 l
l,'
'd P '
e
- n d.-
n 3/18/81
<dM b 68I I
~'
D. Hood, DL/LB #3
/I 'C' d :
cwr;9cr.*
t X29467 F. Rinaldi MCA1.:
D'r'ZUl.
F. Rinaldi, DE/SEB P,. Kue, DE/,SEB
,JTA G T E C r :
MIDLAND PROJECT - SURCHARGE OF THE-50 RATED W5TER STORAG,E TANK FOUNDATION Following the discussions between the staff and the ~appTicant and their Architect /
Engineer on the allowable crack openings that'.could.resul_t. froq the p.roposed surcharging operation, the applicant has provided telex info and has discr:ssed this subject matter with F. Rinaldi during the week of_ August 10,1981. Some ' verbal agre'ement was reached on August 14, 1981.
Documentation of this verbal, agreement was to be provided to staff prior to our final approval of the surcharging operation.
By its letter of July 21, 1981, the applicant requested appr~ oval of 20 mils cracks.
This was contrary to a previous verbal agreement which would-accept only a 10 mil crack.
openings.
The draf t telex (two pages) was an attemptto justify the 20 mils. The staff did not accept the applicant's justification because they found the equation proposed by the applicant not appropriate fce this evaluation and that the applicant interchanged the use of ultimate capacity of the structure with the working stress method.
During the related phone conversations the appikcant and their Architect / Engineer agreed not to issue the draft telex, and agreed to provide a new proposal that would consider: Reporting and evaluating cracks over 10 mils accuring during the surcharge operation and that the cracks will be monitored during the surcharge operation so to not exceed their current size.
i cc:
J. Knight F. Schauer P. kue J. Matra F. Rinaldi t
s cc:
nie m.
28 Fw.m /7 da'1 GC7' 77
ATTACHMENT 10 g ueug o
UNITED STATES g
[)
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
wasumoTom. o. c.2oses
\\, ***** /
SEP 2 5 1981 Docket Nos. 50-329 OM, OL and 50-330 OM, OL Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road p
l Jackson, Michigan 49201 j
Dear Mr. Cook:
i
Subject:
Staff Concurrence on Surcharging of Valve Pits for Borated Water i
Storage Tank Foundations j
References : (1) Interim 50.55(e) Reports 81-03 dated February 20, 1981, April 3,1981, June 12,1981, June 26,1981 July 21,1981 and August 28, 1981 l
(2) Structural Design Audit by NRC Staff of Midland Plant, i
April 20-24,1981, AmArbor, Michigan j
(3) Meetings of May 4-6, 1981, to discuss Soils Remediation, i
I Bethesda, Maryland (4) Meeting _ of August 25, 1981, Midland, Michigan (5) Telephone conference on July 30,1981, August 12 & 14, 1981, September 10 & 11, 1981 By several interim 50.55(e) reports, meetings and telephone conversations
'(Reference 1-5), you have informed us of the status of the cracks in the concrete foundations of the Borated Water Storage Tanks (BWST) for Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 and your preliminary plans for remediation. Your plans for remediation include, in part, surcharging a portion of the BWST valve pits and the surrounding area in order to consolidate the fill beneath the pits, reduce residual settlement during plant life, reduce distortion of the ring wall foundation, partially close existing cracks, and reduce tank shell deformation. As noted in Mr. J. Keppler's letter of July 13, 1981, you have agreed:that. the surcharging would not begin until conferences with the NRR staff were completed. Your letter of August 28, 1981, states your belief that
, resolution of NRC concerns has been achieved and requests NRR concurrence of the proposed surcharge program.
Your plans call for daily visual inspection of cracks in the BWST ring walls and valve pits during the surcharge period. You have also committed to stop further loading if a maximum 1/2-inch settlement is reached prior to full surcharge loading to provide for engineering evaluations. We find these plans to be acceptable, but not sufficient. Our approval recognizes your adoption of two further conditions:
J, \\ L) ],
g ; l :,3 v-
~-
J. W. Cook 1.
You state that, while it is not anticipated that existing cracks will widen or that significtnt new cracks will fom, any new or existing cracks in excess of 10 mils during the surcharge program will be monitored and the results reported to the NRC upon removal of the surcharge. The
. absence of any immediate actions to assure that cracks approaching acceptable limits during the program will be teminated in a timely manner was unacceptable to the NRC staff. You, therefore, have also comitted that in the event that the monitoring program should indicate a crack reaching or exceeding 16 mils, then the last increment of surcharge which was added prior to start of crack growth will be removed feediately and any further surcharge addition will be prohibited pending engineering evaluation and further NRC staff concurrence. This, of course, excludes the existing 20 mil crack already known to exist at the ring-pit interface of Unit 1.
2.
You state that propagation of a crack from the tension zone of the wall is l
not expected to occur because the ultimate moment capacity of the valve pit wall is governed by the yielding of the reinforcement steel. Your expected.
t limit of new crack propagation is 18 inches from the top of the valve pit roof slab. However, your plans provide no imediate action in the event a crack should propagate ^ above this 18 inch value. You, therefore, have comitted that in the event a crack should propagate to within 18 inches from the top of the valve pit roof slab, then the last increment of surcharge which was added prior to start of crack propagation will be removed imediately and any.further surcharge addition will be prohibited pending engineering evaluation and further NRC staff concurrence.
On the basis the above two additional committments, the NRC staff concurs with your plans to comence surcharging of the BWST valve pits.
Our c'oncurrence' to begin this activity does not address the adequacy of the proposed remedy to achieve its intended purpose nor does it have any effect on any other remedial action that may be required as a result of the staff's OL review or as a result of the OL-0M hearing. Rather, the staff's review at this point has been limited to assurance that proper precautions are or will be in place to preclude potential detrimental effects due to surcharging.
~
Sincerely, E.<
e 4.4 c Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing cc: See next page l
1
.=
MIDLAND l
I Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief Ronald.G. Zamarin, Esq.
Division of Radiological Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
Department of Public Health Isham, Lincoln & Beale P.O. Box 33035 Suite 4200 Lansing, Michigan 48909 1 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 William J. Scanlon, Esq.
2034 Pauline Boulevard James E. Brunner, Esq.
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Resident Inspectors Office Route 7 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Midland, Michigan 48640 t
l 1 IBM Plaza Chicago, 11'.inois 60611 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Ms.' Mary Sinclair Freeland, Michigan 48623 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Company Stewart H. Freeman 212 W. Michigan Avenue Assistant Attorney General-Jackson, Michigan 49201 State of Michigan Environmental Protection Division Mr. Walt Apley 720 Law Building c/o Mr. Max Clausen Lansing, Michigan 48913 Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PNWL)
Battelle Blvd.
Mr. Wendell Marshall SIGMA IV Building Route.10 Richland, Washington 99352 Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue l
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 e
9 9
w
Mr. J. W. Cook '
cc: Commander, Naval Surface Weapons Center ATTN:
P. C. Huang White Oak Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mr. L. J. Auge Manager Facility Design Engineering Energy Technology Engineering Center P.O. Box 1449 Canoga Park, California 91304
~
Mr. William Lawhead U.S. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T 7th Floor l
477 Michigan Avenue i
Detroit, Michigan 48226 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Ralph S. Decker Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Apt. B-125 6125 N. Verde Trail Boca Raton, Florida 33433 O
+
e w
.e o
ATTACHMENT 11 l
u.
I n
e 3....,,
,ql
._a
="C
[%-
r l
l.
f g.>..,o..-..
I c
, s w.~< m t
5 o..o.L _
m t
i 3' 2 N'\\\\
N /, '[ m.c.,..,
(
%N [
t Q'e
,-F5 s
- p,
% y. =,.
> =m 2
i y
e s
'N / i R'
'\\ i. '
e c
,.1 f
t'"'***
1 " ',9 g'
Y 5
l g,*
c.
- r,*
n
- r* -
~
- ne i
p f **
___..j s.... oo
\\
t t is
,l
)I i
- ~ * '
A Y,
i
//
.f, s
I
% 'f:.
6, R,g ' %,,.,.c%. ',;,rj,N'q, M -
,g '
.,,[.i Q
- g*'- ]-[. k m m' m
, *pNg
\\Y'\\i N'd Q
I W'X
>1 - c. 7- ?, p ; ' f y h ?3 4 % %.
,';f,.
s %
e y
z
'ns
,z m
N Ev s W N, \\ r._e.y_.a s
/V/
)'.
i
. u W,
"[.%ig.QfLQy 9%2e,3 *,c, g,.
u _.F g
a _d s A
_ _.. _.r..:.r., n,..,,y " -
m w
- p
\\
s.o.e.e.ts. (*..,
otaN rw M:NITORING LO aTONS
[, 8,"$7',
,s.,,
e/
-/
i G'
r
-, m c_1 m, y:
r
~.
yr.
,,i, s-~
r-e
....rs
\\
^
k'4 f,
/ <[ ]
1 s
.g u exN
,i I 1 n-s f
!EE
/>'/4'h'/d.
'l'q =;4-7 q.v.
..4.,
e
-~
m c -,
m_.
w i '*
gp
' *"' "" k-O s.o sEcmN M*..-
Ecrit sE m.ccw M w
a
\\.-j
.o ma
\\ -),,-ee. s,-
a un 1
m T ABL E,, m.<,
I sn.s A.b. lE.>,D,,c..
I I*I 4 #229 f *>E
- E#'S' 5 t (.
P22 O ( %{Q Si(I $.
W.,4^.ebt.. ream h.y h
0 '.
ta i C(.kA p",p,, r'"
.g.
Pt P
. ( T ev s f.. S
- ,, o i-v.
,..,n..
a.
,.n.~
, an. ~
.e.-
O.F
.bo' 0.,.E
.s.**
n
,7::
-,~,...x..
- u....
a
.s.u
.1,.9
.a. 0.*.
D4 0*
,,,..--..,..,r.
e.
.. ~.
~,, -
o,,
a::
ge, i
...,,.,.,2...
,,,,a d*
6,4 0*
e 35.'
Af,J
.,t.
R s.,e
.,c.
I r
c
.........a.,
t
.i.
,,e
,sc e*
ef y i..'
9?st po,g *
.e o ' c.
Bya g,o
- nygg g
. s em.e t..*. ore.***'
=*c.=@ s.
- 6f f
$4d*
3 r 91 f44*
$.7 e o
..t Q]f.) $.e
.M
.dO
.em se areec e e N.t. s.s.,ne.o er so 17<
rye Af ft
,feg' 1",
sfrS 3s.*
- 9. itf7.f 97tf//1' Men /rf98eef6 Ofst J J e*
433-6* Bf f9 339 l
Uillify MON 110RUeG e.o...............u..u..a.
N"'* %,,, %
+
no;,
.e
-...... _ _....m...e.....,
m._,._.
,,, c3b
- u. - _. _ _ _ -- -, -. _. - _ =. - _ =. __
- ,,",.,,,,'s**~*'-nn~'*+
a
~
=
,,,,,,,n,,,,a,,,,,,,,,,,
/tdif(t)(ga/Deff M 94 QWif4AW4 Meinen C
'l feU4 (O), Aal.@ f t e) W0rG6 A f!6t!) MAGMfd o
oa aa e.f W,7- > oa.. is-a gorin l
osa. or /~P ccoogif.
co,m e.
o t
< n,..r,ao,.a...,e we..a.
ao s
cows D'
KEY PLAN
- N.
- +w at;br t =W3 NOTES a
+.(V '.
= _~N,*.y R.,7:.:,*,
- i. ea,a,n,s.a,us u n.,
.u,,u, e. ~,, -
.* - > ~,*r~ 'r e.*~n a ~s ~c
- ao ~ ~ ~.-=<
1 c
,s
.m...
u,,,,,
e w >*ss.
s.
sas-pN 1
.. v.u+ra.>a
- o -... ~,m ea
.,y q
r e --.
e
..,w
.e -e a
- s s noenfrn es.tr.e s' erase resa n.wo w.~a. rstre r
QE
'x 1,
b y e.r
.a a nas. ~u ao
/
ys l
accome*=c a ** Mc *s.*aa*
/
//
- \\
ase. s e so. s.o.. r,a~s >= ss se~=o*
se raewes g ma C.
I
\\.
s
- t 6* r o' n**e.c=a s=e se
.6.a*.E*****
- s a
- =*
U -. - _ -,, a.,, - 1.,. o s,.o. s s
- t see me on e=
re r~ e ** * * *
.,_a*,.
c
- c. ers s 4 a.,o a-as oneve.
.t
- \\
i l 'VM l
en tse r
/
4 saecassee seau ser as nueo avea vnos tii f
/.
j EXCAVATION REQUIREMENTS s t-,accass on m-es er
\\'
6-
/
l
.astre s son rea scuo*=e u-as asa
~*
~'~~~
- v. car.r. u,oa r.a on..,u, a,
M c'"aa*r* m' irs c'a'r"ee"ra'ue M N
.*. x mep
,V.
'.'sy~
'v.,
i e me eau o 9.e eeenscr,ow swa t
- 's's*'***'"'***
s l
vr et avr as soon., ow sacroou s', Ns,\\
, ^ -'.
s suco-pt y
,s
\\-
- ;. s uco-ri
^
.+.,1,,
e v.uvarrow s=au **enon.**o an roe N 'f
~,q._.. y, $ %
se v
fs}
- C C 2n '** *
- O'**C re o ev
- J e t r 3*. E < 0 3s
}r,N x ' 3g Q.7.- - z3T.
e**~ne~*
- -teco-'r re
- 3
/
y Qs w
' ;. 4,# eQ',. ' \\,., m \\3,a 4
s s.
c..
,,.e nu, e.
,,,e c e ur.
s,
\\f
,e c
" s* * **
- 'w'**~'oc
- o.~ 3.o' e* r=e en.~,.'*.
seas ~e oaa esue e,s.s<ssrv an eucas
- m==
e,-co eme
.,...e,,
.. y,
\\[ vat G 0 V, b ()\\
- s. v.
s' e
- ee e nenva s.ons s-a.s se one,eereo y
,,e geomo.cre u garou o,n,,
ree.
sg..f j;,,
) /',.~ T',
\\ / *. y naamsr ser coessanr oo se a on-wes or r.e raen vaan asan sena nr wo m, esso se L-l
. s
- seves ev==a ou sre sea.veem a near er a ca.ee
?., oeovares. e *o.
p :)s scus a-* ~n
- c me ve.,.
,.c.,an,e.s s a.s.
s.a a u rm.e<.m.
n.e j -
- L - vu g\\
acso.as~te a N x-eas.A me se ov'st..
b m-L. -- q-.a- - e-+,-
06 J e?
a ss as J.s
\\
m,gg ae,y n,,f,s7 8e ce 70 4 84=ae 5
,,.weD i.*.< res. r
, p.
-.- g a :_ _ t t v -- 6=
- w-:==e.
5
.2..z--_ - -
= =.r W o,ssa tw, nem sm nor>*r %.ese
- o. rec., gewse s.
,s-L ec t
- . /
g sauas e.w,r o.or s'ae r ao s.orena ma es sanone
,e went =< a ova,ca
- .R,C'.;
a
~
.s
(..
ra., au. <,
.,,u. u~u,anr a
u
,.. e. e a r....
a
.,e,.
- *~ n u s
- s.sa or r-s a ns.,m a r-a ra a rau.e as
\\
- .a.
- *~ ron r-= 'a~-
rs
,e.a osa <
,...a.,
.,...., a n u,
sus
.u avr~a on saa saass n ~o
- am s-u a,. orr,eso
. s n ue.
)' '..,"~. &' f.u, "W.*d'a,a e u.s-was, o,u, s~a.ss, e,t. osac s.u*s.*a.a -u.eur o
u a,, ~, e...r,.
r,a rr~
e... -a uaff a
,.na, aun.r e-., u.
a e ~ r..a.s r..u. u sa
.a z s.,.Ln uraa..
,a
,ss u.s r,
( *e',*? a'e*,
~'M
.g' *r.? "a ~*.tf.n
'}
}
II. 9 gsO 90 980s.H a C68 99 &stry 10 k
.s resa res er nana as s aurae e ee-as es
)
l
. f MG D
ass K
- f AL4 /Oa/k'94ffee' AWs.or0f t%f AtrF9 Seass $4 4 99 BPM Ar 49Alf Q" A fief /VP /dfnP
\\
fe* 0,9 AMd* Net CNA/R. 94/04 f3 fMP fM**"+'TW 5 dd 6N4fre?.e*94 #C of/0Af.
5,E C _T l 0 N O
' I ^*
- ?
\\**** *s s's-4
'w'IIa*'tu a,'a'r",.a a,' f*a'f.* *7,.H.(
- su 0.!d & $.
a.a e mted
.u a ano,, a am
.a 4947JGt 9etca 44/0.,7 FAW 4e rtsde d
e d * * * * * * ## #5
- '*****R v..,
h E.a c.III or/m:P r n'*w'sco*9 IA m
..__ ?&.Y.nsq.N-I od
- 'lC%9&d'I *GF44.dfE 9 ff,Af.O fe ht'eu%*
L
( e.,y spM3 9, Ag g ; r3 6 7ar ye4gg.
it.s.50,e
< f.a a.0  WE. 4 UWd,*i.Nes 9d(
,r en 9f 4+9 M+<.
.ue s,.e r Am.rpd A Oye si u>
k'4J. a 4.. A e e,
~ ra fm
-685 o *--
s e.a '.ce s
.te e 32
.D1 - 0 3E eb. D 06 639-9 bl
.33 0 54 e r= 6e 64';e s'
t v-se
.3s a S8
.al-e s1 wo u e s ',.
. Df - O.
'O
.w 32
..r.
e
>rN CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 80 RATED WATER STORAGE TANKS FOUNDATION SURCHARGE PROGRAM o
4 SS ? '
6 FIGURE 2 1
_