ML20040F450
| ML20040F450 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1982 |
| From: | Kane J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040F437 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8202090211 | |
| Download: ML20040F450 (22) | |
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 (MidlandPlant, Units 1and2)
)
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH KANE REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE PLANT FILL PROBLEM ON FOUNDATION SUPPORT FOR THE SEISMIC CATEGORY 1 UNDERGROUND PIPING Q.1 Please state your name and position.
A.1 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 Conraission.
Q.2 Have you prepared a statement of your professional qualifications?
A.2 Yes, Attachment 1 provides my professional qualifications.
Q.3 What are your responsibilities with respect to the Midland Plant?
A.3 My responsibilities have been set forth in prior testimony submitted to this Board, and also in the testimony of Hood, Singh and Kane for this hearing session.
Q.4 What is the purpose of this testimony?
A.4 This testimony addresses the foundation stability of seismic Category I underground (buried) piping placed in the fill at the Midland Plant. The concern for foundation stability of underground DESIG1 m 3 ORlGllIlliI.
% s..- - r n7 8202090211 820205
~
PDR ADOCK 05000 g
piping has arisen because the plant fill which supports these pipes has been shown to be inadequately compacted and is settling under its own weight. As a result, the piping buried in the plant fill is settling with the fill. The settlements which have been observed are not uniform because of the highly variable soil fill conditions, differences in actual loadings, and also due to the varying foundation elevations of structures that are connected with underground piping. This testimony will cover the following topics:
(a) Description of foundation conditions along the various piping systems (Emergency Core Cooling System, Service Water System and Diesel Fuel Oil System).
(b) Current settlement history.
(c) Future settlement predictions.
(d) Foundation soil parameters adopted in underground piping design.
(e) Effect of freeze wall.
(f) Future monitoring plans.
(g) Evaluation and conclusions.
(h) Status of outstanding design issues.
Separate testimony prepared by the NRC Mechanical Engineering Branch (MEB) and its consultants describes the history of the safety review events since 1978 relative to the effects of the problem plant fill on underground piping. The MEB testimony also discusses the technical studies which have been and are currently being perfonned to evaluate the effects of differential settlement on the structural irtegrity of the seismic Category I underground piping.
Q.5 What are the foundation conditions that exist along the various seismic Category I piping systems which are founded in the plant fill?
r A.5 In spite of the extensive number of borings and explorations which have been completed at the Midland site, soil profiles along the alignments of the various piping systems have not yet been developed for Staff review which would pennit actual foundation conditions to be evaluated in conjunction with observed settlements of the underground piping.
It is our understanding that these soil profiles are currently being developed by the Applicant's Consultant.
The importance to the Staff in developing this information includes the following:
(a) The soil profiles would assist in determining whether the presently distorted pipe grades established by internal profiling of the buried pipes are the result of fill settlement or of an accumulation of as-built installation discontinuities as contended by the Applicant's Consultant.
(b) The combined soil and pipe deflection profiles would permit an evaluation of the extent to which observed pipe profiles were caused by settlement due to past imposed loadings at the site.
. ~
Example's of such imposed loadir.gs could include the surcharge fill and heavy equipment traffic loading.
e s,
(c) The soil profiles would assist in assessing future support capability along the pipelines by identifying the more compressible soil layers and the., pipe segments where these i
sNs weaker foundation conditions exist.
hfs information would also be in:portant in the -selecticn of future set,tlement monitoring locations.
Q.6 What settlements or deflections from intended design elevations (pipe inverts) have been recordeo at Midland along the various piping systems?
A.6 Table I-I (Attachment 2) provided by the Applicant in its report of December 15, 1981 to the NRC lists the seismic Category I pipelines founded in the plant fill which need to be addressed. Figure I-1 (Attachment 3) provided in this same report presents a plan view of buried Q-listed pipe locations. Attachment 4, submitted by the f,,
Applicant in its response to the Staff s 50.84(f) question no.19, is provided to illustrate the pattern of pipe deflections from s
intended design invert elevations'for some of the involved piping as established by past profiling efforts. More recent profiles for some of the involved piping were presented in the Appendices of the December 15, 1981 report.
3 The results of profiling seismic Category I pipes indicate that the present pipe invert elevations (bottom internal pipe elevation) have
maximum deviations from 6 to 16 inches below the originally intended design invert elevations. The majority of these maximum deflections are in the range of 9 to 11 inches. The allowable placement tolerances for installing the pipe in the field during construction was specified at plus or minus 2 inches from the established design l
invert elevations. Allowing for the lower tolerence of minus 2 inches during installation would indicate that maximum pipe settlements of 4 to 14 inches could have occurred.
Profiling indicates that the pipe which may have experienced the greatest amount of settlement is Service Water line 8"-1HBC-81 (Attachment 4). This pipe is located between the Diesel Generator Building and the Turbine Buil11no ?nd was. subjected to the full surcharge load placed in the Diesel Generator Building area. The Applicant excavated an approximate 140 foot length of this pipe after surcharge removal, and then rebedded the pipe after it was reconnected. This rebedding operation should have relieved stresses due to past settlement, but stresses due to future settlements are still possible.
Q.7 Has an estimate been made of potential future settlement of the seismic Category I underground piping?
A.7 Yes.
In the previously identified report of December 15, 1981 Applicant estimated future settlement for the pipes buried in the plant fill for the anticipated 40-year period of plant operation.
This estimate indicates that settlements of up to 3 inches are
possible. This is based on settlement observations of a series of borros anchors which are measuring the settlement of the fill under its own weight.
Q.8 Does the Staff agree with the Applicant's estimated range of future settlement for the underground piping?
A.8 The Staff agrees that the estimated 3 inch maximum settlement is a conservative upper bound limit which can be expected during the years of plant operation, provided no additional load is placed over the piping. This Staff conclusion is based on discussions with the Applicant and its Consultant at meetings in Bethesda on January 21 and 22, 1982.
For proper documentation, the Staff will require submittal of the technical information discussed at those meetings along with a technical summary supporting the basis for.the 3 inch prediction. The Applicant will also be required to address this estimated settlement when establishing locations for future settlement monitoring.
Q.9 Has agreement been reached between the Applicant and the Staff on appropriate soil design properties to be used in the seismic analysis of buried piping?
A.9 No. The lack of particularity, as reflected by information provided in the December 15, 1981 report (Attachment 5), prevents resolution of this design issue at this time. Additional information provided by the Applicant's Consultant following the meeting of January 22, 1982 in Bethesda indicates the need for the Staff to examine the
basis for selected properties and to assess the impact of reasonable variations in soil properties on the results of the analysis.
Q.10 In previous testimony by the Staff on remedial underpinning of the Auxiliary B"ilding, a concern was expressed by the Staff regarding potential adverse effects of the proposed Freeze Wall on seismic Category I structures, conduits and piping by causing ground heave or resettlement upon unfreezing. Has this concern been resolved?
A.10 Yes. The Applicant initially attempted to show that ground heaving would not be a problem by providing comparable case histories where ground freezing was successfully performed. The information which was eventually located was considered inapplicable because of dissimilarities in either site or installation conditions from the documented cases with the conditions existing at Midland. The Applicant in its January 6,1982 submittal to the NRC on the effects and monitoring procedures for installation of Freeze Wall dewatering abandoned the similar case history approach and chose an alternate solution. The alternate solution was presented in an enclosure to the January 6,1982 letter.
It involves a proposal to eliminate the inducement of any stresses to the conduits and piping because of heaving by excavating the soil directly beneath affected utilities within the projected area of influence of the Freeze Wall before ground freezing actually begins.
Figure 1 (Attachment 6), provided in the Jar.uary 6,1982 report, identifies three areas of concern w% re the proposed Freeze Wall alignment will intersect seismic Category I utilities. Figures 6 and 7 (Attachments 7 and 8) provide more details on one of these
Freeze Wall crossings and illustrate the proposed limits of excavation beneath the affected utilities within the crib enclosure.
The Staff concurs with the Applicant that this proposed solution will eliminate the effect of ground heaving on involved utilities.
The Staff also notes that the excavation of soil above the piping will lessen the weight of surcharge and its beneficial effect in resisting ground heave. Because of the excavation and removal of surcharge, some additional heaving could occur, but would not reach the exposed piping.
It will be several months before recompression is completed, and longterm foundation support for the piping is assured. The Applicant has committed to demonstrate to the Staff's satisfaction that recompression of the foundation soils beneath the piping has been completed before backfilling the excavation.
Q.11 What monitoring of underground pipe settlement has been proposed by the Applicant for the years of plant operation?
A.11 In the Applicant's December 15, 1981 report to the NRC on underground piping, the following monitoring program was proposed:
(a) Monitor the Service Water System piping at the terminal ends before the first anchor point of each pipe as it enters the building. This monitoring would establish the differential settlement between the pipe anchor and a point on the piping as the piping enters the structure.
_g_
s (b) Monitoring frequency would be at a 90-day interval for the first 5 years of plant operation and then on a yearly basis for the remainder of the plant's operating life.
(c) Requirements to be stipulated in a technical specification would require a report to the NRC by the Applicant if the observed settlement reached 75 percent of the maximum allowable limit. The maximum allowable settlement limit would be established by calculating the amount of differential settlement which would result were pipe stresses to reach ASME III code criteria for nonrepeated anchor movements (3 Sc).
(d)
If 75 percent of the calculated maximum allowable settlement limit was reached, the Applicant would decrease the monitoring frequency from the 90-day interval to 30 days. Applicant would then further assess the settlement rate and severity.
Q.12 Does the Staff concur with the Applicant's proposed settlement monitoring plan?
A.12 No.
In addition to the above monitoring plan proposed by the Applicant, the Staff will require the following:
(a) Additional settlement markers that are attached to the underground piping at locations away from structures and in the plant fill itself. The locations considered for additional markers should include areas where maximum future differential i
i
settlements are estimated following an evaluation of the soil profiles which are being developed, as discussed in response to Q.5.
Additional settlement markers should also be installed at strategic locations along the piping to verify the accuracy and functioning of the proposed vibrating wire strain gages which are to be installed to monitor changes in pipe ovality.
(b) A provision in the Technical Specificat1ons requiring shutdown of the plant if the maximum allowable settlement limit is reached.
Q.13 What sunir.ary of conclusions can the Staff make following its engineering evaluation of the December 15, 1981 Report provided by Consumers on the analysis of buried piping for the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2?
A.13 The Staff lists the following conclusions:
1.
Based on the results of profiling completed on seismic Category I underground piping, maximum settlements of piping ranging from 4 to 14 inches may have occurred.
2.
Three inches is a conservative upper bound limit of maximum future settlement beneath underground piping in the plant fill away from completed structures, provided no additional loading is placed over the piping.
3.
The disconnecting, rebedding and reconnecting operations which the A'pplicant has completed on three Service Water Lines which havesettled(8"-1HBC-81,8"-lHBC-82,10"-0HBC-28)isa I
. t positive action for relieving settlemerit induced stresses.
However, smaller amounts of future settlement may occur and again induce stresses in the pipe. This problem is being addressed by attempting to resolve differences in acceptable monitoring programs during plant operation.
4.
The Applicant's proposed solution for avoiding potential adverse effects on underground utilities due to ground heaving above the proposed Freeze Wall is acceptable.
5.
Soil profiles utilizing existing subsurface information need to be developed and evaluated in conjunction with measured pipe deflection profiles in order to permit assessment of future settlement effects.
6.
Resolution of safety review issues remains outstanding regarding selection of appropriate soil design properties to be used in the seismic analysis of underground piping and in the establishment of an acceptable settlement monitoring program.
Q.14 In addition to the unresolved safety review issues which are identified in the response to Q.13, are there any other outstanding issues requiring resolution between the Applicant and the Staff with respect to underground piping?
A.14 Yes.
In Attachment 4 to the testimony of Hari Narain Singh, presented to this Board on August 7,1981 (following transcript page 3488), a concern was expressed concerning the minimum rattlespace available at locations of penetration where seismic Category I piping enters into the various structures. This concern is expressed on page 12 of Attachment 4, Paragraphs (d)(1) and (2).
& L The Applicant has not yet responded to this safety review concern and it remains an outstanding issue.
Q.15 Does the Staff have concern for the foundation stability of the four Category I steel Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tanks which are buried in the plant fill south of the Diesel Generator Building?
A.15 No. The Applicant has demonstrated that the foundations of the Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tanks are stable, and that settlements have been small and insignificant. The largest settlement measured to date following filling of the tanks and surcharging their foundations is 0.25."
A concern previously identified in the testimony of H. Singh on August 7, 1981 (following transcript page 3488, see Attachment 4 to that testimony, at 11) concerning the densification of a thin, loose sand layer under dynamic loading has bten resolved. The Applicant has provided the results of a settlement estimate for this loose layer which indicates that the predicted settlement under dynamic loading is small, on the order of 0.04".
The Staff and the Corps concur with the Applicant that this magnitude of settlement will not cause any difficulty during the years of planned operation.
i
.c 8 o PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE.
NAME:
Joseph D. Kane ADDRESS:
7421 Miller Fall Road Derwood, MD 90855 EDUCATION:
B.S. Civil Engineering 1961 Villanova University M.S. Civil Engineering 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 Civil Engineer Chief, Soils Design Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District January 1963 - August 1973 Civil Engineer Soils Design Section U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District January 1962 - January 1963 Design Engineer McCormick - Taylor Associates Philadelphia, Pa.
ggr dD CMGUU menfiedE7 ose
e Professional Qualifications and Experience Joseph D. Kane PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
1975 to Present In NRC Division of Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering Section, Mr. Kane has specialized in soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Experiences 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 h s included evaluation of geotechnical, soils ano rock mechanics, foundation and earthquake engineering related aspects.
The results of this review effort are scmmarized 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 perfomance criteria that are intended to assure construction and operational safety of nuclear facilities.
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 l
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 Engineers 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.).
Responsibilities ranged from the initial planning of
!l l
l l
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 i
included planning and evaluation of laboratory testing programs, studies on slope stability, seepage control and dewatering systems, settlement, bearing capacity, liquefaction 3 embankment safety instrumentation and slope protection.
b.
Served as & technical consultant to field offices charged with construction inspections for assuring completion of structures in compliance with design analysis and contract specificationr. Participated-in the development of needed modifications during construction whenever significant changed site conditions were uncovered.
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 1963 Served as design and project engineer for private consulting firm. This work included the design of large federally funded highways, a race track and various structures constructed to provide a Pennsylvania State park marina.
I l
1 l
l
SEISMIC CATEGORY I LINES TO BE ADDRESSED A.
Service Water System (SWS) 8"-lHBC-310 26"-OHBC-53 8"-2HBC-81 26"-OHBC-54 8"-lHBC-81 26"-OHBC-55 8"-2HBC-310 26"-OHEC-56 8"-lHBC-311 26"-OHBC-15 8"-2HBC-82 26"-OHBC-16 8"-lHBC-82 26"-OHBC-19 8"-2HBC-311 26"-OHBC-20 10"-OHBC-27 36"-OHBC-15 10"-OHBC-28 36"-OHBC-16 36"-OHBC-19 36"-OHBC-20 B.
Diesel Fuel Oil Lines (Fuel Oil) 1-1/2"-lHBC-3 2"-lHBC-497 1-1/2"-lHBC-4 2"-lHBC-498 1-1/2"-2HBC-3 2"-2HBC-497 1-1/2"-2HBC-4 2"-2HBC-498 C.
Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST) 18"-lHBC-1 18"-lHBC-2 i -
18"-2HBC-1 18"-2HBC-2 i
l TABLE I-l 12/10/81
a.
g
'.4 31 -
IfI lt
~ $
1.I!!
II I l 0
1
!l d ;h heh;\\:ll.
.fi
!!I p$$4 'E
. :;hI,i a
3 q.
4 rt.. a.
-2 1 fOh.g5i s lil{!!g!l I }4
- t an c
ij h I"i:
' 't 5
hi 121 M!: 3 i t -j U l; 1
lhQ 1
9 4 ! NN !!! 3 ijd El ij $ ?!
jii:,ji-i,,
a is s III a a i
hQ h
ema 6
i hl u,L s__
j 3;i.l
_]
~
li.!
t9
' }.!
,1 2
t IF4 I
lI 3}[
5 1{
mm\\
,1 g
]
g
_.el
\\g 44s
-~
ss x
+
.-w s
I, t..
'\\
!!4 i ni;g s$ !l ih..l I
IM i
i C
, tH
/ /, '
i
.3
.,1 1 11 %
Ef I-N
.h h s
s d{
gl, s \\
cc.:9 Vll I
S e
j}
[
N:-
11 Il 1,I.I.I.I.I l
{ U p"
g T.L 9]itI::xu
.:.)
"21 rg w
((
s H:9
?,
g-s 1,
x 'c.no s
.z,gi
--- g, 3 ;.,...,.,., e j
=
u uu jn i [ w I
5, 8 fg II u
r.s M-7 } }
i.
l
'N a
p gON --
,a.
21, i
t -!. w h
I,;
I lg il,
rh
==
U d58 l
a 111
([
w.!
l 3 6
.g
!h i ji I
5 l'! T j s i
4 3, s g
=...;__ #_
5 11
- g-a
(
l s
...:--.+
s. a;'.-.Q a ft 2
- it o
3 1
.9
..t FTGUR'. I-l h
FE W k
Ii de se num our nowr f-.
l a1
-*-
- dart a see esa ese es, soo-Y8*^ WE'20*
a*- so*sreen y-- --
j------------,--_....________________________
daX 4,,, e,, 4, '
a
- g er'
-, a w,,,*
x v
.. h or n.
x g
a
' \\rww. s'd. 4 2 6. 42 sia,',,
,,-a,',,
s
-r* o o so PROFAE 8" 1HBC - 81 acre. voorr,.o mag.
=m-et ses
@ *'* Der em' m.
u...u s.
- 4
=
096
=
A en (tausno me se eva ie y
A E
\\..,,,,,,.-
\\ - <&
L.,,i.no L.,a.co..'
sr.-
ra,jgo 4
a J'*o*00 su o ese ava aooo PDOriLE 20 '-1$D -1159
,xes : roe r o ". r *
'e<
y._,, c,.., km
- woo our rewr 9 **** air mr
" * " - +
,m.
v.ee a ers *
- l
[oeu
.....S,-.,,.,.,,_,__,_,,,
~-- -----
-7or a ers se
-~
- t t
er a ers ce, i
f MF 44 629,b
% *49 A eN se'
~
es, i
orao*3o
^ ' * * *
- san oooo M'tE 26 ' CeBC-SS pRor tL E 26 '- 2 E-1
- 'f 's : 'a o,
,ove r,,a. o,.
u ns f.,
m aw h vo**x~
}r,~uana>
ar s u suvun
- sanoa,
-r g,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ f_y_~_~;_<_*
- rs c t, <,,.
(twV
.re r -
de 6t316 ave 64 6th as av g, e,,,r '
eM o.i
-r. :.
. -. ~
,arr@i.,9C - M 26 F90. FILE x ss I
neert o's m' a
ratsaw san,aA
(*""*
- -- ;y;
,...w...
)4m
?,,,a,.,...
~,d n
-__ y _y
=--
l
~
- ], s ey i;
"g,.= = :
t '"
I!
f Il
.s*
]
tl
(! ga=~gl
_w n.
i il p
us.
. p'.
em
=
T t,.
AIe.r.e l
.ht
~
..s.
I) k a.*. add d.
acd40
~
qs re.o.e o.a..ar em r
.:E * "."J:l.~"" 7" PEY PLAN
\\' ts" CreC 64(TEG) ere r.ssailw a*r a.fm sf
- - - - _ J. J
.es 1
y x m9 6e. 99 ***
6 {,,.,,,,a _.-.
I
.n S_
i
.no a o oc rste o esa
.u e
PROFILE 8- 2HBC - 82
.x es. rear
-*~
.n aarir a.m*
est f ru - 2c.twac ss
- 9.,ee
(***
- ar..o asoxu t..es g
- our -r
,.o,
a.a. a-l----------1-----------}
"*~
.a r&~i'_',
A -,,.,, -
t **~+')
w a.a
~
f dvsov ser a.oa or,
--1 L..; _.,,
t-,,,..e
~ -......
I I
are oone ava a e so
.re pfLE 1Cr OHBC-27 user o,.o. e-anos eners ava b eae oon o'*>o PROFILE 8 - THBC - 311
- f. dueo our wwr------------
'8**,
7,.
,,<r,.,
w.e4 "8*****
or i. e,
.o
(, ~,.n o.,
( ~ u".n i,ca,o
.lameder #979
,n
% A 5 saarearase t979 i
i swoooo seeonso PROFILE 26' 1JBD-2
^ ^ "
' 'd-CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2
.,~......,.,.:,
n. r e.....,. n r
..c., r....
,, n, y~ u.n q ~ a
- a =<
?.l1 ".f,..;1.*.2.n't'? '.O J' Diesel Generator Building Surveyed Pipeline Profiles
.m by GZD
~ '~
Figure 19-1 i
11/80 Revision 10
III.A.4.b)
Variable soil properties The analysis considers the following soil properties:
Poisscn's ratio Unit we'ght Coefficient of friction (soil / structure)
Shear modulus Shear wave velocity compression wave velocity Surface wave velocity Maximum particle velocity Maximum particle acceleration Maximum soil strain The soil subgrade modulus is calculated for each case, based on the soil and pipe pro-perties.
The values used for these soil properties were those determined from the investigation work at the jobsite.
The soil modulus of elasticity was varied +50%.
The maximum particle acceleration was~ increased 50% above the SSE value as a margin for the site-specific response spectra.
20 12/10/81
//Y f/
~
,s
,. //, /)
/ / /,'
I
'/
~
I
/p REACTOR E1DG f ACTOR BLOG /,
Y
!\\[~
l UNIT I U NIT 2 f-ST TUP Li L
,, W',
(
%)
.r.. l.- TRA6#@MERS
~
j j
\\
/
0
-fiti./
/
6 NIT I e
UNIT 2
- ^
-] _
1 ~ypa;p f
0)O O
Y Olf ll0
/
[<
Btfl. DING
---.,,- y 1 I /M f
/
\\
' //////////////n
/
3 x
(
'////////////// /
K n 9
- .. u '
i,'
yf' p
CROSSlHG*l f
CR Z
PARKING AREA
/
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
- )
w A MIDLAND PLANT UNI.TS 1 & 2
$?/
{;.
-)
~~pl
.G
- )
UTILITY CROSSILIGS
/7 AT FREEZE. WALL FIGURE I 1
S. 953.0 E. 49/.O
. Ccnce:le Approach
\\\\\\)
1
\\ \\ \\ s..,
s Y
0'* lE'E0 l
az.on s'
.r ~._, N i t '. C E K ? W ij 7-i/3 m
Mgrpocre' igd}
JC jnW34::1 O
$$,1
~
M h
s*
sMNM_*SMiBE! f*WR4wE i!
s% W#&
- G)WWz:
g-V 0-
. :ZIE: arm @+w+M*M6@sni
?
F a'
tn s-P,
- y..
Sfo. terse l
N y
- 5. 496 5 h
~-
E. 520 Q y MONITORIMG Roo Due/ Eank
( 7*ypical)
(
EM b k b
$$$bb I
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDI.AND Pl. ANT UNITS 1 & 2
~
'CROSSIMG S PLAN
~
FIGURE cc e-
1 e
..M...O.. N....i.T..O....R...W.... G.,.B.. 0.. 0.....
- t....
...g
....l
.... j..........
...........g.
j.... 8... gs..... ' O......
- o......, o..
9..
e,...
a...
f....
... T.... /..
..t
. f..
e I.,...
2,..
\\....
t y.
h
.. l..
. ~.
.f.......
.O......t j
..l..
. q...
.3.....
...... 7...f20..i..
.. g....
... q..
..)
. 3....
t t
i
~
~.... '(({
&fQ..,t...
. 3..
..9.......
.! j..,
3
~...
...t...
..........p...
. 3..
.y
.._..g
..j...
g....
g
....b........t...
..g...
. 2 a
c s....lL.....
.. ;..,s.u... -
1.
.. s..
, a s
. s.
=
o
..m.
2
..i..
.......l..
e.
..a
..j.....
.q...
._p.
.3.....
..t......
g
..i.....
..l..
..... '.............l...
.y L..
t
...t...
i
..t.
- g......
.2.%,...
......g.....,,.1..
i...;t..
i..
...t
...).
.3
..........~.A.
==-
x...
4..
.=*....4.'"'"."
.. j
..y....
,...j...
=.
3 t
..g..
. s.
...I.....
.3............
..g........
.............j....,
..g..........
...g......
j
....g.......
- q..
- .g..
.. ;.... l....g.....
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND Pl. ANT UNITS 1 & 2 CRO%lMG 3 PROFILE FIGU R E 7
- -