ML20065M903

Testimony of Wc Paris Re Permanent Dewatering Sys for Site. Sys Will Provide Acceptable Method for Removing Water from Granular Plant Fill Matl.Related Correspondence.Oversize Drawings Encl.Aperture Cards Available in PDR

ML20065M903
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	10/15/1982
From:	Paris W CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML20065M893	List: ML20065M888 ML20065M903 ML20065M917
References
ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8210210488
Download: ML20065M903 (104)

Text

I u , c. GO'#' 1oro*#

)

OGf@gTEO 0 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 89 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS O g 19 BEFORE THE ff];k ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '~ - 1 In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM

) 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY )

) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)) 50-330 OL

) TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM C. PARIS, JR.

. ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT REGARDING PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM FOR THE MIDLAND SITE I

1 1

m .~ .

8210210488 821018 PDR ADOCK 05000329 I T PDR l

SS: STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF WASHTENAW ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-329 OM

) 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY )

) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)) 50-330 OL AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM C. PARIS, JR William C. Paris, Jr., being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the authoi of the " Testimony of William C. Paris, Jr. concern-ing the Permanent Dewatering System for the Midland Site," and -

that such testimony is true and correct to the best of his know-ledge and belief.

_ N s er:

W.C. Paris, Jr.

l l

Sworn and Subscribed Before Me this / 6 Day of [ , 1982 A Kt Notart Public Washtenaw County, Michigcn l

l My Comission Expires d/ M t

I Irm*3EtiM3. ...

c

.u:: . .:- .: : = ;-; .--

EI C0;'l'.Z;ilul' " " "*'*"***

l I

l I

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 1.1 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 1

1.2 BACKGROUND

INFORMATION 3 2.0

SUMMARY

OF DESIGN OF PERMANENT DEWATERING 4 SYSTEM 3.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAM 6 3.1 AREAL EXTENT OF SANDS 6 4.0 HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MATERIALS 7 4.1 FIELD FALLING HEAD TESTS 9 4.2 PERMEABILITY ESTIMATED FROM GRAIN SIZE 10 4.3 PUMPING TESTS 10 5.0 AREAS OF RECHARGE 12 6.0 DEWATERING SYSTEM DESIGN 13 6.1 AREAS OF PERMANENT DEWATERING INFLUENCE 16

6.2 DESCRIPTION

OF COMPONENTS 17

'6.2.1 Description of Permanent Well 17 6.2.2 Description of Filter Pack 18

~

6.2.3 Description of Permanent Pumping Equipment 19 6.2.4 Description of Permanent Well Discharge 20 and Header Piping 6.2.5 Description of Timers and Level Switches 21 6.2.6 Description of Permanent Monitoring Wells 22 7.0 INSTALLATION OF PERMANENT DEWATERING WELLS 23 8.0 TEMPORARY OPERATION OF 20 PERMANENT 27 BACKUP DEWATERING WELLS 9.0 RECHARGE TIME 29 I .

1 I

I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page 10.0 EFFECTS CF MALFUNCTIONS OR FAILURES 30 10.1 POWER OUTAGES 31 10.2 UNINTERRUPTED SERVICE 31 10.3 PIPE BREAKS 32 10.3.1 Damage to the Dewatering System Header Line 32 10.3.2 Break of 66-Inch Concrete Cooling Pond 33 Blowdown Line 10.3.3 Nonmechanistic Failure of the Unit 2 34 Circulating Water Pipe I 10.3.4 Nonmechanistic Failure of the 20-Inch Condensate Pipe 34 11.0 MONITORING SAFEGUARDS 35 11.1 PLANT OPERATION 36 11.1.1 Groundwater Level Monitoring 37 11.1.2 Soil Particle Monitoring 37 11.1.3 Chemical Quality Monitoring 38

12.0 CONCLUSION

39 APPENDIXES A William C. Paris, Jr. - Educational and Professional Record B Detailed Analysis of Areas of Recharge C Results of Construction Dewatering D Details of Drawdown-Recharge Test I

I ..

11 I

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

I TABLES Number Title 1 Permanent Dewatering and Monitoring Well Schedule 2.4-llA FSAR Tchle - Falling Head Permeability Test Summary l 2.4-llB FSAR Table - Sr umary 'of Pumping Tests 2.4-12B FSAR Table - Chemical Analyses of Groundwater i Samples from Pumping Tests 2.4-12C FSAR Table - Chemical Analysis of Groundwater Samples from Construction Dewatering Wells l l

2.4-12D FSAR Table - Chemical Analyses of Groundwater Samples from Permanent Dewatering Wells 2.4-16 FSAR Table - Well Failure Mechanisms and Repair Times I

I I  :

1 I

I I

I l iii

g TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ,

l l FIGURES Number Title j 1 Groundwater Levels Prior to Drawdown Test (11-20-81) 2 Groundwater Levels at Completion of Recharge Test (4-5-82)

I 3 Groundwater Level Measured at Critical Areas During Recharge Test 4 Dewatering Criteria for Plant Shutdown 5 Time-Drawdown Graph for PD-5C Pumping Test (Sheet 1) 6 Time-Drawdown Graph for PD-5C Pumping Test (Sheet 2) 7 Time-Drawdown Graph for PD-15A Pumping Test (Sheet 1) 8 Time-Drawdown Graph for PD-15A Pumping Test (Sheet 2) 9 Hydrographs of Cooling Pond; Piezometers PZ-9, PZ-17, PZ-22, and PZ-23, and observation Wells PD-5, PD-6, PD-16, PD-17, PD-19, and 10 Hydrographs of Cooling Pond and Observation Wells W-2, CL-1, PD-18, PD-38, and PD-37 11 Plan of Observation Wells for Drawdown-Recharge Test 12 Observation Wells at Critical Structures Monitored During Recharge Test FSAR 2.4-39 Isopach of Remaining Natural Sands I FSAR 2.4-40 Groundwater Levels Prior to Pond Lowering (11-27 to 11-29-79)

FSAR 2.4-41 Predicted Groundwater Levels During Plant I Operation FSAR 2.4-42 Pumping Test Location Plan l

I iv I ,

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

FIGURES (Continued) i Number Title I FSAR 2.4-43 Groundwater Levels in the Vicinity of the Diesel Generator Building Prior to Pumping Test Well PD-20 (10-2-80)

FSAR 2.4-44 Groundwater Levels in the Vicinity of the Diesel Generator Building Near the Completion of Pumping Test Well PD-20 (11-12-80)

FSAR 2.4-45 Location of Construction Dewatering Wells I FSAR 2.4-46 Permanent Dewatering and Monitoring Well Location Plan FSAR 2.4-47 Areas Committed to Permanent Dewatering I FSAR 2.4-48 Typical Permanent Monitoring Well Section I FSAR 2.4-49 Contours on Bottom of Natura] Sand after Construction I FSAR 2.4-50 FLowrate vs Time Construction Dewatering System 1980 (Sheet 1)

FSAR 2.4-51 I Typical Sections of Construction Dewatering Wells FSAR 2.4-52 Flowrate vs Time Construction Dewatering System 1981 (Sheet 2)

FSAR 2.4-53 Geologic Cross-Section South of Diesel l Generator Building (A-A')

FSAR 2.4-54 Composite Grain Size Analyses PD Borings -

Natural Sand FSAR 2.4-55 Design of Screen and Filter Pack FSAR 2.4-56 Wells Operating During Drawdown Test FSAR 2.4-57 Dewatering Events FSAR 2.4-58 Groundwater Levels Prior to Start of Recharge Test (2-3-82)

FSAR 2.4-59 Groundwater Levels After Pond Lowering (2-19 to 2-21-80)

FSAR 2.4-60 Typical Permanent Dewatering Well Section l

I v l

l TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

FIGURES (Con? .sund)

I Number Title I FSAR 2.4-o3 Flowrate vs Time Construction Dewatering System 1982 (Sheet 3)

I FSAR 2.4-64 Flowrate vs Time Permanent Dewatering Wells G-1 Through G-9, F-1 Through F-7, and H-1 Through H-4, 1981~(Sheet 1)

FSAR 2.4-65 Flowrate vs Time Permanent Dewatering Wells G-1 Through G-9, F-1 Through F-7, and H-1 Through H-4, 1982 (Sheet 2)

FSAR 2.5-17 Cross-Section and Boring Location Plan I FSAR 2.5-17A Cross-Sections, Borings and Test Pit Location Plan Diesel Generator Building FSAR 2.5-17B Boring and Test Pit Location Plan Service Water Pump Structure FSAR 2I-l Plan of Observation Wells 24-14 Pumping Tests Time-Drawdown Graphs (Response to NRC Question 24) 47-5 Time-Drawdown Graph Observation Well PD-5 Pumping Well PD-20 (Response to NRC Question 47) 47-6 Hydrographs of Cooling Pond and Observation Wells PD-9, PD-3, and PD-16 (Response to NRC Question 47) 47-10 Time-Drawdown Graph Observation Well PD-5 I Pumping Well PD-5C (Response to NRC Question 47)

I I

I I

I vi I

I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

I This is the testimony of William C. Paris, Jr.

concerning the permanent dewatering system for the Midland site.

That system - a part of the proposed soils remedial action for the Midland site - is designed to remove water from the granular plant fill materials underlying certain seismic Category I structures and components, precluding the possibility of I liquefaction during a design basis earthquake (FSAR Figure 2.4-47).

I have directly participated in the design of the permanent dewatering system. Based on my knowledge and analysis of that design, as well as the construction methodology, I conclude that the dewatering system will provide an acceptable method of removing water from the granular plant fill material l thereby preventing liquefaction of soils beneath certain Category I structures at Midland in the event of a design basis I earthquake.

I 1.1 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE I

My detailed educational and professional record is presented in Appendix A. The following is a summary:

1 I I completed the requirements for a Bachelor of Arts degree in Geology from Bowling Green State University in 1968.

I

I I Following graduation, I began work as a geologist with consulting engineering companies in Pennsylvania and Maryland. My work was primarily in the area of engineering geology, which is the I application of geologic data, techniques and principles to the study of rock, soil, and groundwater. Some of the projects upon which I worked include the following: design and construction of highways and bridges, building foundations, municipal water supplies, pipelines, and solid waste disposal facilities.

Starting in 1974, I served as a geologist in the Bechtel Gaithersburg (Maryland) office. I became supervisor of the engineering geology group of the Bechtel Ann Arbor office in June 1979. My experience with Bechtel includes project geologist for the Boston Redline Extension Tunnels, geotechnical coordinator for additional facilities constructed at the Dickerson (Maryland) Generating Station, and resident field geologist at the Grand Gulf (Mississippi) Nuclear Station. I also have provided technical support for feasibility, siting, I design and construction of other nuclear and fossil fueled facilities.

I am a registered geologist in Georgia, and a certified geologist in Maine. I am listed in Who's Who in Technology I Today, Volume 2, Civil and Earth Sciences, 1982. I am a member of the International Association of Engineering Geologists, and Geological Society of America. I am the immediate past president of the 3,000-member Association of Engineering Geologists and I

I t recently served on the governing board of the American Geological Institute. I am currently on the U.S. National Committee of the International Association of Engineering Geologists. I am also an Associate Member of the American Society of Civil Engineers and a member of the National Water Well Association.

1.2 BACKGROUND

INFORMATION I Areas of the site subject to possible liquefaction are described in the liquefaction testimony of Dr. Woods. Facilities affected include the diesel generator building, auxiliary building electrical penetration areas, auxiliary building railroad bay, the cantilevered section of the service water pump structure, and a portion of the service water lines adjacent to the service water pump structure.

Basically, the underpinning proposed for the auxiliary building electrical penetration wings and service water pump structure and rebedding of a portion of the service water lines eliminates liquefaction as a potential problem in those areas. A slight potential for liquefaction in the event of the design basis earthquake would still exist in the granular plant fill lying above elevation 610 beneath the diesel generator building and in the uppermost layers of fill beneath the railroad bay area of the auxiliary building. With regard to the diesel generator building, the preload program was designed to consolidate clay soils, but was not designed to and did not, eliminate the 1 l

l I l l

I I possibility of liquefaction of granular materials beneath the structure if a design basis earthquake were to occur.

I 2.0

SUMMARY

OF DESIGN OF. PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM I Section 2.4.12 of tLe StanrN-d Review Plan including Branch Technical Position HGEB-1 has been reviewed and was used as a guide in designing the dewatering system. The design of the permanent dewatering system meets or commits to meet all the provisions of the Regulatory Guide.

The design of the permanent dewatering system is based on an evaluation of design drawings and construction records, test boring information, field and laboratory test results, observation well and piezometer data and pumping test results.

The data obtained from thera activities include type, distribution and permeability of materials, zones of recharge, a nes of drawdown, recharge rates and pumping rates. This information has been used to determine the location, spacing, size, and depth of the dewatering wells.  !

The design of the system further includes protection against system malfunction and ensures that sufficient time is available for implementation of remedial measures before the groundwater level can rise to an unacceptable level. More specifically, a groundwater monitoring program has been developed to provide early detection of system failure at critical I

I I locations; an evaluation of system component failures (pumps, timers, screens and headers) on the performance of the entire system has been completed; provision has been made for the repair I of any system failure which may occur; and a regularly scheduled inspection program will be carried out during both construction and operation of the system.

I Last, the design of the system is such that following a total system failure, the groundwater level recharge time is sufficiently slow to allow other forms of dewatering to be implemented before the design basis groundwater level is exceeded at the diesel generator building or auxiliary building railroad bay. To verify that conclusion, a full-scale test was performed I by shutting off all operating wells after the groundwater levels had been lowered to elevation 595, or as low as practical and with the cooling pond at operating elevation 627. During this test, groundwater level versus time curves were plotted to determine the actual recharge time at the diesel generator I building and auxiliary building train bay. The results of this test indicate there is sufficient time to initiate corrective action before the groundwater levels can reach elevation 610 beneath either the diesel generator building or auxiliary building railroad bay.

I I

I

1 I

3.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAM -

I The design of the permanent dewatering system is based I' on evaluation of over 300 exploratory borings including 56 borings designated by the "PD" prefix drilled specifically for the dewatering investigation. The objective of this program was to develop a clear understanding of the hydraulic characteristics of the materials to be dewatered. Information collected from the I PD series borings includes:

I a. Areal extent of the lacustrine sand (Unit c), lacustrine clay (Unit d), and till (Units b and e)

I b. In situ soil permeability data and degree of hydraulic connection between lacustrine sand (Unit c) and sand backfill I

c. Grain size analysis of lacustrine sand (Unit c) and sand backfill I 3.1 AREAL EXTENT OF SANDS I

The PD series boring program and other site borings were evaluated to determine the areal extent and thickness of the granular materials.

I I

I I Clay and silty clay are the predominant backfill materials. However, sand backfill was placed adjacent to the structures, with the largest concentration of sand backfill in the main excavation around the containment and auxiliary building structures. The borings show that sand backfill placed elsewhere i is predominantly at or near the base of the plant fill.

I The natural material underlying the site is primarily Unit c lacustrine sand or Unit d clay, and Unit e till. The Unit c lacustrine sand is found beneath the eastern and southern portions of the site. This sand is thickest east of the plant structures and decreases in thickness to the west (FSAR Figure 2.4-39). The bottom of the Unit c sand is generally below elevation 590 over the entire plant site as shown in FSAR Figure 2.4-49.

4.0 HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MATERIALS I The hydraulic characteristics of the natural and backfill sands and their degree of hydraulic interconnection

• were obtained through pumping tests, in-situ falling head tests, grain size analyses and observations of changes in site water I levels as a result of changes in cooling pond elevati.on  !

1 (Appendix B) and construction dewatering (Appendix C).

I *The term hydraulic interconnection refers to the ability of water to freely flow from one unit or strata of soil to another.

I

I Pumping tests were performed by pumping a well for a period of time at a constant rate while observing the change in water level in the pumping well and in nearby observation wells.

From these tests permeabilities and transmissivities are determined. (Permeability is the rate water will move through a material of unitized dimensions under a given pressure, whereas transmissivity is the permeability of the material multiplied by its saturated thickness. Thus, the transmissivity gives an indication of the rate water will flow through a given saturated material.)

Permeability may also be determined through the use of field falling head permeability tests, which are performed by measuring the rate of water level decline in a cased borehole which has been filled with water. Evaluation of the test results indicate the permeability of materials at the open bottom of the casing.

I A third method of approximating permeability is by grain size analyses. Theoretically, permeability varies with the

. squjre of a particular particle diameter. The controlling particle diameter is the size where 10% of the material is finer by weight, and 90% is coarser by weight, which is referred to as the Da size.

I I

I

I '

4.1 I'IELD FALLING HEAD TESTS I

Field falling head permeability tests were performed in selected borings to evaluate the permeabilities of the Unit c lacustrine sand, Unit d lacustrine clay, Unit e till, sand backfill, and clay backfill. The results of these tests were analyzed using Hvorslev's variable head formula (Reference 1).

These tests were performed in the PD Series borings and shown in plan in FSAR Figures 2.5-17, 2.5-17A, and 2.5-17B. Ths average permeabilit.y for the lacustrine sand (Un'.t c) is 840 ft/yr. The average permeability of the lacustrine clay (Unit d) is 15 ft/yr.

The glacial till (Unit e) also has an average permeability of 15 ft/yr. The sand backfill has an average permeability of 3,600 ft/yr and the clay backfill has an average permeability of 20 ft/yr. The results of these permeability tests are presented in FSAR Table 2.4-11A.

I The falling head permeability tests that were performed in clay are subject to error due to leakage around the casing.

Because the clays have such low permeability, the water added to l the casing could run up between the casing and the wall of the boring if the casing is not seated properly in the clay.

However, this error is conservative because it results in higher j

I permeability values.

I l

I

I I 4.2 PERMEABILITY ESTIMATED FROM GRAIN SIZE I

Grain size information was also used to estimate I permeabilties of the lacustrine sand (Unit c) and sand backfill.

Grain size information was taken from gradation analysis of selected samples from numerous site borings. The range of permeabilities determined for the Unit c sand are from less than 5,700 to 50,000 ft/yr and the backfill sand from less than 5,700 I to 55,000 ft/yr.

The permeabilities determined from grain size analyses represent only relative permeability values. The Hazen formula (Reference 2) was used, which is an empirical derivation relating I permeability to grain size and may be subject to error when applied to sands with different gradations. The use of this method was intended only to provide a range of relative permeabilities that can be compared to field and laboratory permeability tests.

4.3 PUMPING TESTS Eight constant rate pumping tests were performed during the site investigation to evaluate the permeability and degree of hydraulic connection in the lacustrine sand (Unit c) and sand backfill. The results obtained from these tests indicate that:

I I

I a. Shallow backfill sands near the containment structures are in hydraulic contact with the deeper backfill sands; thus the shallow backfill sands will respond to pumping I from the deeper backfill sands. The clay intervals in l

the backfill are not effective barriers to drainage.

b. Backfill sands surrounding the circulating water discharge lines are in direct contact with the I underlying lacustrine (natural) sand, and the two sands are hydraulically connected. However, these sands are not directly connected to the cooling pond.

c. Hydraulic connection exists throughout the combined I Unit c and backfill sands. These sands are directly connected to the cooling pond in the area of the circulating water intake and service water pump structures.

Calculated transmissivities from pumping tests in the lacustrine sand (Unit c) and sand backfill range from 28 to 1,103 ft 2/ day. The average permeability is 3,527 ft/yr (FSAR Table 2.4-11B).

I The pumping test. method is accepted as one of the most accurate methods of determining aquifer permeability. Because observations of water levels are made some distance from the pumping well, permeability values can be obtained for a sizable I

I

_1..o _

portion of the aquifer. Additionally, the aquifer materials are not disturbed as they are in a laboratory permeability test (Reference 3).

I 5.0 AREAS OF RECHARGE The backfill materials are placed within the limits of the plant dike which encompasses the cooling pond as well as the plant area backfill. The plant dike contains a clay cutoff or slurry wall (Reference 4) which effectively reduces movement of groundwater toward or away from either the plant backfill material or underlying natural sand from sources outside the dike.

I There is, however, no impervious cutoff between the cooling pond and the plant fill. Therefore, the primary source of recharge to the plant backfill materials is the cooling pond.

Two potential areas for the recharge were considered: south of the diesel generator building, and around the circulating water intake and service water pump structures.

An analysis of the results of pumping tests, permeability measurements, changes in plant groundwater levels due to pond raising or lowering, and construction dewatering indicates only slight hydraulic connection between the pond and soils south of the diesel building (Appendix B). Instead, seepage from the cooling pond enters the plant site at the I -

I circulating water intake structure, and travels to other portions of the plant site. This conclusion was verifie.d by the rate at which site water levels rose during the recharge test.

Examination of the hydrographs of site observation wells (Reference 16) measured during the recharge test indicates that the water levels rose much faster in the area of the circulating water intake structure than in the area south of the diesel generator building (Appendix D).

I 6.0 DEWATERING SYSTEM DESIGN The design of the permanent dewatering system accounts for the two basic findings of the exploration and testing program: 1)

The granular backfill materials are hydraulically connected to the underlying natural sands, and 2) The cooling pond, at elevation 627, is the main source.of recharge, and seepage from the pond is occurring primarily at the circulating water intake structure and service water pump structure.

I The first component of the permanent dewatering system is a line of interceptor wells around the intake and pump structure area (FSAR Figure 2.4-46). This 1;tne of wells is designed to prevent cooling pond water from niNing through the I backfill and natural sands toward the diesel generator building and auxiliary building railroad bay areas. These wells will also aid in lowering groundwater levels in the backfill and Unit c sands near the cooling pond. Thus, should the devatering wells I.

become inoperable, the groundwater will be low enough so that the rate of groundwater level rise in the plant area is sufficiently slow to allow activation of the backup dewatering system before the groundwater level reaches elevation 610 at the diesel generator building or auxiliary building railroad bay.

The interceptor well system :nalysis utilized the combined gravity-artesian flow method presented in the Army, Navy, and Air Force dewatering manual (Reference 5). This method of analysis was selected to account for the confining nature of the concrete foundation of the circulating water intake and service water pump structures.

I The calculation is based on an approximation of inflow from a line source (cooling pond) into a slot (interceptor well system) 110 feet from the cooling pond. This hypothetical slot extends along the entire length of the circulating water intake / service water pump structures and continues in a straight line to the condensate tanks for a total length of 380 feet. The results of the analysis indicated that 20 wells, with a 20-foot well spacing, are required to intercept flow and maintain pumping levels of elevation 585 in these wells (FSAR Figure 2.4-46).

Each well should produce approximately 10 gpm with the water levels between the interceptor wells at elevation 590 and downstream of the wells at elevation 589. This calculation conservatively ignores the Seismic Category I concrete wall that will be installed to support the cantilevered portion of the

I service water pump structure. This wall will effectively cut off any seepage from beneath the structure for a length-of r7 feet.

I Design of the interceptor well system also requires a duplicate or backup interceptor well system to provide nearly uninterrupted service should the primary interceptor well system be shut down for maintenance or repair. Therefore, a total of 40 (interceptor and backup interceptor) wells are provided in the vicinity of the circulating water intake and service water pump structures (FSAR Figure 2.4-46).

I The second component of the system consists of area dewatering wells designed to fulfull two objectives: first, to remove groundwater from storage to elevation 595 within the plant site; and, second to intercept rain water and pipe leakage. The average annual rainfall at the site is 29.6 inches (Reference 6).

Normal leakage from pipes during plant operations is estimated to be no greater than 1 gpm. The total number of area wells required for area dewatering is estimated to be 24 (FSAR Figure 2.4-46). The area wells are expected to operate only a small percentage of the time.

The optimum maximum groundwater level during operation was determined by the use of an analytical model. The model is a linearized form of the Boussinesq equation (Reference 7) and utilized data from observed groundwater fluctuations as a result

f changes in cooling pond level. The optimum maximum operating

groundwater level was selected to provide sufficient time to repair the system, in the event of a complete failure, before groundwater levels would reach elevation 610 at the critical areas. The optimum operating groundwater level was determined to be elevation 595. The most conservative recharge time, as determined from the model, is approximately 60 days.

6.1 AREAS OF PERMANENT DEWATERING INFLUENCE The area of influence of drawdown created by the permanent dewatering system over the life of the plant will not extend beyond the plant fill area because of the cutoff and slurry trench, which was constructed around the perimeter of the site (Reference 4). This cutoff effectively limits any movement of groundwater toward or away from the plant backfill material or underlying Unit c sand.

l FSAR Figure 2.4-41 presents the predicted groundwater levels during the permanent dewatering system operation. This figure shows that within the plant area fill, the groundwater l levels are contained within the plant boundaries.

lI i Dewatering has no effect on the integrity of the soil l

l straca, and the lower confined aquifer will not be affected because of the presence of 135 feet of essentially impervious I

soil between the upper Unit c sand and the lower confined 1

aquifer.

DESCRIPTION OF COMPONENTS 6.2 The components of the dewatering system include the permanent well, filter pack, pumping equipment, well discharge and header piping, timers, switches, and monitoring devices.

These components have been or will be installed in accordance with industry or manufacturer's standards under the owner's QA/QC inspection plan.

6.2.1 Description of Permanent Well Each permanent dewatering well is constructed of the following materials (FSAR Figure 2.4-60):

a. Well casings are 6 inches nominal diameter SDR-21 polyvinyl chloride (PVC),

b. Well screens are No. 18 (0.018 inch) continuously-slotted, plastic wire wrapped.

c. Caps placed at the bottom of each well are PVC.

d. Piezometers are porous stone, Casagrande type. The connecting riser pipe is 1/2-inch diameter PVC.

e. Each well is equipped with a filter pack as described in Section 6.2.2.

I

f. The seal above the filter pack consists of nonshrink grout.

6.2.2 Description of Filter Pack A filter pack is required to provide a transition zone between the natural sand to be dewatered and the well screen to prevent the movement of soil particles into the well. The filter pack design for the monitoring wells and interceptor, backup, and area dewatering wells was based on grain size data from the PD series borings (Reference 8). A composite,of Unit c natural sand grain size curves is presented in FSAR Figure 2.4-54. From this figure, a composite Unit c sand grain size curve was selected and utilized for the filter pack design (FSAR Figure 2.4-55). The filter pack gradation curve was determined from grain size of the composite curve using industry accepted methods (Reference 9).

The width of the well screen slot was selected to retain 90% of the filter pack (Reference 9). Verification of the range of grain sizes for the Unit c sand was performed by sampling from pilot holes drilled at selected permanent dewatering and monitoring well locations (Reference 10). In order to ensure that the filter pack is functioning properly, a soil particle monitoring progrem will be in effect during plant operation (Section 11.2.2).

Each filter pack is composed of clean, well-rounded, noncalcareous sand, containing no clay, organic matter, or other

. deleterious materials. The filter pack meets the following requirements:

Sieve Size Acceptable Range Designation (No.) of % Retained I 4 6

8 0- 10 0- 24 6- 22 12 14- 31 16 24- 40 l 20 35- 51 )

30 51- 67  :

40 87-100 (Particle size analysis was performed by the contractor's testing representative prior to shipment of filter pack material.)

I 6.2.3 Description of Permanent Pumping Equipment I Each individual permanent well will be equipped with a waterproof submersible pump of sufficient capacity to control and lower the groundwater within its zone of influence. The pumping equipment will be manufactured from material capable of resisting the effects of substandard groundwater quality (Referenca 11),

and will be supplied with remote motor starters and controls (Reference 12). Pumping equipment will be connected to the piping discharge system with a quick disconnect pitless adaptor to allow pumping equipment to be easily removed from the well for inspection, cleaning, or replacement.

l I

l

E I

6.2.4 Description of Permanent Well Discharge and Header Piping Groundwater quality samples were obtained and tested during the permanent dewatering exploration program and the initial operation of the backup dewatering system. Evaluation of chemical analyses presented in FSAR Tables 2.4-12B, 2.4-12C, and 2.4-12D indicates that the groundwater at the site is not scale forming. However, all buried discharge and header piping will be reinforced thermosetting vinylester resin pipe which minimizes concentration of dissolved solids and mineral deposits or deterioration caused by chemical reaction (Reference 13).

Each individual well will be equipped with a three-way valve to divert the discharge flow from the header to the water l quality sample tap (Reference 13) or eraergency riser discharge An automatic drain valve will be provided pipe (Reference 14).

at each individual well sampling tap to prevent freezing.

l I Each subsystem will be divided into one or more separate header sections to provide monitoring control and minimize the l dependence on a single system header. Each header will be provided with a 5-foot minimum cover or freeze protection. The headers will be routed to a meter pit equipped with a header water quality sampling point and remote readout flowmeter. Water quality samples and flow measurements will be taken in accordance with the operating technical specification.

I .

I The discharge from one or more headers will be combined after the monitoring points and conveyed to a catch basin for discharge back to the cooling pond.

I 6.2.5 Description of Timers and Level Switches Each individual well will be controlled by its own timer and/or automatic self-contained level switches located within the I well casing.

E Wells for the primary interceptor subsystem will be controlled by individual timers and low level shut off safety switches. Timer settings will be determined after the system is in operation or sufficient construction dewatering activities have been performed to determine the correct cycling duration.

Timing will be adjusted periodically to meet the limiting conditions of the operating technical specification. In addition to the timers, these wells will be provided with low level cutoff switches to prevent pump damage if unexpected low flow occurs.

I The backup interceptor subsystem wells are operated by high/ low level switches. This subsystem will automatically activate if abnormal amounts of groundwater pass the primary I interceptor subsystem causing the groundwater to rise to a predetermined elevation. The area subsystems are controlled by high/ low level switches and will activate if the local water level rises to a predetermined elevation. Each motor control I -

unit will be supplied with an automatic /off/and manual on cycle for emergency and testing use.

I Electrical wiring of the dewatering pump system will be designed so that a temporary outage of one or more wells will have no effect on the remainder of the wells. If any disruption in the electrical power supply occurs, a backup diesel generator will be available to supply power to the primary interceptor well and backup well pumps on a temporary basis until the normal nower I

l supply is restored. At a given time, this temporary backup ower can feed either the primary interceptor or backup interceptor well pumps.

I 6.2.6 Description of Permanent Monitoring Wells I Six permanent groundwater level monitoring wells will be

~

installed as part of the dewatering system. These wells, as shown in FSAR Figure 2.4-46, are located to provide groundwater level data at the two critical structures and between the critical structures and the cooling pond.

The monitoring wells were installed using the same construction techniques, materials and soil particle test criteria as the dewatering wells. The only exception is that no pumping equipment or pitless adapters will be installed in these wells. A typical section of a monitoring well is shown in FSAR Figure 2.4-48.

I

= ______________ _ -____

I I Ultrasonic level transmitting devices will be installed in each monitoring 'well. This level transmitter sends water level data from the monitoring wells to a continuous reading strip chart recorder located in the evaporator building.

Additionally, alarms are connected to this system which are activated when a significant water level rise occurs in any of l the wells. The high level alarm is located in the main control I room.

Because the monitoring wells are constructed in the same way as the dewatering wells, in the event of an emergency situation, temporary pumping equipment can be installed in these wells with the discharge being diverted to a catch basin.

Additional observation wells are also available at the site to monitor various depths within the backfill and natural sands (FSAR Figure 2I-1). A select number of these wells will be ,

maintained for measurement over the life of the plant.

I 7.0 INSTALLATION OF PERMANENT DEWATERING WELLS I

After pilot holes were drilled to obtain information as to filter pack design, the permanent dewatering wells were installed between August 1981 and August 1982. Bechtel's geologists /hydrogeologists prepared as-built drawings of each well installation, including well number, location, diameter of hole, total length, and description of each type of casing; a log of subsurface materials encountered; and a complete compilation I

I E

of all field data obtained during drilling, installation and development of the wells, including the data requested by the NRC (Reference 15).

The bored hole for each dewatering and monitoring well was drilled by the cable tool drilling method, using water as a I drilling fluid. The subcontractor was required to take bailer samples from the drill cuttings from each 5-foot interval of l drilling and at every formation changel Strata were classified by Bechtel's geologist /hydrogeologist during the drilling operation (Reference 15). Each hole was 17 inches in diameter to the elevations indicated in Table 1. During the drilling operation, thee subcontractor was required to keep the water level in the drive casing 5 feet above the static groundwater level. The subcontractor was restricted to drilling only 5 feet below the end of the drive casing in sand and 10 feet below in clay.

I Each dewatering well was constructed as a filter pack well (FSAR Figure 2.4-60). The filter pack material was delivered in bags and wetted to prevent particle segregation.

Centering devices were installed on the casing and screen to locate and hold the casing and screen in position. Casagrande-i type, porous stone piezometers were placed just below the well I

screen within the filter pack of each well. After the assembled casing, screen, piezometer, tips, and tubing were located in the drilled hole, the filter pack was installed from the bottom of lt

e E:~

I the well to the planned bottom of the grout seal. As the steel casing was being withdrawn, at all times the filter pack was maintained at least 2 feet above the bottom-of the steel casing.

The filter pack was placed by two tremie pipes arranged 180 degrees apart. While placing the filter pack, clear water was circulated continuously through the tremie pipes.

5 -

Following installation of the filter pack or grout seal each well was developed by intermittent pumping with a submersible pump. The 20 permanent backup wells were developed prior to grout seal placement, while the remaining 44 permanent dewatering wells were developed after placement of the grout seal. Each well was developed for approximately 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> after which a soil particle test (0.05 mm size) was performed. If the quantity of soil particles was less than 10 ppm, the well was accepted and development discontinued. If the quantity of soil particles was greater than 10 ppm, the subcontractor was directed to develop the well for another 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> and a second test performed. If the second test exceeded 10 ppm, the subcontractor was directed to develop the well for another 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> and a third  ;

1 test was taken. If the third test failed, the well was required {

to be abandoned. During the installation of the permanent wells, l all wells passed the soil particle test. Only one well (E-7) required three tests and two wells (H-3 and E-5) required two tests; all others passed the soil particle monitoring after the l initial development period. As required by the NRC, during 3

l I

development an estimate of quantity of material removed was made by the Bechtel geologist /hydrogeologist. 'The results are indicated on the Well Installation Data Sheets (Reference 15).

Upon completion of development or gravel pack installation, the wells were grouted using a minimum thickness of 12 feet of nonshrink grout. The grout was introduced by a tremie pipe into the annulus between the PVC well casing and the steel I drive casing. When the grout was brought to the design level, the tremie pipe and steel drive casing were withdrawn from the hole. Removal of the steel drive casing would cause the grout level to drop slightly. Therefore, after removal of the steel drive casing, the tremie pipe was reinserted into the hole and I grout was added to bring the grout level in the hole back to the design elevation. A minimum set time of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for tha grout to attain maximum strength was allowed following grout placement.

I Following the grout curing period, temporary backfill or I a steel casing was placed from the top of the grout seal to ground surface. A PVC cap was placed on the well for protection.

i The details of construction and as-built conditions of the wells are presented on the Well Installation Data Sheets and Well Construction Summaries (Reference 15).

All work was completed under supervision of Bechtel's geologist /hydrogeologist and inspected by the owner's QA/QC inspection plan.

1 I l l 1

I j

8.0 TEMPORARY OPERATION OF 20 PERMANENT BACKUP DEWATERING WELLS I

Following installation of the 20 permanent backup dewatering wells, temporary pumping equipment was installed. The !

pumping equipment consisted of'either a standard submersible pump or eductor unit (s). Selection of the type of pumping equipment was based on estimates of individual well yields during development. Temporary steel header lines were placed above ground to allow all wells to discharge to a common point. Soil particle monitoring sample points were placed on individual well discharge lines and on the system discharge line.

I By November 20, 1981, all 20 permanent backup dewatering wells were pumping as part of the drawdown-recharge test (Appendix D). Pumping rates versus time for the total system production are shown graphically in FSAR Figure 2.4-64 and 2.4-65. During operation of this system, biweekly soil particle sampling was performed on the system overflow and monthly I sampling was performed on individual well discharge lines. As per request of the NRC, these soil particle samples were tested using a 0.005 mm (5 micron) filter medium. Throughout the majority of the system operation period, the soil particic results remained well below (less than 2 ppm) the maximum 10 ppm by weight of soil particles.

8 During initial system start-up, September 17, 1981, a test failure was reported. This failure is thought to be due to I

8 the presence of foreign material in the temporary header lines, eductor pipes, and drop pipes. No subsequent test failures have occurred. The pumping in these wells was terminated on February 4, 1982.

8 ,

These wells were made operational again on May 6, 1982, l to provide dewatering for the underpinning activities.

I To evaluate the effectiveness of interceptor system design, actual field measurements were compared to the design information presented in Section 6.0. The comparison of design versus actual information is as follows:'

I Parameter Design Actual Average Elevation of Bottom of Sand el 580' el 572' Average Thickness of Sand 15' 28' Total Head at Cooling Pond 47' 55' Average Well Spacing 20' 24' I Average Distance From Cooling Pond 110' 124' Length of Slot 380' 365' Pumping Level el 585' el 579' Average Pumping Rate (per well) 10 gpm 12 gpm Average Soil Particle Removal 10 ppm 0.2 ppm (per well) 1.0 cy < 1. 0 cy (max) (projected)

Examination of this information shows that, even though the sand thickness and total head at the cooling pond is greater and the pumping level is lower than the design assumptions, the I

8 .

pumping rate per well is essentially the same. This indicates that the true permeability of the sand at the dewatering slot is lower than the design permeability value of 17 feet per day.

I Figure 1 shows the groundwater level contours before startup of the 20 permanent dewatering well system and FSAR Figure 2.4-58 shows the groundwater level contours at the conclusion of the drawdown portion of the drawdown-recharge test.

It can be seen that the 20 permanent backup dewatering wells, in conjunction with construction and temporary dewatering wells (Appendix D) effectively lowered groundwater levels below  ;

elevation 595 throughout most of the plant site. Further, FSAR Figures 2.4-52 and 2.4-63, showing the flowrates for the construction dewatering system, shows that following startup of the 20 permanent backup dewatering wells, the flowrate of the construction dewatering system declined rapidly to less than 2 gallons per minute. This indicates that the permanent backup wells form an effective system for intercepting seepage from the cooling pond.

9.0 RECHARGE TIME I

To verify the recharge time derived from the mathematical model (Section 6.0), a full-scale recharge test was performed at the site. Groundwater levels were lowered as close to predicted operating groundwater levels as possible, using the 20 backup interceptor wells, construction dewatering system, and I

I I miscellaneous wells around the site (Appendix D). FSAR Figure 2.4-56 shows the locations of these wells. The sequence of pumping operations is shown in FSAR Figure 2.4-57. FSAR I Figures 2.4-50, 2.4-52, 2.4-63, 2.4-64, and 2.4-65 show pumping ,

rates for the construction and permanent backup dewatering systems. FSAR Figure 2.4-58 is a groundwater level countour map showing levels before the start of the recharge test. The recharge test began February 4, 1982, and was conducted for 8 60 days. Hydrographs (Reference 16) show the responses of individual observation wells around the site. The groundwater contours at the completion of the test are shown in Figure 2.

The results of this test indicate that there is sufficient recharge time available to repair or perform maintenance (FSAR Table 2.4-16) on the dewatering system before groundwater levels would reach elevation 610 at the diesel generator building (Figure 3).

I 10.0 EFFECTS OF MALFUNCTIONS OR FAILURES The dewatering system is not a safety related Seismic Category I system; it is not required to operate during or after an SSE. Instead, the system design is based on the conclusion that, following natural circumstances that may cause total or partial failure of the system, sufficient time exists to make necessary repairs before the potential for liquefaction develops.

A vorst case assumption (the total failure of all gumping capacity in the system) would still permit suffi ient time to I

8 repair or replace the system before the water level in

)

liquefiable soils in the diesel generator building and auxiliary building train bay areas reaches elevation 610. This conclusion was verified by the full scale recharge test described in Appendix D. A summary of well failure mechanisms and repair times is presented in FSAR Table 2.4-16.

Less severe accident conditions (e.g., a partial break in the dewatering header system, breaks of lines outside the dewatering syst.en, or power outages) have also been accounted for in the system design.

10.1 POWER OUTAGES I

Electrical wiring of the system will be designed such that the temporary outage of one or more wells will have no effect on the remaining wells. In addition, should any disruption in the overall power supply occur, backup diesel generator power will be available for temporary backup power and can feed either the primary interceptor or backup interceptor well pumps.

10.2 UNINTERRUPTED SERVICE I

Assurance of uninterrupted service in the event of a partial loss of system wells is also provided by a number of redundancies built into the dewatering system. Twenty backup I

I wells located at the cooling water intake structure and service water pump structure will provide standby pumping capacity for the 20 interceptor wells in this area. Another 24 area wells are available to remove any water not collected by the interceptor wells. Thus, 64 wells have been incorporated into the dewatering system design, each with a submerislbe pump having the capacity of at least 10 gpm. Of the 64 wells incorporated, it is estimated that only 20 interceptor wells and 2 area wells will be required to maintain the groundwater at the level shown in FSAR Figure 2.4-41.

8 10.3 PIPE BREAKS 8 The dewatering system design also accounts for pipe breaks, both at the interceptor wells and at the critical areas.

Pipe breaks that would immediately impact the interceptor well system include breaks of a dewatering system header line, concrete pipe cooling pond blowdown line, or service water discharge line. Also a nonmechanistic failure of both the Unit 2 1

circulating water discharge pipe and the 20-inch diameter condensate water pipe near the diesel generator building was analyzed.

I 10.3.1 Damage to the Dewatering System Header Line S

Damage to the dewatering system header line could result in return flow to the dewatering wells in the vicinity of the I

I broken line. In that event, the combination of groundwater recharge and surface water inflow could exceed the capacity of the affected pump, producing,a rise in groundwater level. To account for this, flexible hose would be attached to each well to temporarily divert the flow to the system's catch basins until the header line is repaired. In the case of an interceptor well header failure, the backup wells would automatically be activated and they are on a separate header system. This arrangement will prevent an overload of the pumping capacity of an individual well or of a group of wells.

I 10.3.2 Break of 66-Inch Concrete Coolina Pond Blowdown Line 8 A break of the 66-inch concrete cocling pond blowdown line at the service water pump structure could result in damage to two dewatering wells if the break were to occur at the point where the line crosses the interceptor wells while the line is in service. The impact of such a pipe break on the entire dewatering system, however, would be minimal. The total amount of water released by a break in this low-pressure line would not produce a significant rise in overall plant groundwater levels, even if all the released water entered the groundwater system.

I Following a pipe break, the flow of the water would be shut off and the backup interceptor wells would automatically l

activate. The backup interceptor wells and remaining primarf wells will have sufficient capacity to remove recharge from the I

l 8

cooling pond until the damaged wells can be replaced. Excess water introduced into the area by the pipe break would be removed by the area dewatering system.

10.3.3 Nonmechanistic Failure of the Unit 2 Circulating Water Pipe I Potential hazards from the nonmechanistic failure of the circulating water discharge pipe near the diesel generator building were assessed by determining the time necessary for the rise in water le"< to activate a permanent area dewatering well.

It was determined that groundwater levels would be significantly below the critical elevation when the permanent area dewatering wells would be activated.

10.3.4 Nonmechanistic Failure of the 20-Inch Condensate Pipe I A nonmechanistic failure of the 20-inch diameter condensate water pipe, which is located directly beneath the diesel generator building, was analyzed. Using a simplified analysis, it was assumed that the entire contents of the condensate water tank (300,000 gallons) were spilled directly I beneath the diesel generator building. Further, it was conservatively assumed that all the water would be contained beneath the building. From this analysis, it was determined that the groundwater elevation would not rise above elevation 610.

I I .

8 11.0 MONITORING SAFEGUARDS I .

Groundwater quality, pumping rates, drawdown levels, and hours of opsration will be monitored frequently during the initial operating period so that a complete operating history of each well is established prior to plant operation. By comparision of the data collected, any decrease in production efficiency will be detected. The six basic causes of declines in production which result in groundwater level increases include: 1) inefficient pump operation due to worn, corroded or plugged parts; 2) defective or failed timers or high-level switches; 3) deposits of scale, corrosion and microorganisms on the well screen; 4) clogging of the well screen by clay, silt or fine sand; 5) pump motor burnout; and 6) failure or corrosion of discharge piping in well.

In order to assure that the gravel pack and screen are functioning properly, a monitoring program has been implemented to measure soil particle content in the discharge water during system operation. The estimated maximum permissible amount of soil particles that can be produced by any one well has been established as 10 ppm by weight. Normally, only sand-sized particles are measured in water (Reference 17). Sand is technically defined as any nonorganic solid material coarser than 0.06 mm. However, for conservatism, the NRC has requested that we monitor particle sizes larger than 0.005 mm which corresponds to fine silt-sized particles (Reference 18).

' l

8 1

11.1 PLANT OPERATION During plant operation, all monitoring procedures will be performed under a quality assurance program as operating technical specifications. When it is determined by analysis of available data that a well or group of wells is no longer functioning properly, appropriate remedial measures will be taken. These measures may include cleaning of the well screens, repair of replacement of screens or any mechanical parts, or installation of a new dewataring well, if necessary.

A complete set of replacement parts will be stored on site for any repair, replacenent or installation which may be requirel As a result of monitoring the well system, any significant rise in the groundwater level will be detected in sufficient time to take remedial actions before the critical groundwater elevation is reached.

I During plant operation the permanent dewatering system will be monitored in accordance with operating technical specifications. The operating technical specifications cover groundwater level, soil particle, and chemical quality monitoring.

8 I i I

I l

11.1.1 Grdundwater Level Monitoring The groundwater level monitoring program ensures that groundwater levels do not rise above elevation 610 at the diesel generator building or auxiliary building railroad bay.

Groundwater levels in monitoring wells, selected area dewatering wells, and observation wells will be monitored monthly to verify groundwater level elevations. In addition to monthly readings, continuous water level records are maintained for monitoring wells by use of ultrasonic level transducers and strip chart recorders. -

In tne event of a groundwater level rise, measurements are increased to once weekly between elevation 595 (systen operating level) and elevation 605 and daily above elevation 605.

If a groundwater level rise continues, plant shutdown will be initiated at elevation 606.5. Based on the drawdown-recharge test, groundwater levels will take at least 8.5 days to rise from elevation 606.5 to elevation 610 (Figure 4). To bring the plant to a cold shutdown requires 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />; this allows 7 days to install offsite p.ower to the plant.

g 11.1.2 Soil Particle Monitoring

.g 1

l l l The soil particle removal monitoring program ensures l

that a single dewatering will not produce more than 1 cubic yard (3,375 pounds) of soil particles over its operating life. Soil I

I particles are. defined herein as inorganic, nonmetallic particles greater than 0.005 mm in size and having a dry unit weight of I 125 pounds per cubic foot.

Soil particle monitoring will be perfcrmed once a month for all producing dewatering wells. The soil particle monitoring activity involves taking a water sample from a well and filtering it through a filter medium having 0.005 mm openings. The filter medium is dried and weighed to determine the concentration of soil particles. The flodrate of each dewatering well is monitored once every 6 months. The monthly soil particle concentration and the last semiannual flow reading are used to determine the amount of soil particles removed over the month.

This value. is then added to the cumulative amount of soil particles removed from the well. In the unlikely event that a well produces 3,375 pounds (1 cubic yard) of soil particles the well will be grouted and a new well drilled.

I 11.1.3 Chemical Quality Monitoring I

To prevent a decrease in dewatering efficiency due to incrustation of well screens, a groundwater quality monitoring program will be implemented.

I Groundwater samples from the dewatering header lines will be taken annually. These samples will be analyzed to determine the concentrations of compounds associated with I

l j

1 incrustation. The results of the analyses will be used to I calculate Langelier and Ryzner Indexes (References 19 and 20).

These indexes indicate whether or not an incrustation potential I

I exists. If an incrustation potential exists in a group of wells, then these wells are cleaned with acid to remove any incrustation. This treatment is repeated once every 3 years for the life of the wells or until results of the chemical analyses indicate that an incrustation potential no longer exists.

I

12.0 CONCLUSION

The foregoing testimony describes, in detail, the design and construction of the permanent dewatering system for the Midland nuclear plant site. As previously stated, based on my knowledge and analysis of that design, as well as the construction methodology, I conclude that the dewatering system

, will provide an acceptable method of removing water from the granular plant fill material, thereby preventing liquefaction of soils beneath certain Seismic Category I structures at Midland plant in the event of a design basis earthquake.

I I

I

'I I

I I

REFERENCES I

~

1. M.H. Hvorslev, Time Lag and Soil Permeability in Groundwater observations, Waterways Experiment Station Bulletin No. 36, I Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1951

2. T.W. Lambe and R.V. Whitman, Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, 1969, p 290

3. D.K. Todd, Ground Water Hydrology,,J. Wiley & Sons, 1959

4. Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2 - Final Safety Analysis Report, subsection 2.5.6.3.2 S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, Dewatering and Groundwater Control l for Deep Excavations, Departments of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force, Chapter 6, pp 128-149, 1971

6. Midland Plant - Unit 1 and 2 - Final Safety Analysis Report, Subsection 2.3.2.1.4 ,,

. 7. J. Bear, Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc., New York, 1972

8. Responses to NRC Requests Concerning Plant Fill - Volume 12 -

Section D.ll

9. Johnson Division, UOP Inc., Ground Water and Wells, Johnson Division of Universal Oil Products, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota, pp 199-201, 1975

'0. Responses to NRC Requests Concerning Plant Fill - Volume 12 -

Section D.10

11. Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2 - Final Safety Analysis Report Subsection 2.4.13.5.1.2.1 .

1

12. Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2 - Final Safety Analysis Report I subsection 2.4.13.5.1.4.4 j

13. Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2 - Final Safety Analysis Report  !

i Subsection 2.4.13.5.1.4.3  ;

14. Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2 - Final Safety Analysis Report subsection 2.4.13.5.1.5.3.1

15. Responses to NRC Requests Concerning Plant Fill - Volume 12 -

Section D.9

16. Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2 - Final Safety Analysis Report, Appendix 2I I

I

17. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, I Ground Water Manual, A Water Resources Technical Publication, 1977

18. R.V. Whitman, Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969

19. W.F. Langlier,'The Analytical Control of Anticorrosion Water Treatment, Journal of the American Water Works Association, 1936

20. J.W. Ryznar, A New Index for Determining Amount of Calcium I Carbonate Scale Formed by Water, Journal of the American Water Works Association, 1944 I

lI l

I

'I I

I I

I I

I I

I -

e w h = A -

I I .

I I

I APPENDIX A WILLIAM C. PARIS, JR. - EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL RECORD 1

I -

'I I -

I I

I I

I I

.I I

I . . ._ _ - __ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

WILLIAM CHARLES PARIS, JR. ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST

, GROUP SUPERVISOR EDUCATION: . B.A. Geology 1968 Bowling Green State University i

REGISTRATIONS: Geologist, State ,of Maine 1974 Geologist, State of Georgia 1976 1

E

SUMMARY

13 1/2 Years: Engineering geology applied to 5 planning, design, construction and operation of engineered structures; supervising, conducting and interpreting results of I exploration and testing programs for preparation of geotechnical reports for ground water development and control, i

I I tunnels, nuclear and fossil fueled power plants, pipelines, roads and other civil work projects and Safety Analysis Reports for nuclear power plant licensing.

EXPERIENCE: June 1979- Present: Geology group supervisor in the Bechtel Ann Arbor Office. Responsible for all geologic Iandgeohydrologicstudies. Specific duties include design, construction, and testing of a permanent dewatering system, ground water control for construction, design and construction of monitoring wells, subsidence i studies, and preparation of the FSAR for the Midland Nuclear P13nt. Other l studies have included caisson inspeccion for Goodyear Aerospacs, aquifer investigation for City of Boston, coal mine feasibility in Alaska,

[

IconstructionclaimsforBostonRedlineTunnelandgeologicdatareduction for planned nuclear power plant in Taiwan.

1 1975 - 1979: Project geologist in the IBechtelGaithersburgOfficefcrtheBostonRedlineExtensionTunnel. His responsibilities included supervision of subsurface investigations, office coordination, and preparation of geotechnical reports and specifications for design and construction of the rock tunnel portions of the project.

IAsgeotechnicalcoordinatorfortheadditionalfacilitiesat the Dickerson Generating Station, responsible for investigation and evaluation of l 3 subsurface data, design of foundations on rock, and preparation of l 5 specifications and geologic reports. Also served as the resident field geologist at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant. Duties included I

Igeologicallymappingfoundations,providinggeotechnicalassistanceduring construction of the tie back walls, deep excavations, heavy haul road, radial collector wells, structural backfill operations, and preparation of the FSAR.

i $ 1968 - 1974: Previously employed as a l 5 l geologist by consulting engineering companies in the Eastern United I g States. Work included investigation and development of ground water I g resources for municipal water systems; evaluation of geologic condition:

for dams, tunnels, pipelines, highways and bridge foundations; conducting studies for regional solid waste disposal; foundation design for buildings; preparation of geotechnical reports and project siting and feasibility determinations.

I - _

WILLIAM C. PARIS, JR  !

Page 2 ORGANIZATIONS: Association of Engineering Geologists Geological Society of America American Society of Civil Engineers National Water Well Association International Association of Engineering Geologists I NATIONAL POSITIONS: President, Association of Engineering Geologists 1981-82.

Member of Governing Board, American Geological Institute, 1981-82.

U.S. National Committee of International Association of Engineering Geologists ACHIEVEMENTS: Who's Who in Technology Today, Volume 4, Third Edition, 1982 PUBLISHED PAPERS: " Geologic Coi.'.itions and Considerations for Underground Construction in Rock, Boston, Massachusetts," Allen W.

Hatheway and William C. Paris, Jr. , ASCE Pre-print 3602, presented at ASCE National Convention, Boston, Massachusetts, April 1979.

" Suggested Method for Determining Rock-Loads l for Moderately Sized, Shallow-Depth Rock Tunnels,' William C. Paris, Jr.,

I presented at Geotechnology in Massachasetts Cor.ference, Boston, Massachusetts, March 1980.

I I

I I

I lI 10/32 I

I - - ---

I I i

I I

I

'I I

I APPENDIX B DETAILED ANALYSIS OF AREAS OF RECHARGE I

I I .

. I  :

I I

I I

I I

iI I

l I

APPENDIX B DETAILED ANALYSIS OF AREAS OF RECHARGE 1

I The following is a detailed analysis of data and test results in l

support of the conclusion that recharge occurs primaril1 around

! the service water pump / circulating water intake structure areas rather than in the area south of the diesel generator building.

I The backfill materials south of the diesel generator

building consist predominantly of clay (FSAR Figure 2.4-53).

Backfill sand is present only adjacent to the circulating water discharge lines and is a possible recharge route from the cooling pond. However, where the discharge lines terminate at the cooling pond, concrete facing covers the sand backfill, thereby preventing hydraulic connection with the cooling pond.

Examination of the relationship of the natural sands to the cooling pond shows that the natural sands do not extend to the cooling pond in this area (FSAR Figure 2.4-53).

I Examination of the time drawdown graphs for observation wells PD-3 and PD-5 (Figures 24-14 and 47-5), during the PD-20 pumping test show that significant drawdown occurred in these i wells. These observation wells are much closer to the cooling pond than to the pumping wells as shown in FSAR Figure 2.4-42.

If recharge from the cooling pond had occurred, there would have I B-1 1l

I l

I been no drawdown or the drawdown would have stabilized rapidly.

Further, the static water levels in these observation wells were below the cooling pond level prior to and after the pumping test.

A second test performed in test well PD-20 between October 2 and November 13, 1980, substantiated the findings of the first pumping test. During this test, water levels south of the diesel generator building were lowered over 4 feet with a constant pumping rate of only 2.4 gpm (FSAR Figures 2.4-43 and 2.4-44).

Review of the data from another pumping test, PD-SC, indicates that if recharge from the cooling pond had occurred south of the diesel generator building, the drawdown determined for observation well PD-5B would be less than the drawdowns determined from observation wells PD-6, PD-3 and PD-20B (Figures 5 and 6). That is not the case. The relative differences in drawdown between these wells is significant when taking into account the proximity of the cooling pond and the pumping rate (0.83 gpm). The lack of hydraulic connection is also suggested by the imcomplete recovery of the static water level following the completion of the PD-5C pumping test. The time drawdown graph for observation well PD-5 during the PD-SC pumping test is shown in Figure 47-10.

I Permeability measurements also support the conclusion that clay soils in the area south of the diesel generator I B-2 I

I building are an effective barrier to water flow. The results of I the PD-SC pumping test ilidicate that the adjacent natural and backfil1 sands have an average permeability of 1,400 ft/yr (FSAR Table 2.4-11B). Falling head permeability tests in the natural and backfill sands as shown in FSAR Table 2.4-11A indicate an average permeability of 1,275 ft/yr. In contrast, the falling I head permeability tests in the backfill and natural clays indicate an average permeability of 15 ft/yr. Therefore, the l

natural and backfill clays are over 85 times less permeable than the natural and backfill sands.

The second area of potential recharge, around the service water pump and circulating water intake structures, is underlain by natural sand. The cantilevered portion of the service water pump structure and the areas behind the retaining 1

walls are backfilled primarily with sand. These backfill sands were designed to be in hydraulic contact with the cooling pond to protect the stability of the retaining wall. Based on exploration and testing programs, the spatial distribution of natural and b,ackfill sands around the circulating water intake and service water pump structures indicate that this is the area of recharge.

I Examination of time drawdown data from observation wells measured during the PD-15A pumping test indicates the area of influence for that test was asymmetrical. This may be observed by comparing drawdowns in wells SW-1 and AX-12 (Figures 7 and 8).

I B-3 I

I At 8,550 minutes after the start of pumping AX-12, located I 247 feet northwest of the pumping well, had a drawdown of 3.52 feet, while SW-1, located 172 feet. south of the pumping well, had a drawdown of 0.85 feet (FSAR Figure 2.4-42). The observation wells south of the pumping well had less drawdown per unit distance from the pumping well than the observation wells I north of the pumping well. The asymmetrical area of influence

=wi t a steeper gradient toward the pond is indicative of recharge from the cooling pond in the area of the circulating water and service water pump structures.

The response of observation wells south of the diesel generator building and near the service water pump and l

circulating water intake structures to raising and lowering of the cooling pond level supports the above conclusions. The response to lowering the level of the cooling pond in December of l

I 1979 throughout the plant area can be viewed by comparing FSAR Figures 2.4-40 and 2.4-59. FSAR Figure 2.4-40 shows that south of the diesel generator building groundwater levels were a minimum of one foot below the cooling pond level prior to I

l lowering of the pond level. Groundwater levels south of the I diesel generator building were a minimum of one foot above the cooling pond a month and a half after the pond was lowered four feet, showing a lack of response to changes in pond levels (FSAR Figure 2.4-59).

I I B-4 I

I Another specific comparision between the area south of-the diesel generator building and the area around the service water pump and circulating water intake structures can be made by examining the hydrographs of observation wells PD-3, PD-9 and PD-16, during the cooling pond lowering (Figure 47-6). The water levels in observation well PD-9, located in the vicinity of the cirulating water intake structure, responded closely to the .

variations of the level of the cooling pond. In contrast, water levels in observation wells PD-3 and PD-16, located south of the die el generator building, remained above the level of the cooling pond for several months. The lag in response of these two observation wells to cooling pond lowering further indicates lack of direct hydraulic connection with the ccoling pond in this area.

I The cooling pond level was raised in January 1981. The hydrographs from observation wells around the site for that period are presented in Reference 16. The observation wells in the circulating water intake and service water pump structures area responded to changes in the cooling pond level much more rapidly than the observation wells south of the diesel generator building (Figures 9 and 10). The rapid response at the service water pump and circulating water intake structures indicates a direct hydraulic connection with the cooling pond, while the slow response south of the diesel generator building indicates an indirect hydraulic connection with the cooling pond. This effect is further demonstrated by the drawdown obtained during the I B-5 I

I construction dewatering and -the response resulting from the recharge test (Appendixes C and D).

lI lI

'I I

I .

lI I

.I I

I

.I I

'I I

B-6 I

-a i

I -

I I

lI l

l I

APPENDIX C RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING I

I

I

. I I

I I

. I I

I APPENDIX C I

RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING The temporary construction dewatering system was installed by a dewatering subcontractor between August and I October 1979 to dewater the feedwater valve pit and the electrical penetration wings of the auxiliary building before underpinning. Subsequently, additional dewatering wells were installed to dewater for repair of a ductbank and for l

i installation of metering pits on the service water lines (FSAR Figure 2.4-45). The data obtained from the operation of the construction dewatering system were used to verify the design of the permanent dewatering system including estimated flowrates, degree of hydraulic continuity between backfill and Unit c sands, zones of recharge, rates of drawdown, soil particle monitoring i criteria, and areas of influence. The operation of the temporary construction dewatering system was also used to aid in lowering site groundwater levels prior to the recharge test (Appendix D).

, I The construction dewatering system is composed of five subsystems. These subsystems are defined by 100, 200, TEW, 300, and 400 series dewatering wells. "he dewatering subcontractor also installed the LOW Series of observation wells. Locations of these five dewatering subsystems and subcontractor installed observation wells are shown in FSAR Figure 2.4-45. The wells are I C-1

typically 2, 3, and 6 inch size. Typical sections of the construction dewatering wells are presented in FSAR Figure 2.4-51.

Groundwater levels were measured at selected observation wells for several months prior to any dewatering (Reference 16).

In November 1979, the groundwater levels around the plant site were between elevations 620 and 627 (FSAR Figure 2.4-40). The cooling pond at that time was elevation 627. In December 1979, the cooling pond was lowered 4 to elevation 623. As a result of lowering the cooling pond level, the groundwater levels declined in the plant area to between elevations 618 and 624 as shown in FSAR Figure 2.5-59.

During 1980 and 1981, each construction dewatering subsystem was activated separately so that the effects of dewatering on the site groundwater levels could be evaluated.

The staging of the operation of each construction dewatering subsystem is shown in FSAR Figure 2.4-57. The impact of pumping l

from the various dewatering subsystems on the site groundwater levels is presented on hydrographs (Reference 16).

As each subsystem was made operational, groundwater levels throughout the plant responded, indicating hydraulic connection between materials. The flowrates of the various subsystems were also monitored anc these results are shown in FSAR Figures 2.4-50, 2.4-52, and 2.4-63. The flowrates indicate C2 i

the the quantity of water entering the plant fill is moderate and I can be controlled by a conventional well system. During operation of the construction dewatering system, individual dewatering wells were sampled for chemical analyses. These chemical analyses were used to evaluate the effects of the groundwater chemistry on the permanent wells and associated piping (Section 6.2.4). Soil particle monitoring was also conducted during operation of the construction dewatering wells.

During operation, biweekly sampling was performed on the system overflow and monthly sampling was performed on the individual well discharge lines. The soil particle samples were tested using a 0.05 mm (50 micron) filter medium. Throughout the system operation, the soil particle results remained below the maximum 10 ppm by weight of soil particles.

I 1

I I

l I

E C-3 i

a w . - . - _ .

I I

I APPENDIX D DETAILS OF DRAWDOWN-RECHARGE TEST I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I APPENDIX D DETAILS OF DRAWDOWN-RECHARGE TEST Drawdown I The drawdown test began on November 20, 1981 and continued until February 4, 1982.

The purpose of the test was to lower the site groundwater level to as close to the design operation level (elevation 595) as practical prior to conducting the recharge test. The site groundwater levels prior to the drawdown test are shown in Figure 1. The test was performed using only the 20 permanent backup dewatering wells, the existing Unit 1 (100 Series) and Unit 2 (200 Series) construction dewatering wells, selected individual observation wells equipped with self-contained eductors, and temporary dewatering wells (DD Series).

The locations of these wells are shown in FSAR Figure 2.4-56.

1

!I After the permanent backup wells were drilled and installed as described in Section 7.0, temporary pump units were installed for the drawdown test. Submersible and eductor type pumps were used. Submersibles were installed in wells F-1 through F-4A, G-1 through G-6, G-8, G-9, and H-1. The remaining wells, F-5 through F-7, G-7, and H-2 through H-4, were equipped with eductors.

M D-1 I

The construction dewatering wells, selected individual

observation wells and temporary wells utilized were 2-inch, 3-inch, and 6-inch sizes as shown in FSAR Figure 2.4-56.

l Additional temporary dewatering wells DD-1 through DD-5 were installed between December 22, 1981, and January 4, 1982, to replace selected individual observation wells PD-5C, PD-20, 1

COE-13A, COE-12A, and A-45. The DD Series wells were installed with edu tors and submersible pumps. These wells provided more pumping capacity than the selected individual observation wells, and accelerated the rate of drawdown in the diesel generator l

building area. The length of time each well was pumped is shown in FSAR Figure 2.4-57.

Monitoring I Flow rates were monitored at each discharge location shown in FSAR Figure 2.4-56. The flow rates of the construction l

dewatering wells (100 and 200 Series) and 20 permanent backup I

wells are shown in FSAR Figures 2.4-52, 2.4-63, 2.4-64, and 2.4-65, respectively.

Groundwater levels were monitored by Bechtel Geotechnical Personnel at the observation well locations shown in Figure 11. The level of the cooling pond was recorded each time the observation wells were measured, unless the pond was frozen.

A groundwater contour map at the start of the drawdown test is I D-2 I

I shown in Figure 1. The rate of groundwater level decline at each observation well was plotted on a hydrograph (Reference 16).

I The drawdown test was terminated on February 4, 1982, when the groundwater level had been lowered to elevation 595 or as low as practical throughout the plant site. The only levels above elevation 595 were at fringe areas of the site (PD-3, PD-5, T-27, PD-24, PD-42, PD-39 and at observation wells COE-10 and WB-1 located along the north side of the diesel generator building (FSAR Figure 2.4-58).

I Recharge Test I

The recharge test commenced on February 4, 1982, and was conducted for a period of 60 days.

, Ihe objective of the recharge test was two-fold; first, to substantiate that the analytical model used to determine the rise of groundwater level is appropriate (Section 6.0); and second, to establish that sufficient time is available for repair of the permanent dewatering system before the groundwater levels rise above the design operating level (ele:vetion 595) at the diesel generator building and auxiliary building train bay to elevation 610. Elevation 610 has been established as the groundwater level at which liquefaction could occur under the diesel generator building and auxiliary building railroad bay if a design basis earthquake were to occur (Dr. Woods' testimony).

I D-3 I

I Groundwater levels were monitored under a Quality Control Program by Bechtel Geotechnical personnel at the observation well locations shown in Figure 10. The level of the cooling pond was recorded each time the observation wells were measured, unless the cooling pond was frozen. The cooling pond level was at elevation 627 (operating level) or above. The level in the Tittabawassee River fluctuated between elevation 590 and elevation 593. The rate of groundwater level rise at each observation well was plotted on a hydrograph (Reference 16). The groundwater level at completion of the recharge test is shown in Figure 2.

I The locations of the monitored observation wells at the critical structures are shown in Figure 12 and the responses are shown in Figure 3. The response of observation wells in the diesel generator building area is representative of the recharge rate from the cooling pond in the event of a complete well shutdown. However, in the auxiliary building railroad bay area, a high-pressure construction water line was broken between March 11 and March 17, 1982, which resulted in flooding of the railroad bay floor including observation well AX-2. Therefore, the water level indicated in AX-2 on March 15, 1982, does not represent a true groundwater level within the backfill. As can be seen in Figure 3, the water level began dropping prior to the water line being shut off. Observed water level readings for observation wells AX-13A, CH-9A and T-21A also may have been influenced by the broken water line. Nevertheless, there is I D-4

still considerably more than 60 days recharge time available at the auxiliary building railroad bay area based on groundwater level obtained during the drawdown portion of the test, and at least 40 days recharge time from elevation 595.

I Evaluation of the data from the full scale recharge test indicates the following:

I a. A permanent dewatering system can lower groundwater levels below elevation 610 at the two critical structures.

b. From elevation 595 (design operating level), a minimum of 40 days is available for maintenance, repair or replacement of the system before groundwater levels at the two critical structures exceed elevation 610 prior to the SSE. Under normal operating conditions it is expected that the groundwater levels will be maintained somewhat below elevation 595, which will provide greater than 40 days recharge time.

I I

I I

I D-5 w

TABLE 1 PERMANENT DEWATERING AND MONITORING WELL SCHEDULE (33 Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation I Well Number of Top of Gravel Pack of Top of Well Screen of Bottom of Well Screen of Bottom of Gravel Pack Well Type ( ' I A-1 607.7 600.0 591.5 576.2 A A-2 610.7 605.2 590.2 578.8 A A-3 609.2 602.9 587.9 577.9 A A-4 610.0 603.7 594.7 579.1 A A-5 604.7 599.9 576.8 570.2 A I B-1 B-2 B-3 608.0 608.7 608.5 602.3 601.6 595.5 588.8 590.4 586.6 578.4 587.7 571.5 A

A A

I B-4 B-5 605.5 610.7 600.0 601.0 581.0 585.0 570.8 573.7 A

A C-1 608.4 601.9 582.8 576.5 I C-2 609.0 601.8 588.7 574.7 I C-3 607.8 601.4 585.8 574.8 I C-4 608.8 604.2 589.1 580.9 I D-1 610.4 586.8 565.1 559.3 I D-2 604.1 588.3 565.0 559.9 I D-3 I D-4 D-5 603.5 604.5 606.5 592.0 589.2 588.4 563.4 565.1 573.3 558.4 559.5 565.0 I

I I

D-6 606.2 586.0 578.0 570.1 I D-7 611.2 593.8 578.8 571.6 I E-1 613.3 595.4 576.1 565.9 I I E-2 E-3 E-4A 607.7 606.2 607.6 591.4 593.1 597.2 576.4 576.1 572.3 569.1 571.1 560.2 I

I I

E-5 609.4 598.8 569.5 560.8 I

I E-6 609.8 596.4 572.3 565.0 I E-7 611.7 595.4 586.4 579.0 I E-8A 605.8 593.7 581.2 570.2 I E-9 607.5 596.5 577.5 567.5 I F-1 610.2 584.4 565.2 560.2 B I F-2 F-3 F-4A 608.8 610.1 607.6 590.3 592.3 589.2 565.3 565.0 564.8 559.4 560.0 558.8 B

B B

565.5 B I F-5 F-6 F-7 608.0 608.9 605.9 588.4 585.6 594.1 571.4 578.5 579.3 573.5 570.8 B

B I

I 1 1

TABLE 1 (Continu@d)

I Elevation Elevation Elevation Elevation I Well Number of Top of Gravel Pack of. Top of Well Screen of Bottom of Well Screen of Bottom of Gravel Pack Well Typel i G-1 611.5 600.2 578.1 572.7 B G-2 610.3 591.5 574.4 569.3 B G-3 I G-4 G-5 607.6 611.4 605.6 592.5 601.1 602.4 577.4 573.7 568.7 572.2 563.3 563.7 B

B B

G-6 609.6 596.8 571.8 566.5 B I G-7 G-8 G-9 608.9 610.1 608.1 597.0 590.4 596.2 587.9 581.5 574.0 576.1 574.5 568.8 B

B B

H-1 607.9 601.6 583.1 576.2 B H-2 608.9 603.9 587.9 580.6 B H-3 I H-4 610.8 610.0 603.9 604.1 594.9 597.4 584.9 581.1 B

B J-l 609.3 599.2 586.2 573.1 A I J-2 J-3 605.9 608.6 590.6 599.6 574.6 573.6 567.6 568.8 A

A I M-1 M-2 M-3 609.1 606.9 607.0 594.8 572.4 579.0 569.1 553.2 570.1 564.0 549.1 565.1 A

A A

M-4A A I M-5 611.2 603.3 594.8 596.5 573.3 571.9 568.3 566.9 A N-1 603.6 590.6 583.0 582.0 A I N-2A N-3 N-4 604.3 609.7 609.8 596.4 592.4 597.9 573.4 573.3 572.9 564.2 567.3 566.2 A

A I N-5A N-6 614.0 605.7 596.1 589.0 573.1 566.4 563.9 561.4 A

A I

I I

I I 2 l

I

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Elev5 tion Elevation Elevation Elevation of Top of of Top of of Bottom of Bottom Well Gravel Well of Well of Gravel Well Number Pack Screen Screen Pack Type (')

OBS-1 613.0 604.0 599.0 579.4 M OBS-1A 609.0 601.9 593.7 578.4 M I OBS-2 OBS-3 OBS-4(ai 613.4 608.4 607.0 602.0 596.0 602.0 590.0 569.7 588.0 578.7 563.1 578.0 M

M M

OBS-5 602.5 590.8 582.0 581.0 M OBS-6 609.6 596.5 577.4 570.2 M I'I Well types:

A - Area well I B I

M Backup interceptor well Interceptor well Monitoring well

Elevations in feet above sea level

'3' Design elevations (not yet installed)

I I

I ~

I .

I I

I I 3 I

MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR TABLE 2.4-11A FALLING HEAD PERMEABILITY TEST

SUMMARY

I Depth Permeability Boring (ft) Coordinates (ft/yr) Material Lacustrine sand (Unit c)

I PD-3 PD-4 34.0 33.5 55337.5 E185 S5335 819 883 Sand Sand .

E250 I PD-5 35.0 S5336 E315 4,397 Sand PD-5 36.5 S5336 22.7 Sand I PD-9 36.5 E315 S5260 E600 698 -

Sand PD-15 Sand I PD-16 41.5 36.0 S4870 E699 S5145.3 14.6 57,0 Sand E230 I PD-17 PD-18 34.0 34.0 S5266.5 E202 S5110 4,229 730 Sand Sand 44 lE E570 l3 PD-20A 37.5 S5194.2 816 Sand E343.8 PD-21 36.5 S4970 552 Sand E630 i PD-22 36.5 54920 1,960 Sand l E755 l l PD-22

• 63.0 S4920 98.0 Sand E

E755 PD-23 32.8 S4845 300 Sand E580 PD-25 55.5 S4640 33.0 Sand E560 PD-26 54.0 S4765 450 Sand I PD-28 48.5 E715 S4605 E515 1,807 Sand PD-28 71.5 S4635 370 Sand I PD-29 42.5 E515 S4695 403 Sand E690 I PD-29 PD-3J 81.5 46.5 S4C95 E690 S4775 22.0 26.0 Sand Sand I

E800 (sheet 1)

I Revision 44 6/82 I .

I MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR Table 2.4-11A (continued)

Depth Boring (ft) Coordinates Permeability (ft/yr)

Material I PD-31 PD-32 41.5 41.5 S4850 E810 1,730 Sand S4930 1,608 I PD-32 67.5 E795 S4930 E795 42.0 Sand Sand PD-33 46.5 I PD-34 41.5 S4846 W96 S4918 24.0 384 Sand Sand W101 I PD-35 PD-38 41.5 41.5 S4884 W126 SS108 214 Sand 283 Sand I PD-38 PD-42 55.5 E630 SS108 E630 331 Sand 46.5 S4695 1,947 E800 Silty sand i

Lacustrine clay (Unit d) 44 PD-2 29.3 S5335 6.9 E110 Silty clay I PD-12 PD-17 40.0 56.5 S5195 ESO S5266.5 21.0 Silty clay 0.5 I PD-19 51.5 E202 S5192 E159 51.0 Silty clay Silty clay PD-21 79.0 S4970 I PD-24 40.0 E630 S4550 E420 1.6 1.9 Silty clay Silty clay PD-25 97.5 S4640 8.5 Silty clay E560 PD-26 100.0 54765 <0.5 Silty clay E715 96.5 S4605 IPD-28 E515

<0.4 Silty clay PD-30 56.5 S4775 12.0 I E800 Silty clay I .

l (sheet 2) ,

Revision 44 6/82

'I

MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR Table 2.4-11A (continued)

( Boring Depth (ft) Coordinates Permeability (ft/yr) Material I PD-32 101.5 S4930 E795

<0.5 Silty clay I Till (Units b and e)

PD-14 36.5 S4980 21.2 Sandy clay PD-26 44.0 S4765 2.6 Silty clay E715 I PD-27 41.5 S5008.75 E751.50

<0.6 Silty sand Sand backfill PD-3 21.5 55337.5 13,345 Sand I PD-19 21.5 E185 S5192 E159 476 Sand I PD-20A PD-20A 12.2 22.5 S5194.2 E343.8 S5194.2 8,998 970 Sand Sand 44 E343.8 l PD-27 16.5 S5000.75 331 Sand l~ E751.5 PD-33 31.5 S4846 137 Sand I PD-37 41.5 W96 S5015 E804 897 Sand l

i Clay backfill I PD-5 PD-8A 16.5 21.5 S5336 E315 S5335 1.4 25.0 Silty clay Silty clay E515 PD-12 20.1 SS195 0.2 Silty clay ESO PD-13 19.0 S5098 1.5 Silty clay I PD-14 24.0 E497 S4980 E960 2.1 Silty clay PD-15 18.5 S4870 4.1 Silty clay E699 PD-16 19.0 S5145.3 21.0 Silty clay E230 (sheet 3)

I Revision 44 6/82 I

MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR Table 2.4-11A (continued)

Depth Permeability Boring (ft) coordinates (ft/yr) Material PD-17 16.5 55266.5 0.6 Silty clay E202 21.5 55110 0.8 IPD-18 E570 Silty clay PD-19 51.5 S5192 51.0 Silty clay E159 PD-21 21.5 S4970 7.1 Silty clay E630 PD-22 19.0 S1920 2.0 I PD -23 20.0 E755 S4845 E580 17.0 Silty clay Silty 71ay 44 40.0 S4550 <1.0 Silty clay IPD-24 E420 PD-25 20.5' S4640 120 Silty clay E560 PD-26 19.0 S4765 3.4 Silty clay E715 PD-27 26.5 S5008.75 27.0 Silty clay E751.50 IPD-29 21.5 S4695 <0.5 Silty clay E690 I

I I

~

I I

I I

(sheet 4)  :

I Revision 44 6/82

M M M M M M M M M M M M m. M l

1 I

MIDLAND 3&2-FSAR TABLE 2.4-11P

SUMMARY

OF PUMPING TESTS Sand Monitored

Thickness Distance to Drawdown at Interval Transmissivity Observation Material Tested Pumping Well End of Pumping (elevation (ft a /d) Permeability Well Tested (ft) (ft) Period (ft) in ft) DrawdownI23 Recovery"' (ft/ year)

Well TW-1 pumped at 9 gpp for 230 min TW-1 Backfill sand 6.0 0 .16' ' ' 19.67 585-595 28 50 1,825 OW-1 Backfill sand 13.4 7.0 7.77 578-603 65 50 1,460 OW-3 Backfill sand 6.5 2.0 11.33 583-603 56 50 3,285 AX-11 Backfill sand 10.0 15.0 6.00 575-611 71 50 2,555 OW-4 Backfill sand 11.7 2.0 0.58 609-633 (OW-1, OW-3, AX-11) 9 9' ' '

Well TW-2 pumped at 9 gpm for 301 min TW-2 Backfill sand 10.0 0. 00

609-614 OW-4 Backfill sand 11.7- 5.1 3.08 609-633 159 258 6,570 582-598 '*' 88' TW-1 Backfill sand 6.0 3.77 0.60 *{

TW-3 Eackfill sand 7.0 2.34 0.69 587-634 'N ', s* $ ' ,, * ' ,

AX-Il Backfill sand. 10.0 17.2 0.56 575-611 is est g, OW-1 Backfill sand 13.4 10.2 0.70 578-603 as 8 **'

OW-3 Backfill sand 6.5 3.1 0.77 583-603 l

Well TW-3 pumped at 6.5 gpm for 320 min 1

' 8 8 8 TW-3 Backfill sand 7.0 0. 08 ' 587-592 OW-3 Backfill sand 6.5 0.75 9.50 583-603 56 54 2,920 TW-1 Backfill sand 6.0 2.32 9.36 582-598 55 54 3,285 OW-1 Backfill sand 13.4 7.00 6.41 578-603 64 54 1,460 AX-ll Backfill sand 10.0 16.00 4.63 575-611 70 54 2,190 est esp ass TW-2 Backfill sand - 10.1 2.34 0.58 609-634 OW-4 Backfill sand 11.7 2.70 0.82 609-633 # '*3 OW-2 Backfill sand 1.5 7.80 0.54 608-632 I l

l i

Table 2.4-11B (sheet 1)

Revision 44 6/82

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR TABLE 2.4-11B (continued)

Sand Monitored

Thickness Distance to Drawdown at Interval Transnissivity

1. Perneability Observation Material Tested Pumping Well End of Pumping (elevation ( f t /d)

Recoveryt3s (ft/ year)

Well Tested (ft) (ft) Period (ft) in ft) DrawdownNi Well W-4 pumped at 10 gpm for 520 min .

579-634 tF) tF) eFi TW-4 Backfill sand 10.0 0 .0 88*I tF Natural sand 5,110 AX-12 Backfill sand 27.0 ss 5.00 1.91 582-624 239888 330 Unit C sand tsi OW-5 Backfill sand 12.0 8.83 0.97 609-634 is is:

611-634 est ist es W-5 Backfill sand 12.0 7.20 1.02 Well TW-5 pumped at 11 gpm for 321 min 44 611-616 IF8 IFl (F)

TW-5 Backfill sand 12.0 0.08 t el til 2.55 3.63 609-634 441 299 11,315 OW-5 Backfill sand 12.0 0.90 579-634 tsi (si es TW-4 Backfill sand 10.0 7.20 Unit C sand AX-12 Backfill sand 27.0ter 4.89 1.60 582-624 tse est ts:

Unit C sand Well PD-5C pumped at 0.83 gpm for 4,959 min Note: (fluctuations in pumping rate) 593-603 t io n tml ten PD-SC Unit C sand 11.2 0.16188 15.88 1.18 590-603 t io n 29 1,095 PD-5D Unit C sand 10.0 5.00 7.60 0.96 592-602 emi e os sm PD-5 Unit C sand 11.0 1,460 PD-3 Unit C sand 22.5 109.2 0.49 591-602 84 e so 147.3 0.29 590-614 1801 Dos t io n PD-20A Unit C sand 20.0 t*l IMI 2.0 86.4 0.55 592-614 84 PD-6 Backfill sand 84 IMI 1,460 PD-20B Backfill sand 20.0 144.8 0.47 600-629 587-604 93 858 t*I PD-5B Backfill sand 2.5 35.6 0.54 (PD-5D, PD-5, PD-3, PD-20A) 102t es Table 2.4-11B (sheet 2)

Revision 44 6/82

m m m um una e e em um seu aus se um m an' m MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR i I

TABLE 2.4-11B (continued)

Sand Monitored"I l Thickness Distance to Drawdown at Interval Transmissivity observation Material Tested Pumping Well End of Pumping (elevation ( f 2t /d) Permeability Well Tested (ft) (ft) . Period (ft) in ft) Drawdownla s Recovery 98 (ft/ year)

\

• Well PD-20 pumped at 7 gpm for 4,495 min

• l Notes (response at PD-20, A, B, and C probably affected by partial penetration effects)

PD-20 Unit C and 19.0 0 .1 6848 13.65 600-605 202 4,015 backfill sand PD-20B Unit C and 20.0 3.5 2.93 600-629 229 260 4,380 backfill sand PD-20C Unit C and 28.0 9.56 0.48 596-628 252 433 4,015 backfill sand PD-20A Unit C and 20.0 4.6 2.91 590-614 145 187 2,920 backfill sand PD-3 Unit C sand 22.5 210.0 1.31 591-602 263 101 2,920 PD-5 Unit C sand 11.0 140.0 2.01 592-602 154 206 5,840 W-2 44 Unit C sand 4.08"I 283.0 No response 601-634 CL-1 Unit C sand 4.08"8 250.0 No response 598-634 Well PD-20 pumped for 7 gpm for 4,495 min (

PZ-33 Backfill sand I"I 82.0 No response 618-622 PZ-30 Backfill sand IHI 193.0 0.67 600-605 8"' 8*8 '*8 PZ-18 Clay backfill 8"I 214.0 No response 611-613 PZ-2 I") I"I 108.0 1.44 603 AP8 3dl 8"3 I*'

Well PD-15A pumped at 12.5 gpa for 8,610 min PD-ISA Unit C sand 40.0 0.16 t

• l 11.33 564-579 180 1,460 PD-15 Unit C sand 36.5 11.0 6.52 553-598 1,103 173 6,205 LOW-10 Unit C sand 40.0 140.0 5.04 590-598 384 245 2,420 PD-15C Backfill clay NA 15.0- No response 610-615 PD-ISB Unit C sand 40.0 18.0 5.08 564-604 679 221 4,015 Table 2.4-11B .

(sheet 3)

Revision 44 6/82

M M M M M M M M M M M M MIDLAND 1&3-FSAR TABtE 2.4-11B (continued)

Sand Monitored"3 Thickness Distance to Drawdown at Interval Transmissivity Observation Material Tested Pumping Well End of Pumping (elevation (fta/d) Permeability well Tested (ft) (ft) Period (ft) in ft) Drawdownia n Recoveryt38 (ft/ year)

Notes (boundary effect preclude analyaj s of following wells)

AX-12 Eackfill and 27.0888 247.0 a 3.52 582-624 .

Unit C sand Q-1 Unit r sand 4 0.018) 163.0 4.18 595-634 SW-4 Backfill clay NA 139.0 0.66 596-616 SW-1 Backfill sand 19.0 172.0 0.85 608-633 PD-20A Unit C and 6.0 583.0 0.56 590-614 backfill sand 14.0 PD-208 Backfill sand 20.0 581.0 0.40 600-629 OV-3 Backfill sand 6.5 615.0 0.42 583-603 44 158 Monitored intervals: screened interval of pumping well or interval between bottom of hole and observation well/ piezometer seal talJacob modified nonequilibrium time drawdown method talJacob modified nonequilibrium residual drawdown method 848 Pumping well radius talcompleted in different sand interval than pumping well; drawdown used to evaluate interconnections to sands telJacob modified nonequilibrium distance drawdown method (F)No access to measure drawdown telUnit C sands not completely penetrated tonThe nonequilibrium time drawdown method stolNot determined: insufficient drawdown or complex response tillobservation well/ piezometer record incomplete d

Table 2.4-118 (sheet 4)

Revision 44 6/82

• w

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR TABLE 2.4-12B CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF CROUNDWATER SAMPLES FROM PUMPING TESTS (Constituents in ppa Except Where Noted) 1 TB (pH Hard- . Date i Well No. Units) Ca Mq Na Alk'y ness IICO2 _ & R Fe Turbidity Sampled l

i TW-2888 7.4 212 49m 160 260 730 317m 380 300 0.4 3.2 Ntu 06/19/79 TW-3828 7.2 212 49m 150 250 730 305m 340 320 12.0 5.3 Ntu 06/18/79 TW-48 7.3 220 58m 140 220 790 268m 405 320 0.3 2.2 Ntu 06/14/79 44 TW-SI ' 8 7.1 276 46m 28 305 880 3 7 2828 535 300 3.6 3.4 Ntu 06/12/79 PD-20m 7.2 65.6 m 94:28 115 342 553 417:28 44C 227 6.3 22.0 Ftu 11/26/79 PD-5CW 7. 72. 4 t28 69m 40 278 464 339:28 140 136 0.1 0.8 Ftu 11/26/79 PD-15Am 7.1 167 34m 78 69 512 84m 160 114 0.2 16.0 Ftu 12/06/79 m Analyses performed by Midland Water Department 828 Calculated values 83:Analyseg performed by consumers Power Company l

Table 2.4-12B Revision 44 6/82

. , . - es

$' f

M M M M M M M M M M MN W MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR TABLE 2.4-12C CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLES FROM CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING WELLS

(CONSTITUENTS IN PPM, EXCEPT WHERE NOTED) pH Well (pH Fe Fe Date Langlier Ryznar No. Units) Ca M4 Na Alk'y Hardness IIcol'8 SO. y (Total) (Dissolved) Turbidity Sampled Index Indextan 223A 7.2 280 56.0 166.0 277 9 2 9' ' ' 337 400.0 300 3.48 <0.10 -

03/05/80 0.06 7.08 213A 7.0 679 271.0 330 t 402 99.0 2,102'2)#I 510.0 480 0.32 <0.10 -

03/05/80 - -

111 7.2 286 57.0 231.0 240 949 293 410.0 400 2.1 <0.10 -

03/05/80 -0.04 7.28 330 7.7 112

8

7. 3' ' ' 58.0 169 310 206 -

110 6.0 1.43 6.0 06/26/80 0.525 -

301 7.8 11C ias 8. 7' ' ' 52.0 162 312 197 - 102 0.32 0.38 3.0 06/26/80 0.457 -

307 7.7 124:24 13.042 54.0 172 364 210 - 90 0.76 0.65 3.0 06/26/80 0.506 -

315 7.7 12188' 9. 7

8 55.0 164 342 200 -

110 0.42 0.49 2.0 06/26/80 0.497 -

408 7.6 120t al 12 . 0 ' 55.0 169 350 206 -

110 0.71 0.67 4.0 06/26/80 0.455 -

106:23 888 448 7.5 11.0 48.0 157 310 191 -

102 0.42 0.39 1.0 06/26/80 0.209 -

448 7.1 144'*I 12.0 69.0 169 410 207 - 137 0.70 0.62 3.0 06/26/80 -0.015 -

422 7.3 125t23 2.4888 55.0 165 322 201 -

110 0.25 0.25 2.0 06/26/80 0.128 -

44 202 7.7 144 41.0'2 93.0 234 528 285 - 236 0.31 <0.1 2.2 FTU 10/02/80 0.58 6.54 212A 7.7 147 ' ' ' 37.0'2' 81.0 237 522 289 -

196 0.34 <0.1 1.6 FTU 10/02/80 0.59 6.51 225B 7.5 15 6' ' ' 29. 0 78.0 223 508 272 - 192 0.32 <0.1 2.1 FT'J 10/02/80 - -

301 7.2 116:23 27. 0 24.2 179 402 218 - 132 <0.1 <0.1 1.0 NTU 01/06/81 -0.34 7.88 332 7.4 102t23 27.0 21.0 172 366 210 -

160 <0.1 <0.1 1.0 NTU 01/06/81 -0.21 7.82 438 7.6 1262) 33.0423 63.3 192 450 234 - 140 0.15 <0.1 1.5 NTU 01/06/81 0.13 7.35 422 7.4 123:23 3 3. 0 68.7 196 444 239 - 120 0.38 0.11 2.0 PrIV 01/06/81 -0.07 7.55 202 7.7 132<2 3 3, o42' 68.3 200 466 244 - 200 0.14 <0.1 1.5 NTU 01/06/81 0.26 7.18 225B 7.7 9742 4o,otal 64.1 199 438 243 - 180 0.10 <0.1 1.5 NTU 01/06/81 0.13 .' . 4 5 117 7.5 125i26 32.0 66.0 195 442 238 -

120 0.11 <0.1 1.5 NIU 01/06/81 0.03 "J.45 103A 7.7 33, o t 24 197 450 240 140 12 6426 67.0 - <0.1 <0.1 1.5 NTU 01/06/01 0.23 ". . ? 3 IO3A 7.6 104:23 17.0 39.4 174 332 212 127.2 115 0.39 0.27 1.0 NTU 08/05/81 0.29 7.01 202 7.7 96 28 27, ot a l 42.1 170 352 207 124.7 115 0.30 0.16 1.1 NTU 08/05/81 0.37 6.99 117 7.8 93tas 26.0:23 40.5 166 340 202 122.6 77 0.32 0.22 1.0 NTU 08/05/81 0.47 6.91 438 7.9 83:23 28. 0 38.7 159 324 194 110.7 134 0.11 0.08 1.2 NTU 08/05/81 0.46 6.90 422 7.8 80 23 3 5. 0 41.2 162 344 198 112.8 86 0.33 0.14 1.3 NTU 08/05/81 0.35 7.09 332 7.7 86888 21.0 t23 34.6 153 304 187 90.1 67 0.18 0.09 0.8 NIU 08/05/81 0.29 7.11 301 7.8 7782' 3 0. O 38.4 155 316 189 108.7 67 0.14 0.03 1.0 NTU 08/05/81 0.32 7.16 225B 7.7 98 28 33.0:2s 38.5 166 R3 202 114.4 96 0.28 0.11 0.9 NTU 08/05/81 0.34 7.01 All analyses performed by Consumers Power Company 88' Calculated values Revision 44 6/82

M M M M M M M M M M MIDLAND 1&3-FSAR TABLE 2.4-12D CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF CROUNDWATER SAMPLES FROM PERMANENT DEWATERING WELLSiO (Constituents in ppm, Except Where Noted)

Fe Well p!I Hard- Fe No. (pli Units) Co t 2 l gqts: (dis- Turbid- Date Langler Ryznar Na Alk'y 7,ess MCOs SO. C1 (totall solved) ity Sampled Indexd8 Indextra F-1 7.5 83 20 91 227 290 277 111 120 F-2 7.4 97 26 52 210 348 0.95 0.78 8.0 NTU 01/12/82 -0.05 7.59 256 141 60 1.34 0.89 13.0 NTU 01/12/82 -0.11 7.63 P-3 7.5 78 21 33 166 284 202 91 80 F-4 7.5 78 25 27 173 296 0.67 0.50 5.0 NTU 01/12/82 -0.16 7.83 211 81 60 1.17 0.81 8.3 NTU 01/12/82 -0.12 7.74 F-5 7.7 69 27 30 184 282 224 87 100 F-6 7.6 82 24 31 174 304 212 0.49 0.21 2.9 NTU 01/12/82 0.13 7.43 102 100 0.54 0.24 4.6 NTU 01/12/82 -0.06 7.71 F-7 7.7 77 23 31 157 286 192 86 60 G-1 7.7 62 21 23 151 242 0.43 0.18 3.0 NTU 01/12/82 -0.03 7.75 104 70 60 0.34 0.17 1.0 NTU 01/12/01 -0.02 7.74 .44 G-2 7.2 62 23 24 83 250 101 85 80 C-4 7.7 65 22 24 150 252 183 89 0.49 0.25 2.0 NTU 01/12/82 -0.94 9.08 80 0.73 0.49 2.8 NTU 01/12/82 -0.11 7.92 C-5 7.7 66 22 25 150 254 183 84 80 G-6 7.6 71 25 25 163 199 0.92 0.57 3.4 NTU 01/12/82 -0.16 8.03 283 88 80 0.93 0.81 2.5 NTU 01/12/82 -0.11 7.82 G-7 7.8 71 23 31 168 274 205 86 120 C-8 7.7 62 18 27 137 0.51 0.16 2.8 NTU 01/12/82 -0.08 7.65 228 167 82 60 0.32 0.22 1.4 NTU 01/12/82 -0.17 8.03 G-9 7.5 64 31 29 168 286 205 91 80 H-1 7.7 57 24 33 154 242 198 0.64 0.56 d.9 NTU 01/12/82 -0.14 7.77 58 60 0.24 0.12 0.4 NTU 01/12/82 -0.02 7.74 H-2 7.7 70 24 29 162 272 198 84 100 H-3 7.7 70 28 31 164 290 0.55 (0.10 2.3 NTU 01/12/82 0.09 7.53 200 101 80 0.63 0.13 2.8 NTU 01/12/02 0.07 7.56 H-4 7.7 73 25 31 164 286 200 95 80 0.54 0.13 2.7 NTU 01/12/82 0.11 7.49 NOTES:

I'All analyses performed by Consumers Power Company lascalculated values Table 2.4-12D Revisi-on 44 6/82

I I MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR

1 TABLE 2.4-16 I l

WELL FAILURE MECHANISMS AND REPAIR TIMES l

Event Repair Time )

1. Electrical Failure

a. Single well (wired Less than 1 day in parallel)

6. Multiple wells due 1 day to initiate operation to power outage of backup diesel power to interceptor wells.

Operate until normal power can be restored. Backup interceptor wells automa-tically begin pumping if water levels exceed el 595 ' .

44

2. Failure of timers / Less than 1 day; replace-pumps / check valves ment parts onsite.

3. Header pipe break 1 day to attach flexible hose to each well affected and p ump wa ter .to s torm drains. In case of inter-ceptor well header failure, initiate backup wells (on separate header system).

4. Well screen encrusta- 2 days to acidize well.

t ion

5. Complete loss of well 4 days to replace one well using cable tool rig. 1 day

, if other drilling method used. If well or wells need I to be replaced, there is enough redundancy and pumping capacity to prevent water I levels from rising in plant fill', while the replacement wells are being installed.

I Revision 44 6/82

O e .

~"

. DObUVlENT '

PAGE .

'P_U LED O

ANO. m-NO. OF PAGES- ,

3 I RE, GON O PAGE ILLEGs2 D mo ccerento A1. von er owr -

3 3 D BETER cop (REOJESTED ON _ -

keAsnoomsEsonu,oR l

g->-o OMR FEMED ON APER 70RE CARD NDDDN '

-tA '

huo%w-o3

m W W W m m W W W W W W W W W mM m m l

l 1942 JAN FE8 MAR APR MAY s to is se as s se es as is 5 se is se 35 i se is se Is s to 95 se is a e a i iiiiieiiiiiii iie i ie i i iiiii

. __"25_D ( TDAYS _ _

610 1 ..Il_ _ - . - - . . - - - - - .

..ll- -_

is ' __

ASSUMPTIONS:

_ . . ESTIMATED 608 1. 1% DAYS TO COLD SHUTDOWN 2.

7 DAYS TO OPERATE DIESELS AFTER 606.5 '

COLD SHUTDOWN 606 I

3. WELL OR WELLS CANNOT BE REPAIRED

_ _ _ OR REPLACED IN SUFFICIENT TIME 604 - -- - - -

g COE 10 _ _ ___ __ . 2 . . . .

IF GROUND WATER LEVEL EXCEEDS 603 (ACTUAL)

MOST _/ ELEVATION 606.5 AT ANY OBSERVATION CONSERVATIVE / WELL AT THE OfESEL BUILDINO OR AX 13A

• AUXILIARY BUILDING RAILROAD BAY THE f~ (AUXILIARY BUILDING PLANT WILL BE SHUT DOWN.

_ TRAIN BAY AREA) 600 / NOTE: FOR LOCATION OF OBSERVATION

/ / WELLS AND AREAS COMMITTED TO

~ __/ / PERMANENT DEWATERINO, SEE FIGURE 2

/ I 598 /

COE-12 A (ACTUAL) , f

/

596 LEAST ,

CONSERVATIVE _.

693

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' CONSUMERS POWER COMPANi 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -

MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 Days DEWATERING CRITERIA FOR PLANT

. ie is a n e is n ee n e is is a n s ,e ,s a n s .e . n n SHUTDOWN JAN FE8 MAR APR MAY mue uurs i ne ,

FIGURE 4 in:

34 019ee se

r l \

\

t

• **

• e e' ee

'~

625 O o O OIJ o oo o )

OO g  % ao0 g A AAA A AAA A O

{~ 0cD 00

(

624 -

-. a

$ A A AM Q m

f E 623 p

,. n w

w

{ >

{ d 622 5

{ Y 621 e PD-6: STATIC WATER LEVEL ELEV. - 625.

o PD-5B: STATIC WATER LEVEL ELEV. - 62d O PD-5: STATIC WATER LEVEL ELEV. - 624.

6 PD-5D: STATIC WATER LEVEL ELEV. - 62 i

620 TEST DATE: 11/13 - 17/79 PUMPING RATE: 0.83gpm 619 i e i t i i si i i i i ei i i i i ; i,,e i , i 0.1 1 10 100 TIME, MINUTES I

(

NOTE:

See Figure 2.4 42 for well locations.

(,

I l'

WELL NO. a s (FEET) t, (MIN) r (FEET)

/

i PD-SC *

• NA PD-6 0.35 120 86.40 mo PD-5B 0.32 60 35.60 O__ en PD-5 *

• 7.60 PD-SD *

• 5.00

=

%y*tmAba e% V h FORMULAE T

T=2 0 3, o WHERE:

T = TRANSMISSIVITY (GPD/FT)

O = PUMPING RATE (GPM) as = DRAWDOWN OVER ONE LOG CYCLE OF TIME (FT)

S = STORAGE COEFFICIENT t = ZERO DRAWDOWN INTERCEPT (DAYS) r = DISTANCE TO PUMPING WELL (FT)

TRANSMISSIVITY STORAGE

, WELL NO. (GPD/FT) COEFFICIEN T l.90- PD-5C NA NA 37* PD-6 626 0.002 l.79* PD-5B 685 0.007 PD-5 NA NA PD-5D NA NA

• SEE TABLE 2.4-118 t 1 l1I I i 1 1 I IfI 1.000 10,000 b o -

rueosso eca m, ust NE

--- = ==

XAX ._

SCALE reown l DES:GNED LE.Y DaAwN MJM BECNTEL AMM ARSOR MIDLAND POWER PLANT TIM E - DR AWDOWN G R APH FOR PD-SC PUMPING TEST (SHEET 1) me no, onmwo no. arv.

7220 FIGURE 5 o ci v.- 4 m ,

PM L 626 O Onr, m ,,

625 .

-'u m O

O D

@ S$@o d

624 (N

2 m

, m l; {

623

~

k W

4 G$

p. . J i w uj 822 cc 4'

e' N

.L 3:

621 9 PD-20A: STATIC WATER LEVEL ELEV. O PD-20B: STATICWATER LEVEL ELEV.-6:

O PD-3: STATICWATER LEVEL ELEV. -625, TEST DATE: 11/13 - 17/79 620 PUMPlNG RATE: 0.83gpm

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' l 8 8 II I '

619 O.1 3 10 100 I

TIME, MINUTES l

f, NOTE:

See Figure 2.4-42 for well locations.

e i

l' l_

< f

a -

• WELL NO. o s (FEET) t, (MIN) r (FEET)

PD-20A *

• 14730 l PD-20B 035 70 144.80 PD-3 035 100 109.20 h Mi

.oo %

l l

FORMULAE T = 264_O 3,03 t oT 05 r2 WHERE:

T = TRANSMISSIVITY (GPD/FT)

O = PUMPING RATE (GPM) as = DRAWDOWN OVER ONE LOG CYCLE OF TIME (FT)

S = STOR AGE COEFFICIENT t = ZERO DRAWDOWN INTERCEPT (DAYS) r = DISTANCE TO PUMPING WELL (FT)

TRANSMISSIVITY STORAGE WELL NA (GPD/FT) COEFFICIENT y,37,

!4.55' PD-20A NA NA 08' PD-208 626 0.0004 PD-3 626 0.001

• SEE TABLE 2.4-11B I i 1 1I f I f f 1 I lIf 1,000 10,000 b o

g +,ossae ac eu ost-  % a1XhX

- . -- wg=

SCALE NOW6 lDESIG8eEO Wy DRAupe Mjg BECNTEL ANN ARDOR MIDLAND POWER PLANT TIME- PRAWDOWN GRAPH FOR PD-5C PUMPlNG TEST (SH EET 2)

JOG 880. DR AguipeG *eO. #f V.

7220 FIGURE 6 o s i:.- G 5

~

W v - -

627

. . p A

626 -

1 5 lihEquW g

E g

E E 5 E BEEE 625 d

i 2 b

c &

L 624 m-a d

d r- >

uj 623 5

E a

622 a

r

. SW-4: STATIC WATER LEVEL ELEV. - 627.56' E SW-1: STATIC WATER LEVEL ELEV. - 626.40'

{

621 TEST DATE: 12/4 - 10/19 PUMPING RATE: 12.5gpm t

620 I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

10 100 1,000

(

TIME, MINUTES i

l i

NOTE:

See Figure 2.4 42 for well locations.

i

[

> i

\

v -d

WELL SbO. a s (FEET) tg(MIN) r (FEET) = -

SW-4

• 139.0 E

SW-1 *

• 172.0 V

%*e E_

FORMULAE T

T2 O g. n WHERE:

T = TRANSMISSIVITY (GPD/FT)

O = PUMPING RATE (GPM) os = DRAWDOWN OVER ONE LOG CYCLE OF TIME (FT)

S = STOR AGE COEFFICIENT t = ZERO DRAWDOWN INTERCEPT (DAYS) r = DISTANCE TO PUMPING WELL (FT)

TRANSMISSIVITY STORAGE WELL NO. (GPD/FT) COEFFICIENT SW-4 NA NA SW-1 NA NA I i 1  ! I ! l 1 10,000 b o

d'*i4 g 1550E0 FoR PQo) USE  % MX/M a.= == p fIO63O scAtt NowE l oestGNED LEf ORAWN M j Q BECHTEL ANN AABOE MIDLAND POWER PLANT TIME- DR AWDOWN GRAPH FOR PD-15A PUMPlNG TEST (SHEET 1) me no. on Awmc mo. ar v.

7220 FIGURE 7 o 9v.- G- % g

627 O

626 o O O

. . . . . . , . . . - . ... V *'

625 O O O@ O OC

( iN 1

w

i O 624 E

B d

a "j 623 cc Y

3:

622 O LOW-10: STATIC WATER LEVEL ELEV. - 6:

. PD-15C: STATIC WATER LEVEL ELEV. -62 O AX-12: STATIC WATER LEVEL ELEV. - 626 o Q-1: STATIC WATER LEVEL ELEV. -626.2]

621 TEST DATE: 12/4 - 10/79 PUMPING RATE: 12.5gpm

)

+ 620 O.1 1 10 100 TIME, MINUTES

(

NOTE:

See Figure 2.4-42 for welllocations.

{'

~

WELL NO. o s (FEET) t, (MIN) r (FEET)

LOW-10 1.15 62.0 140.0 PD-15C . . 15.0 AX-12 . . 247.0 g O-1 . . 163.0 0 0%

3Ch , 0-t ,

MD O FORMULAE T =264 0 3 . 0.3 t,T 05 r2

, WHERE:

T = TRANSMISSIVITY (GPD/FT)

O = PUMPING RATE (GPM) as = DRAWDOWN OVER ONE LOG CYCLE OF TIME (FT)

S = STORAGE COEFFICIENT N

O t = ZERO DRAWDOWN INTERCEPT (DAYS) r = DISTANCE TO PUMPlNG WELL (FT)

TRANSMISSIVITY STORAGE

' ' ~A0 WELL NO. (GPD/FT) COEFFICIENT g

T.20' CD 3.16, LOW-10 2869 0.002

.16 PD-ISC NA NA AX- 12 NA NA Q-1 NA NA W

• SEE TABLE 2.4-11B t t Itt  ! I I I I itI i000 10.000 6 o s,, isso rea iwa use A %MXAX

- . - w = == -

SCALE reown joessoseto (gy onAwie M3 M BECHTEL AMN ABSOE MIDLAND POWER PLANT TIME- DRAWDOWN GR APH FOR PD-ISA PUMPlNG TEST (SH EET 2)

Jos psO. omAwiMG reo.

• f V.

7220 FIGURE 8 o S t.-c, no

l e9

. DOCUMENT *

~

PAGE .

l 'PU_LE D 0 9

AN O. >---

NO. OF PAGES ,

b REASON O PAGE ILLEGS2 D we ccerFaso A1. von er I

own o ._ _ _ ,_ ,

. ~

kPAGE100 LARGE10 FEM. '.

kiwocceenson roR @

~

FEMED ON APERTURE CARD NO ,

4 i

i t % o1\e42q-c4

---

,,-------,,--.--,~~~~~--,---,r- -

i  !

I I ,

j C ^ '/ E :'. A TION E-CD su ;.- E , A PC 3 ATC:.

I E e ; L C :',G 333;;. ,;

• * * * -a-g C . L Y .'. AST E

o O S' = ^ 3 5 '

m .f p A  : E A T'/ E '.T V U V .o~i^ m I R A C .'. A ST E TA9K FARM AREA

. AX 2  !

N._V gy 3 TAN <S BUILDING AUXILIARY I

BUILDING w 0;

@ D. 4 x.u a sm N /

UNIT 1 ' UNIT 2 I CO N TA I N'/ T.

i CO *,T AI N '/ T.

j I Ol i 1 i

i A D'/ I N. A'iD l SERVICE BUILDING l YUR3tNE BUILDING l Ss74 - '

% i

' ^*'

SE AVICE WATER I

or P*J'/.D ST D ' 'OT U R E ,

I :mm .cosio, olR la oiEsa. cl 10 i i

GENERATOR  !, j  !

BUILDING C!RCUL.

I GUARD g, .

HOLSE , * .,.,4 73 2 j . .TA K E cos12A cost 3] STRUCTURE ,

SE2:o I

, CONDENSATE ,

COOL!'.G PC'.D I

STORAGE q c--  !

TAN <S c;;c c:-

I '

CIESEL GE*.E:ATO A FUEL OIL STC; AGE TANKS ~

l l ssco j 4 Ill'iill I I Ili.ililili li TA \

0, m x _- -

C, e ,

I

'i, . . . == -

e E /DLAN ATION I 8ECHTEL

, ceSE vA 0N ,. u LS useo 'o" a:CHA AGE TfVE OETE AviN ATION ANN ARECR l AP dAS 00VVITTED TO PEAYANENT OEWA~EDING MIDL AND POWER PL AN7

, ,, ,, OBSE AVATION .'. ELLS AT CRITICAL STAUCTUA ES I

_ e'

- ' 7' YONITOPE0 OUA:NG AECHAAGE TEST p p _.OE C IL/--!NG NS

$f 7220 j FIGURE 12

W

[D g O

C O 0

e c .$. w S4000 s

\

s 4q s j ..

can-e oss-is

/

+' -

k s

\ / -

14190 / m. c.a.ec s ]

[.

[*

-'r

, , j l l lj T,*'*,, , o.ue.w

'a== g 'M w sa l l f ., C8

\

% _ . . . j S4400 h -  !

\ i 1 II I i I i l iN

.. ***.,g y__a

as___ c t ,,,,,,s/ ,,///////

[

s- .

l l r

~ ,

i r:n1 ;

• u n _ _;_ -

y.,

t. -.  ! ......

y .g _'. . s..-.. ., $<

1 --- i . . ,

f' -

3t "

- DM d(7".. ,

1 , , , , , ,

i _ m

""6. , r. = ==. r.. = t.:, , . . - ,

. ~ .  : m

. s.y

.m. A, W

c s

. c. m .

s -t * :

yy r -* , s.

Ns:-

• 4 i I2 Tk. cr ;1;"'

i

. ..a .s

. .. . . p<. s . . ., s: ..

l " 'o l i,

'* l id( g( . . hDy -

gh

• .. 7 .

. ':y as g' m_cf. -s.

F

,',r. 4 )

_ , i ,

i c..., ,

..-.-.p. 1 .

s _4. ' - . . , . , ."4 4.nr p.

n

-s sooo

/ / >

, 7

.. 7 p.gg.

.c 3p we. +;

y g I,

i 2

. . . . 1. . ...

~<,

v,  : ~'.s ......v"f-*.,'.

~ ~

n ,

l

.. s **' s eeU.D[e

.n...

ec. . a '[ f f.

• • f,y 3 ;'

l f... s.' ,:.

f l . ,

.. y

< i.

. lQ* r ._E.~'*~'

g si . e

,,g( " ./

s.av .= =

,3,no

~.. ,

} /

\ \

f 1,. - mue : .e e3 -a

! g

>"' J'

\ l (#$.

g u-

• l .

a* g ., ..

tO.'m**2..c*.M,%

c .

a g o e'  %. _ e--

\(

\p '

s s oo .

t '- m -

~-

l ' N M M I E uma o

Ef ~

e

. . . 2 ena w w g .

N FWT4Saosssgg ,,,gp 9 e.- a NOTES >

-N N

.,sve ,

, t The remoning natural sands are de-svaucvws scribed es Unit C m the FSAR 9 e. . E Thickness of natural sonds based on creepretohon of Doring logs and con.

e "' servet on receres I

~! I I i ed .

j

.s - s f * -' m=

e EXPL AN ATION

• *a e*

.ea.a. s'awc'e u .c EXPLORATION PROGRAM - PRECONSTRUCTION f a MICHIGAN DRILLING COMPANY

• • • e,'g,' e* BORINGS ; 1956 & 1968

. DAMES S ssOORE 80 RING S ;

l967, pese a #969 I

,, EXPLORATION PROGRAM - CONSTRUCTION PERICO

__ _.____ '3a . a, a

• M a'" coou.e a WALTER FLOOD COMPANY

• A Q / e" T/ ' / / /MZjr s BORINGS. 1969 8 1970 s i f..we,, e 7.e.c. g N i f

/* '# ,,- g , Q , 4" . .,,

• BECHTEL ORINGS.1970

,\  %

s "#*'f 'I* / f 1 / V /'.,($* i as SOIL & MATERIALS ENGINEERING

%s, [E*Na a.. f  % ". INC BORINGS. (973 8 #974

- - ,  !.. .,...n p,f.-[ ,/ - ... y

_rc. la d g.,,l -

p g/ %[ \  % i6 I ** / 1 a'_'*

- ac" j' > BECHTEL BORINGS,1973 8 t974

, q\ .2.?,,.,

jg~. ~~ ^K N% -

\% s

%__ e's , _ ,

3*,

-~ %'y.h\ % g' s a

, s.,, O BECHTFL BORINGS. 1977 8 1978

__y' ~"

4 %s N gNg

,t .

Q EEN[.*N 5'oa*u .e...s

• ,,e e' ** **\

j ism' i aj 'e .

se 4 N N

a WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS BORINGS, f981

\ s '+* +  %. b- ** , I' G3 BECHTEL TEST PITS. F978 81979

• ' N

.. g s 4 g\ l 1 I # /  : ,% A '*

des .o s N g' \ :8c %. __\ g 1 i l / a C3 BACwFtLL ARE AS 'NSIDE THE D . wE A., . gis, . " ? % .' ' ' j f r.n1 Ii #' Ij

/ NSPEC T'ONICUTOFF TFiENCH UN-

& y3 \ \ , _ , , , , , c .s l *

'DERL A'N BV CL AY

} 4*' D e N, \ w ,* \ g N % -f - N'\%*

i D' s CJ BACKFILL ARE AS INS 4DE 7**E L"p E e J

• m s  %% \. !N 'NSPECYev :JTOFF TRENCM UN-

/ M* aIo A.s 's s ) g W A>N BY N..YUR AL SAND

/ j e. ,, s N ..e CONT 3UR REPRE SE NTS THtC* NESS f 3 ,

9 I ' ' ' \g r . '

+

4 f / 1 * - et

, i

, * *' * ,/ ' 'if i

3 \ .ejs g ,*

CF REMA.NiNG NATURAL SANDS CONTOUR INTERVAL iS 10 FEET l2.'O ,'e- M. * ," /

I s. 'g g g -s 5.,es, , , . i- .

u, W~. . '

t.

e~...

g g j g

.I } )"* ,/, f ey* f,T .y. ,. , a ,8 j

/ , f.- ne seg e

. .A' e " ,s  %

,1 y ,s

g. m.'8;4h  : r,, w,,

g f , . . -

s

'>n ** '

% ; s**1Ja* , ,\g g / +  %

.5~

~

~

~ -

q. -

e e.,

- !n m \;- .m

% .. - im. ~

h \I l'%':n'.'P 5 W ,

? "2 .~ i T s, . ~T  %

. .%;g::q ca (.p\ .>.m e s, x > .e. x .. *

.v (f n 4 a- s: .i, . .p$_3, v .4.:.c = : n . ,

g ..

v ry , ... r. n

w. -

ten, g ." ;./. . ." J_ A . +( l 4: .;r= JNI s" *

,)

I

/ g SCALE se f EET "y %: . 6%.-,/% -R.?

.m..T.Q,n

, j ~ V' i;4 -

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY y w.

, .. r.-

3 3-. ,

s '

i *~

MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 yg j. 2 T E .'T. h . ... . I a.e FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Ih $""' h. / .d,$ h Isopach of Remaining Natural Sands

\ , II h

' gm.s C A ,E m e.N.w sz w &

M a s

/

s 2$Nh*Nh s 4.w m.

m _c sga_ g,y 03 FSAR Figure 2.4-39 6/82 RevisionJA4,

h s*8"%

, , , ~ .

14000 \

x  %. >

/ /

\ ++ -

k \ / n mzw \ \N h-k

// N _r 1 , I I i l- x

=l* =*'

==,a,:=, l l Au 4

I tvarantos ma mos

\ il xl i i # , i i -

T&WE F4 g

i O

I  ;

I ,; == i i' i L_

l' \

i s '=:::

i

- 18 4

\

1.ex -

i

=

? . \ /

T - \ 1 w,=

..a l

i s \

s s T.:,- \

s j i ! a*p, 's i x r

(

l :

caama ,muu rrtues

, - =

8'y r:.

+ '

• w.

', ' =.

i

~ ', #j l - \

(. -

l -

~

\

! p I /,_

,# \

l ____ N

. - ~ - -

%/ I,I ,

I i

' l s Icolo a 49 i -

=. , g

- = = = = <ma, =

nm X = "aar l

< n--.

I g * " * * '

s$

1 mr". ?

I 's s i N s I

1

- i. N =*. .=

~ ~ _ -

m .co M I I I!I Il

.. .i ~s .i j

n. ,

h E h w w w w frtfa84eassif aryge as Eunc"e s Tunt i

EXPLANATION

"#'4 LOCATION OF MEASURED ['

OBSE*VATION WELLS PI OMETE S ,

,- Wo*# APPROXIMATE ELEVATION v OF GROUND WATER LEVEL.

co.sanariose snoe CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2 E s FEET I

{

f

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ < c,oa ,., l r//// / //1 - min: ,

- ,-  ;,7 y- 0 n,. .

. . nini. e x .c.,,,

x ~

i. -. m. ,,,..

[% '"" ,. /

m,= _

a s,onaat f.aus NX s r

/ /

g ua,..l.

C MI: ,

s,\ b i

to.. \ to.-e, x .. o  ;

-. r-i,

'*Y \ l 1

// .

aaa r = u. -

1 l _, , s . ~ - . -.

is unawan.res ) l scata en rest s'  :. w = ,

g'i ,p

- / CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2

', y -

co= =

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

=1. s__.$

/ C D .

."u",, Groundwater Levels Prior to Pond

,/ Ej "

Lowering (11-27 to 11-29-79) jp

/"'% ""'lM'W""

i

/ "'*""" (SK-G-457, Rev 1)  ;

lI I I[ h ,

FSAR Figure 2.4-40 t

6/82 Revision 44  ;-

n -^

1 i  !  !  !

I l

J s sem e-ser5PECTs0es CUTOFF YnEleCM gySNSahSiSMMSSSSN%NSSS#'; ShSYMSSSSSSSSSSSSN%%MN#%55N Y stunny Tar nCu w i fk

'

• O - - -

- - - - - sss - - .

~ ~~'

,s ~ s

,/' Tama ranu f' g) m N / /

( '

/ / l N / / l g nacumsTE oueLouse f

~

sriCTio.vCuTo,, Tai C

- 5 - ,

/ '-

/ w g

/ e y

1. auxtuanT gustDuse

/ /

gme _.

l / /

R l I f ) f }

N I I wi- -  ! -sw - a

[ l i I

• \

..avinn ano

\

\ 's N I i

+, SEnVtte ButtDEUG % \ \

N g

's, N N \ Tunenes suitcase I sumo 9-k-

\

N g

\

\

s -,

I f i O i i O / 1

\i g li O i i O l  !

" ' " " * " unrT Tnanssonmens unf tTaasesFonmens / ,

/ ,

i ,

f . NJ /

l

• ld I //

l I -% cmonmafions g / N suitossa f ,

{ f s

,; t ,' /  %  %~ /

\ ,/ ,I ~

l

~

x  % j

,-.- - W I '/i I

\

g \ cossopesafs sTonaos Tanus

~~s  ;

\-- - O~I g- _

,' ,/ 'I f o

--- l il j

'I Q \ ,/ (~$ ~

k N ~ _ ,,, / C_ -C -

DISCManGE sTnuCTUnE usaT cet sf EY s DetCManGE sTauCTunt usuf 1 a s [I I l l I  !

7

- s y 4 2 R I I

e .

h _ - - _ --

t I

I I

RNIG rOWEn 1

1

'%g l

)

- S 4000

's s N

' SLUARY THENCH No :

's ' s.

N 's 'N

's s

N\ a

\

g g exnanArm N\ N ,..<'-O'T.. Ja'Ta" Tat 7ts"u"."

\ \ s anno

's 's NOTES.

ant w raamaronouns \ \ 1

% \ 1. Contours represent ground water levels in g

I pervious materials only

\

\

2. See Figure 2,4-47 for areas committed to g g permanent dewatering,

\ /

\ /

\ /

s' s'

- 4' N

,c'gffer' R2 .-

,,u,y

, Y I )(

ll /,/ /

j ' i ' =:','u',".

/ ',}, =i ,

,','y//ul , //'li ,

i 1-1 A=t;rT 3.",

/ // ,' /

0,'/ / l

'/

o// , , -

/

0 25 50 #00 ISO 200 m o SCALE IN FEET CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

/ MIDLAN0 PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Predicted Groundwater Levels j During Plant Operation s teoq

\ \ (SK-G-631. Rev 0) g FSAR Figure 2.4-41 I

6/82 Revision 44 k

- i

W

,4%

O

. d

~

S4000 va-o

, .. .,4,.- s 7.

bh owq

[_ ~

DETAIL W ,, ,

4 au-Et j; 4" o 4" l l r* \

DETAll

- n, o S4400 _

EVAPORATOR BUILDING po-so so se .po-s r- ununununounun

, i  :

(~ ll' i

I

< A m O F i

U UL I -

- == ,g '"

mTait /7N + i  :

W l I [

l l =ao STE m e a ,v,,L, T =

l -

I I

h h s

\

$ .' u"'"

CONTAWe,ENT are /

l /

L l f ~'"*+'

/ -',

l / i

'~

q"* *?ll*"* $

, mo..e.Et,;~ To E m.

l l I T sm I -

D pinw: l em,< m

+ i  ; al 10 --

, ~^'W \ p p<

l /

\

I L ., GUARD l

/ M

"*SE $ \;./ 3 l

S 5200 l

f js m

/

I \

• • • • • c 4 \

C' e

\ -

, p.. +wm g

{ +

o-* t'h*;

. if.,c m \ \

" ^ ' W s3.oo IlIl lIlI

~ s r-ev., spa V

I

% l l

8 d 8 a I 5  : 0  !

EXPLANATION

• • + LOCATION OF OBSERVATION WELLS

"'+ LOCATION OF PUMPING wtLLS S

c "L"#' " cof4' "ti,

- y - - - --- --.} .'

ff '//A/////: s

~

- -=TcR,;;;Ay,NT x N

's N m

) ' ~.

O y"n" S N

~;,;;;suny< '"

N

-t

['h UNIT 2 0

[

CONTJahelENT

ny' \ g '*p.,

I, O

T ,T7 4*

\ ,

c lRio

[  ;

~

^* lSu , cant. en . T. . .

GE NE7fATOR CMLORINATIONm

%43,' y "

C,.Cm ATING u!"#3;'

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2

'~'~

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

• • Pumping Test Location Plan

, COOLING PONO i

• OttSEL GENERATOR FUEL .

Oil STORAGE TANIES ll lll lll l l J'g

/A \

j (SK-G-386, Rev 0)

FSAR Figure 2.4-42 6/82 Revision 44 a ,

u" i

k h g w w i

l / -

I- y ~

~

, . - ~&,_,~~,

- - - ~ ~ _ , ~ G4 l / s',s'~# s ' ,_ ~~~%  %

. ssooo . / '/ _< " %m *%_ 'N l g AD*8tNISTRATION / /p# '%  %

'N SE RVICE // - #'8 g N l / BUILDING / / /p

%m N

! / f

1. N g~ \

/lq/ e Pzt

/ s"%  %

f- gi / s

's s i r

/

y ,. N ol / , s Uf.li 1 TRANSFORMERS OlESEL \agg \ UNIT 2 TRANSFOf

$l /

/ / / GENERATOR

?'lLDING

\#

gg j g 4P ll / \ _ g al / / 1. \ 's N

/ M \ s I 0 \

/

I \

l /

l. ss. < \. 4*" P ,.o M *---- _ _ _ _ ,

,,s s

} \

\

, { - APPROXIMATE WIDTH

\ CONDENSATE STORAGE TANKS AND LOCATION OF INSPECTICN/ CUTOFF TRENCH k

\ + pag y c e\

PZ 17

l

\ l

I i - \ / PD4

{ l 1 / PDS

d. ) ,/ PS3 P&50 ,

Y* i

\

\Q3 c5 SS . t n s n s CIRCULATING WATER DISCHARGE STRUCTURES

$^

t r -

8 0

E XP L AN ATION LOCATION OF TEST WE LL f LOCATION OF MEASURED OBSERVATION WELLS 9 LOCATION OF MEASURED PIEZOMETERS

--6/V APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF GROUND WATER LEVEL CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2 FEET.

N.

N.N NOTES:

g g 1. The duct bank / valve pit dewatering system was started

%,, N 2/26/80, s,, %__ _ _ , , , , - 2. The Unit 2 dewatering system we started 8/10/80.

N N,-

\ g

1. ' 3. Only observation wells and pierometers screened through pervious material were used to prepare this figure.

MERS N

' - 4. For detailed locations of the duct bank / vane pit and Unit 2 dewatering systems, see Figure E.1-95

~

, p (mi. pa

- /,y 5. and Testi,we,l,l 3m P,D-20 wm pumped at 2.4 gpm between 10/2/80 CIRCULATING WATE R /

! /

INTAKE STRUCTURE ' /

/ / /

,%-,~--</ /

/

/

CELORINATION CL- / /

BUILDING / /

j l

)__ s

-r r,

'_-+

g,-

/

/ hk o

s,- .- _ . l ,oo.g

) ,5 t__

._4  %

W. '

t

((_g l O 25 50 10 0 15 0 200 I

DIESE L GENE RATOR SCALE IN FEET FUE L OIL STORAGE TANKS )

/

/

/

I '

/ / \

l l

l CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 i FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Groundwater Levels in the Vicinity of the Diesel Generator Building Prior to Pumping Test Well PD-20 (10/2/80)

(SK-G-516, Rev 0)

FSAR Figure 2.4-43 6/82 Revision _.44.-

~ a=

b l

?  %  ?

g w w I / I -- 60s - - ._

(

l l

',_- - # " ~ ~ * 6/0 ,a l / f"" '% 'N ssom . / m ADMINISTRATION #

' l '

AND # ,, ~-'---%

TURBINE BUILDING 8/2 N  %

SE RVICE / *w l / BUILDING j '

I / / ~ 6/4 ,

w / ,' ,

~~

~,

/ / [@Pz-30  %

I ' s-nl / ,

/ UNIT 1 TRANSFORMERS l DIESEL f"'N \ UNIT 2 TR 6l m

• / GENERATOR

/ I suitDiNG / e Pz-as\

IEl / ) / g 0 \

, al # /

/

/

p go- 8 j \

l / \

616 #~ ~ \

/ /

$s2m

-s g,- P,2 h,PD20C.\

,g ,,

i / \

/ \

APPROXIM ATE WIDTH s CONDENSATE STORAGE TANKS AND LOCATION OF l INSPECTION / CUTOFF TRENCH PD 17

\

q Pz-n \

( \ \ l

\ \ \

\ PD4  ;

N

{

PD-3 %  %

PD sD 44-s PD

/

' 6/6 ___,,s' Q &

\ i Ss4ao \ n-u , u"  !

9 r

\ CIRCULATING WATE R DISCHARGE STRUCTURES 9

$W '

~

t . . -.*

~Fq a

l l

E XPL AN ATION l h LOCATION OF TEST WE LL

-$- LOCATION OF MEASURED OBSERVATION WELLS

@ LOCATION OF MEASURED PIEZOMETE RS

~ 6/8 # APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF GROUND WATER LEVEL CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2 FEET.

N N ~~ '

%~ s*---_ _- ~ '

NOTES:

~ ~ ' ' - -- ' . , _ --- -

,' 1. The duct bank / valve pit dewatering system was started

/

[ 2/26/80.

2. The Unit 2 dewatering system was started 8/10/80.

p' 3. Only observation wells and pierometers screened through

%. / pervious material were used to prepare this figure.

' ~ ~ ~ '~ # /

ANSFO RME RS p 4. For detailed locations of the duct bank / valve pit and Unit 2

/ dewatenng systems. see Figure 2.1 46 N

N /  ! / 5. Test well PD-20 we pumped at 2.4 gpm between 1W2/80 6/6 m -,

/ O'38 / / and 11/1M

/ /

CIRCULATING WATE R 6\0 / /

INTAKE STRUCTURE " / 63

/

/ /

CL1/ t'

/ 67

/

CH LORIN ATION / ,/ /

BUILDING /

, ,  ! / /

I \/ / ,

l i I V /

<--- g l I /

. I I / q l [ dos

(,___._

_ __._Q'l '  ;

W+2 I

t__.. _d_ I l

,{- -]_@

/  ; / O 25 50 10 0 15 0 200 DIESE L GENE RATOR FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS

/ SCALE IN FEET

/

\

/ h CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Groundwater Levels in the Vicinity of the Diesel Generator Building Near the Completion of Pumping Test Well PD-20 (11/12/80)

(SK-G-517, Rev 0)

FSAR Figure 2.4-44 6/82 Revisfon 40

% s ,

e w

8 8 N '

m v y y 1

i RADWASTE BUILDING AUXILI ARY

, BUILDING N C

S 4800

~. UNIT I UNIT 2 b

[*, { CONTAIN MENT CONTAINMENT

~ li.P SER!ES 100

,1

['", l

• ',t

. . 'i

~'

55 !!E k

. .fD."". .. 2,, . .-. . 2

.Q t  ; i ut -.+ g, ADMIN.

" " ' EN TURBINE AND BUILDI NG SERVICE u-BLDG.

S 5000 -

1 I I I O l l UNIT I UNIT 2 ~

TRANSFORMERS TRANSFORME I

I i

\

DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING l i l 1 S 52OO 4

I' ensma w

m 8

o 8 e

W W EXPLANATION

. McN cONsTRuCToN oE.ATER-MG WELLS 4 3 WCN CONSTRUCTION DEWATER-neG WE uS o 4 INCN CONSTftuCT;ON DEWATER-b g -START-bP TRANSFORMERS

.m + SU8 CONTRACTOR INSTALLED

. C8SERVATION WELLS j . %.

. o o n DEWATERING WELLS NOT IN SERVICE AS OF 7-38-81 5 sEs zoo

r ..

a** -

g, sei.c'".'

s .ica c m.cer. a, ,.7e.a .u. *. ,

. Ries soo

• "*L TN.

[,

s's n gRiEs *m gP ]eJ. g,ga* * .=

• - .= % w

. _ .'c.'"A"

{- e g \

\

3. "

T. SERVICE N *[j,,

O #*lP pU F STRUCTURE N

RS (

CIRCULATING WATER INTAKE {y STRUCTURE l

CHLORINATION c. is

• _ ,, a BUILDING cas ,un

\ /\ /

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Location of Construction Dewater-ing Wells (SK-C-455. Rev 2)

FSAR Figure 2.4-45 6/82 Revision 44 m

E E E N k i 5 4 1

/._ i t 1

l j um_q ' 1

.I i

[ 'b g,%k '/i l l

x 'x I  ;  !

s '  ! i

,\ / I c,p i s

s - i i '

x \, # '

k 3

.s

\;

g' / I l

'A ,

p roo_ _ ,_. g_ n gu_ _.

m> .'/.

1 j!,1  !

l s

l

~

r t  ! l Il  ! I f I

!fd a e, I -

puu Y.Y I

~' e tv.P04 70A BuiL0tas4 Coe 3.4400 _ ._ _ . _ _ _ _  !

\ l i ,

l I i i r

,  ! _ =: ,

l ,

.  ; r l

i I f"'""" -~,,,: ~,,,,,,,, ,

~

i jO ig . . . . . .

u.co  ! l !M I A m A

{

_u l3 ig U UU l .

If t

! a N-i I i coge I I l ,

I  : 'Ot'4",! -

s ;f ;

i -

f t J 40Q0 1  ! _

N Ut i D C0 elf.est i m.ENT6 Con

. 0,,,a i I

l l ,' , ,I ,

1 i

I(/l i /

ii I

' ~

j E $"no C ..a ovu m.., i - =gga '

3 5000 _ , .. ? __ __ __ _ - _ _

Ik

-k l i a gol0

, /  ;

ij i i , l s: ..v... >

- 1 y l

' 4,l

!d o.cu t '

stat.aton sustaine

• n *** h p g i

' amo ouse .

l s um. - - . . _ _ _ __

..__. .~--

,,(%

1,g'_OY..'c7._IEv":v'7w .

t  :. t.  :.

/ \ .

- \

\

l' 3.3. k [' , _i! . ' _, ,, i i 'Ii e s CMC Orsca.ut attesG 96TT#.t3

• H STM7W

$ $ 3 $

w w w w l l l

i  ! ...

i i l  ! ~

, =.-l I

t LEGEND I i O PEResANENT usTERCEPTOR WELL gf \

f O PERGAANENT SACKuP sdTERCEPTOR WELL i l l 4 PERbsANENT ARE A WELL l l .f 4 PERasANENT l.ONETORING WELL I

l I

\

.7,4%,w s suc e g

>.i \/.l

/

i j l /

/ .

I i

h

( / / / / //Z " -

s  %

=, / l (i

4 r# N> s s 3

/

I a..s .mn i ,x ~

,t i mx i

.- ; r4*.= -

3

_ . . . , _ . Ty_.7 .Ns N, 4

u, a

a . . ..

' x-s ,

A a i i i D - __

Q' ,

g3 .. . ....a .. ,

t n k . .+ i 6

. " ;l.; ' O

_~_ g . -

e. ~' f" ,,g, . N ,1  !' l oOcalo '

~m, . e.

,a.u.,

. _j,,5.. ,

< ."3'$5'

.wA' CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

• !?ijg"' MIDLAND PLANT UNITS I & 2 1 r;;*--<O ;--< f' he lK em .., FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT  !

'A ~

n / N Permanent Dewatering and Monitor-b j!!?}p iUEj ing Well Location Plan o.s,r!~o..$.w +

M

[,',-

/

g (SK-G-454. Rev 1) 3 2. . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . FSAR Figure 2.4-46 o

6/82 Revision 44 L

i

n. e. s f

a. m I

s A

N %g, O '

/ \ /

s

, 1

\

. . . \ \N O u I

[/s 1 gil I I I l-% -

m__- ( . .__s=sm,i i l

\

\I fDt i I i l w%

_____ 1 -7 l T g-<_///////////////rs/////////

i - 1 I

' l

$' ' ~ " "

I s .. N" O A

_i -

l h I

UUd J l y I

$  :=:7 I s u =.~.:

.m. -

I h i i  :

• • • dy'

-..a I j ca Tvown, co

,,,, i

'  ; gris w .. I

_, I l- ~% %! ' *

! - *!::' +,, m'"'w" c-. on m , i - =rg:=

i -

, ,ow -

! d ._

. l h- m- ,..._ . .m, Q _ ~o4+

0 lC 3 j -

~ - - - < "~-

[Y'(M>i;; i Q /'l'l ='f%

l i

\l -l g .

,l ;:

. .. :r w eSqf X __ e , .

,; i u

.urm ( 'o C  : . ..

g be

! 7 ,'" "" s t ,+; .. ,,, ,

\

t +>. +=. .e 1

==

I,

~s

[ l I k w l g.II) l

}

1 0

w 3

w 3

w lw x

m -T.-.-.

~

l

,=wg ~

.~rm f

i x

I i EXPLANATICN

.".?.L\

'"'W'T"""

+ ExisTiwG osstavArion wELL O PLANNED 08 SERV &Tif4N WELL M ARE AS OF GRANUL AR 8ACMFILL ptef2 vices .seo.

COWuiTiEO TO PERM A%g4T DEWATEpihG BELOW EL 60 I

l

__2________s~,

, , , , , , , , _ ~

7%

~

+~" :c13  ::a ::'

[%,,,

'~ N x /

o.........,,...

" s

[ q

*I'.C'.h

e. -f ). _.a ,_.

l

' , r- s'K sj

"+

s

, ,,,,o %n Wj _

Q ""

=.', -

.s -...... .... ...

- d ~' =

l L, ->

., _, . . . , e . .. c l nm

. - - .: . v'. - g

,,.,L,,. ,....

. , .7 . ..

I , f. .. T mi

~,

..=:,I /il -

.O_coIa ...+.e . ~ - . -

, , e , ..

... , se_. .. ... .

~ + "g7.A.~n._=.

p'j, 'O';I*'"'!

L

~.. .

j j CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

.;5 MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 f"C~?.*If C.. s._ _

i, ==

! FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT SEC ++ Areas Committed to Permanent

):$ /- Dewatering

• + ""!t."YP*

(SK-G-628. Rev 0)

,[ , FSAR Figure 2.4-47 r 6/82 Revision %4 t

n o l EXISTING GRADE . ,

EL. 634.O' nxn/77 Jr ~ l ... ...

l

=

w

, n 7

l:T.-

't l/A*. _ _I _ _

GROUT SFAL j , ,

NON-SHRINK GROUT SE AL Nla 1 i

l a

I TOP OF SCREEN

[

t  :

- l i r

L k '

CENTRALIZERS $

l .

I BOTTOM OF SCREEN 5

1

(

R BOTTOM OF GR AVEL '

PACK "*

_I4'Mir NOT TO S n,

w - . _ - _____-_______

MANHOLE COVER 1 \ svaSc~ ~ ~

A-MONITORING

, EQUIPMENT

- -PRECAST CONCRETE

[ _a ,

MANHOLE l ,

-m E

~

• 1 .;Z. l v m

5 a

F 2M 6" DI AMETER - WELL CASING If

[A 6" PVC WELL SCREEN 2

grGRAVEL PACK

(. 6" BLANK PVC CASING e, '

PIEZOMETER TIP AND 1/2" PVC RISER PIPE li r:

C CAPPED AT BOTTOM k CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT TYPi cal Permanent CALE Monitoring Well Section (SK-G-450, Rev 1)

FSAR Figure 2.4-48 6/82 Revision a 8 g

o . o .:

S 4000 .,

s S a ".

r+

Ws

/ N

/ -

- 2

\N .:.=,

. P

/ ---

1 i i i I l-

-r ,1, ,,

• d**" " ti'*7" l l I

r j

% # evenee. tee 54400 h r \ il iI,l , i ,w

+ n.

j n,,_ .._ _ _ r _ _ a _ _ _ .

u,

.. / '* e

!= 2 N -

I

,,_ ~

e e..l

'"' " l *8 ,-eg

%  %.,~,,.

~

..u..

eg-s l

l . . .

s. c~

." l N

s-en I 'l .

Y 58*~

f. 5 4000 ' t <

~ -~

L 4 _ , , I m '; .w l.,. .'.' ., , .)'pr;

- .. . ; '. i>,=='*a== '

sh". ,,,,

l

.. . i

.. , , , , . fN =* **g ,.7"

- .n e , ) ,, .1 pC'- . g .. i g Mi-%

• ',,, ,_,,,3.

i , 3 , ..

c,, , -iggH-4 ,

es e. s . .. I sat)d r ss

,- ;,, M

?

$$gQ "

p 2 '\ a-

,L ggyP '..l%s[ T

]

pg ;w mewk e l g.,

,. k

=a *a "o / .

C r l ggas;Q;.g'i.q$

l' \ ' l l' l l' 1f.

?.' l h.%,M*Sk"%,,

\ , .

L i ch 1 * i Ssr00 *a'= i,., i DE' $

N un=.'cs M

\

lb g \

\

j I k .-. 'ss, "* ,.

y ese

\ h.

~

=~

t

\  %

f I

(N.o. E.'.I.NN, l *\ so;s N ",*

_ a. 2 s s 6 4

m' ) .. wm I-0.  % a sC y_

m'ma 6

S5400 1 -

f

o h N W

h. .

w e

w w

~w "Maan ,,,, ,,,g.

.g .e- .

NOTES-

• t the e..noimag noivrel sends are de.

n

U.ucvver sv scnt>ed es umt c m the FsAR.

,.,, 2. Elevations on tiottom of natures sonds tosed on interpre+ation of l>arme sags

% ,s and construction records I I N -

=

os s

'*s - 5 3" ' em EXPL AN ATION

==

aue,e wen ue.ucvv. EXPLORATION PROG":AM - PRECONSTRUCTION

• st e MICMiGAN ORILLING COMPANY BORINGS ; 1956 & 1968 c.ne. ,

- + DAMES & MOORE BOR ING$ ;

1967.1968 8 t969 EXPLORATION PROGRAW - CONSTRUCTION PERIOD

.--_ - _J_ _51*.

• e 'A'"'" com'**

a WALTER FLOOD COMPANY

• a BORINGS ; 1969 8 1970

,Me'* / / j/ / // s

%% ., ty.c. ,

N , / ** c -a* . SECHTEL BORINGS; 1970

'-C- '*

si. / /

[,  %

f ,"*g'"""

"a- * * -

e SOIL & MATERIALS ENGINEERING INC 80 RINGS; 1973 61974 f"'* q=L. s' / .,  %

s / jene atse h*"',*%

v s[s N.

N

,e*.5**

e s' + BECHTEL BORINGS, i973 81974 a ay-.

_j.  ?" .s : - , .m . . ,

m,sw ,,s .....

-gs

's.,.. eECnut eORiNGsii9n a i97e M. , ,,,. . ry- p _,us s ofN '

• eECwTEL eORiNGS; i97s,i979,i9eO a i9ei

'/ f.

• /j'Nh*g,

• ,'; a v.4 s\.) j,' . N

\ ** N'% /*' '"****'""' dOY i\n\ l g s a WOOOWARD*CLYDE CONSULTANTS BORINGS,1961 N ' .'rs ,.

N

' g N N ,

".*\ ("- f .'.gJ,"j '/l!/ )

u eECHTEL TEsf PITS. t9To a i979 p' w s ' 'g'*N '.*

~l t A,d\ l--";. '\ ,-. N i N

\g

/= f mis BACKFILL ARE AS INSIDE THE DIME o,

. 3"',g ';i,k / f Q W 4,: '

m -

lf (g_l(.

s= 'skg gg I\ . /,,

I /

y l I y INSPECTION / CUTOFF TRENCH UN-DERLA'N SY CL AY

' ?"*3

% y.

• ei -- .=,Q~ %* 's *N g\ ZI l CQ BACKFILL AREAS INSIOE THE Dine N -

s s _ , -"'"N N I .\. l lNSPECTION/ CUTOFF TRENCH UN-

> l

'eeif e [, ( S $.- , I

' e.ne. eater *, sd g gg r 5 se' CONTOUR REPRESENTS APPROXIMATE t #"'

e.

1 s

• • • ,,.o g gg o (s l ,i BOTTOM OF NATURAL SAND AFTER CONSTRUCTION CONTOUR 'NTERVAL

>.  ; ;,se4 f.'y, a ,e\ gj , ggr \ y',(, IS iO FEET

--u ,

~. = ,,, - ,/ .

,n _. , ,

n , s

, y: ~,, , .

, , .4 v i _ __ _ ,

-, p 5 N

- my . , -

+

eo , ~ ... / .r. .=.-

c. " .s~).,i.-

- 'h >&;.'% h ( *_=~ A_. 6>

4

w. _. .

0 ,.- ~.

i er 7r

^

o

'* 1

~

p, y ,e n ' , , .;; f

f,,.. .q1 9 C.~. .} .p t "- ."> '".o, ,.,- f.,

'q q , i ~*m,

• sg, .~ z.c .. . yy pa.r ,-

.( y h. -:p

, , .. ,7 .

.f,,&,,h, **%

(?.'" s..s e +%. c4 . . - -

m e g, ..g re m.

Wu,q wa .: m

.- " c "'- ( . s .

m.r r.= .a g %;3pc- -

s 2s so

,c

.so

.. .s s ,

,- ., , %- ,a. ,

.,x> -.- s.

y, 4 . ~'.:' ,-Q l g

/ \' .;';. * "'

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY gg

^--

gg .gs

- ~

,. MIDLAND PLANT UNITS I & 2 zy"W yL , - . . .

y .""

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 7, ,v "j T" g j"* ,~ " * '

I- \

g ,j;; .

Contours on Bottom of Natural Sand After Construction

...< i  !":07 ".I'".::? g $ \ ,, ,,,,.

L M d[h IlI y k j \ '

~

(SK-G-599. Rev 0) g## Am ., y' '^ '

FSAR Figure 2.4-49 6/82 Revision 44

m I

1 1

260 250 I

240 l

230 220 210 200 I 190 180 170 g-

_ 160 z

e is0

=

W

k. 3"

$ 130 i20

[ 110 100 80 t

20

. \

. k .

.0

'V N f V s

30 DUCT BANK /

20 VALVE PIT DEWATERING 2/2630 I 10 l

' O MAY JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL

l l

\

( (^

l .

-_W av v v

v OUCT A'N K A(VE IT DEWATE RING 11/19/80 E -OUC LVE Pli i 0 c D N,

JUNE JULY AUGUST SE PTE MBE R OCTOBER NUVEMBER DECEMBER TIME (DAYS) 1980 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Flowrate vs Time Construction Dewatering System 1980 (Sheet 1) enr-c-aar,; nov 0)

FSAR Figure 2.4-50 6/82 Revision AA-

u-f PLANT GRADE ELEVATION 634.0*t PLANT GRADE Q

- IL 1 5

an 1 E

E 7' -

to 10' . 6" NOMINAL Dl; E PVC WELL CASI

! FILTER SAND E y .

, == -

~

E 1" SPACER BETWEEN WELL ,

E SCREEN AND CASING  :

E

.  : =

2 1%" NOMINAL DIAMETER PVCWELL E= 6" NOMINAL Dj E SCREEN (0.028" i SLOT SIZE) EE PVC WELL SCRJ

-'\

== .

19' to 52' f j{ .

. =.__ =

2" NOMINAL DIAMETER BLANK -

2 .

E PVC WELL CASING EI 26' to 54' ,

EE

==

FILTER SAND

==

== ,.

EE l

== .

n 5 .:.: . . -_== .

r .  : ==7" r:22/

5-:5 2" NOMINAL DIAMETER SLOTTED E SCREEN CENTO I '

n: PVCWELL SCREEN (0.0281 I

. IEE 3 LOT SIZE) '.'

n: *

==

3

- SCREEN CENTERING BLOCKS 3 -

t E' .  :

l 55

=

, 12 3/4" JETTED HOLE .

[@ .'

5; =: .

12 3/4" JETTE@

U V _'  :':

9 g. EE a, i  !

l I TYPICAL SECTIONS OF DEWATERING WELLS IN THE YARD AREA

I NOT TO SCALE l

I l

V%

i-

l l

FLOOR SURFACE ELEVATION 634.5' LEVATION 634.0'- .o- y 6 .3 a. . .. .,-

6" NOMINAL DI AMETER STEEL SURFACE CASING 3 NOMINAL DIAMETER STEEL RISER PIPE i j BASE SLAB SURFACE ELEVATION 614.0'

! METER BLANK

' ' ' ' 'I .". I~ ~# ' '*'

$G l j GROUT SEAL OTTAWA FILTER SAND l_

E 3" NOMINAL DIAMETER

~

~

STAINLESS STEEL WIRE f3M(0.028', - SLOT SIZE) E WRAPPED WELL SCREEN 5 (0.008" SLOT SIZE)

. 5 E

49' to S4' E.

]

5 .

.]

E .

E 1E .

RING BLOCKS E 3 7/8" ROTARY WASH BOREHOLE q  : .

L8 HOLE ,P E

w.

l l TYPICAL SECTION OF DEWATERING WELLS CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY INSIDE THE TURBINE BUILDING MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 NOT TO SCALE FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

'"ypical Sections of Construction Dewatering Wells (SK-G-442, Rev 0)

FSAR Figure 2.4-51 6/82 Revision 44

-n l

l ,

r-250 240 230 220 I

210 200 190 180 170 160 E

150 1 140 8

g 130 120 110 goo / /A s

, ,,, 1~c I'. 80

/

70 a

60 50 3' TEW AND ADDITIONAL UNIT 1 DEW ATERING

• 4/16/81 30 COOLING POND RAISED FROM EL6231 TO 6271 1/12,31 TO 1/28,11 t'

10 0

JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH april MAY

/%

7 k

h,

• H 1 THROUGH H s, g% ^"?#ey.T" kA .

v vvy G-2 THR UG A D F-1 THR - PUMPING vm

~

\

DUCT BANKNALVE PIT DEWATER N TE MINATED -'

JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTE MBE R l OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER TIME (DAYS) 1981 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Flowrate vs Time Construction Dewatering System 1981 (Sheet 2)

(SK-G-522, Rev 0 FSAR Figure 2.4-52 6/82 RevistorT 44-

=

A SOUTH 640 -

PD-4 0A2 633.9' 633.3' 1 4 Z27 630 - COOLING POND 9h1 20 6 40, 28 11 620 - 10 1

24 18 7

f 10 610-3

s . 54 _.

1. 3

/'8 N i 115

's \

- 4 3.  ;:

k100+

5 2

T.D.

63 's N t'm+

61" 3+

U 590 31.0' N, w 100+'

113 r

45 580 -

1 41 7-T.D.

570 61.5" TYD.

63.0' 560 -

550 -

LEGEND EXPL AN ATION PD 16 BORING

( OJ. D AN 33'E) BORINC CLAY FILL CLAY (CL)

Oif SAND [SP) N SILT (ML) T . TOTAL 61.5'

• , CONCRETE ww

W A'

NORTH

~

WA-5 DIESEL GENE RATOR BUILDING 633.2'

_ PLANT GR ADE ELEVATION 634.0' p 5'$ *

, m watmmom f~ . *--630 a-fy b y f* +

29 ;D f

$ Z 10 .*** 5 5200 c <=sAttstoaAca 14 y 4 10 ll [1 [gji iji[ g g,gg I

N 30 D 48/- as

$1 MATE BOTTOM OF FXCA ,, 34 T 1 l 135 .;

l:. 20 C coouhorono l e so ,co ,se zoo 140 -600 "E

] $7 h

'. 76 h CROSS-SECTION LOCATION PLAN

• [ 91 h 100+ f -/ 89 $

100+ 5 T7D. 5g0 $

100+ ; 14.0' w Og,y l100+

80 8100+

ho,Or 8

4L g4  ;;100+

v

~

/ -570 T.D.

65.5*

35 42 -560 T.D.

75.0' 550 0 o SCALE IN FEET VERTICAL I

NOTES: o io r 4o so SURF ACE ELEVATION 1. D 1 was drilled in 197&

' ' F SCALE IN FEET

2. DL48A was dnHed pnor to construction.

TO SEC l NE usfn p tube EN a ard g g on towcounts are avaitable

4. Natural sand is described as Unit C gR_ D PENETR ATION in the FSAR.

WNT (BLOWS / FOOT)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Geologic Cross-Section South of Diesel Generator Building (A-A')

(SK-G-447, Rev 0)

FSAR Figure 2.4-53 6/82 Revision 44'

I n .-

10 0

! 7

"Rf.Q g I I i '

90 l  ! s N i

- I  ! I f so l  !

i i $

a 3  ! s 70 I .

b )

1 T i g I I i  !

W so '

e h u i  ! g I I

• i e

a 30 ' i e I E  :

E IL8 i g i e  !

E 40 i a an.

' 8 f i .

r 30 I e  ! f z i i w I i l f o ' l E i e  ! f t

l y 20 i e L 8  !

I I l I i n l l 10  ;

I e 1

" I I i I g 1 i .}

0 i go 10 0 L. l l ""E I COSSLES DERS COARSE l Fuse COAR l

i v x,

1 l

% h 1

u s sTANDAno serve sizes

1. .

• • *? ,'? '* ** ,,, ,

E&in 2%4 IIli  !

l P na 65tKT llli k N NA RR\ Illi 1 MRT\ 11li

.X s  ;

l

\ \ W \tB%llli l \ M \kMR1\ll1:

\ W \\M\ \t I:

I s  ! \\ \\l l \Rl

\  ! \h \E llE

\ i l\ 1 0 li f N t\ MkIM h iILR\\llY l i \ \lR\VI E i \\l\ Meli

! 1 \nRI; l t IM\M

\l \\VM

N MN l N M l lM4 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.0 00 GOAIN SIZE IN MILLIME TERS SAND FINES SE l ME06Ues l FINE SILT size 5 l CL AY SIZE 5 I

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Composite Grain Size Analyses PD Borings - Natural Sand (SK-C-451. Rev 0)

FSAR Figure 2.4-54 6/82 Revision 44

))

C

• Me

@o $ eo s g oo *o

_ .8 I

! I g

! I

" L i

lIIi i)4'

) oO ?i iI:i T  ! 'i .I  ! 9l  !

i;1I tii )I' H  ! ' - i . 1 ,I#' . i' i , iig-G eC.

! l' !Ie- 8 I , i l

E I I '  :' i Iie  ? ti 2ie i W so l l =li i f'  ? ti g3! !Iii htiIl- i v

~

! - ' i , e 1 if ii6 1' -t3 t9_ii; te et i !iCi .

iui u

(

I'L!

a i

t i1 t(

a' iI g'fi'  !

e i iN ;eDi

' 2f!I:vy*'

! i- '

t i6i li i

!j1:Iw o I 4

=c x D

fi -

.4_

'?

e - a U6+

L?

' l . ii ,

tf;1>T' E oO  ! l- rl t , l i' 1 i 43 . i  ; t1I .i

! i - f .  !' i!  !: t

I ti

! ' i 1[:i  : i; g :1'  : -

tN NI A

! I .

li i l at,i . t'

!Y. . . ,' i !3 ' i e ii .

,a 4!' +

Wi'

! It i T ' . i h

I~ I. i #gf ,  !' ii , i '

E Ti

!  ! 6  ;

!l . (, i zII f ti ,i ' 8 . , .6 R 5,i i'I eO 1i i: i! - 4 i T

• iri el ,it i*  ! i iI ei, tiI( 6 i  ; ii .!3 i .t -

T

iI N ' il l

+ 8 i'

• ii :t A?

! 3 i i . l

, E C

!i' l, ,i cF ' !1 I t i Ii '

R  ! e' l , '

If t1I, ,I' + tti lii -

E ko " l

/ f!b titi i i P / -

t i ' eI

/l ,

.npIm% - Ono i!* gIi i i E  ! I -

. i' jitingf  ! il!if e , i 9I i 8 ' i VI  !' I= i; fl  !!); e #I i f tIiv f . :iiii ' i' tlli I i T * , e ' f!i7l C ' i ?i- i ki # ell i!

T A uo I

s

!Q :iDT

! i ?i!iI

• l  ! i !Ig i L

U e' t_f Ll{u, 'A)7 ' ' -

7='

i ii !9 1f1 i ' 1 ,

!..ei - /n it,i_i 1i- ' - !s e .

M i - ' * ' t;;

i I ,J , f8 It' i U I i~ -. i 6 1 iIg I e: +  !;III i .

i f !t' f_ lhI ,ii! =r-

=-

4:f C i ,I. i ,

=r uv I i

! I' '

l 7 nO  ! i:I - ?_ ii ?i .' i? =r

=

OOhov Mn ryIC%tr;7_tgcei t: ,4'f r 2 s i v

! i f ,I V  :

iI

' i i i

!i iI i i t

?. t

• 1 a r . ' ;it t"

Ie L '

! i i .... l i eI#! i i eI  ; [ .

I e i1 ?i ' i i i ri  : ,

i) . .

L.L4n 1

J-sO _ + I L iI 4I 1 i!2 .

i

~ I!6 8 ' o i)I , t i

1. I ' it i . '

/

i 3 .i

- r_f .1 o

.o uo uo AO g g No ae s

na>E m; :  ;

C.a MmM l < m o4* $ ".y m3 'D k ; p zo- - mu EE 5m>P EF g > x, y No (m o o o

• w Pe Po o o a bu e Po o $

m a s Po m U u Ue uNa 1 "

a Nu f$ uNo  % o no (E ho $

• uo o ho * $

so m {w ho 8 ,8 _

pk (

s I

WDARD SIEVE NUM8ERS i

I a 4 i

r l

l

l. _. _. _ ...__ __

9 7 L-.

a__.n_. . _ -

.} aL

_ t L.

_.__. ,. _L

_L __, _.__... .. _ .._

u...

.y_. _

--' - ~ ' -

'_-.._d_ .~.~,__.

~

.f ..i _ _..

L.L. ,.r..

.L , .]_

J .L ..u-_.. - ...____ . . _._ _. __ .

g. . .

...p .j

.  ; . iL .'_ L

._n

. a_.

4 . _,_

m_ _t . d- .. I.L- a. _ t.b....L___ _ . .__ _.4.._ _.+..t_

. .. _ _ 1_.

.. LL . . 1. < . 1.. .} p ,_ L... . . .J _ ,___ _._ __

.,pJ.4- . ...

_'.t,c:_f.+ i a.a-- _ _ _

. . .L

._~

~. _ _,. . .._ __..

• p L ._ ._. . .

.p._. _ .

~E ,

..r . ._ __,..__ t

.p}. p.o .l..__ ..._u

{.._ 4. 4 ,. .p 7, -

'.; 4 ~

q .. _ . _ ___ .

)._ _ -j_ p t

. 4., . 7. _.

! t }. e

. . . . . . .. .. . __ _ __ l_Lt. _. _

. :. . 1. .

u _Ot;. , I~CLt.

1 t .. . _.__L. L_ __ .

i. ! .,f.f.' ... k _4I

.E---'y$ .;p.14 L 't *

..!.4 l I

.. . i.{ 41.__

2- '

-r4.. p 4q--. L'Af_ .,l.. .-.4H. g _-. _ ..n . ___ .

r _-_ m.< 1.1 . q.L}

l

..+

~~ 4l. _

'.f ..

_ m. _ . _ _

_.p.,

__}.;

._pi q.j .,.t. ..

q

.j g . .] 4 .H. .}_ ..

{1 .

4

,. .L .a.

1_. s{. J, .g .L .._J

, _ J. _. .

L ..j 3.). . }.y , . . , __ . i' 4.L ..J. _.__q .

j 1. ._. , m, ..y..gp ... y 1.

., _y ; .q,.o }t;

} y_.

.4 q. _..___.

{

, d..q. . . .. _L . . .. 1_1._.t' u....,7.L Al A. , C/.4 ,ip AqJ., I._n. , ._. uL,._

. ., 4. . L. L _-. _. __- .

, y. i ., . J . ,. , .. J .

~

_,}. ., . .

t . . . . . ,.4. .... ___- ... ._ . ,_.. _

.. . .

_ .L a

--p::.sf. '_. .pL

'.,,LL..

yJ,.,yg 9.... .[ -

.~ .

,d...w

. l . . ..

J __ .

..y .

% . A 4. . ,.._ . . ._ .,

J .T u .. q_; . . m .m.LLg%q.. _a, 9 }. ~_..t_-.._ +_.

u. 4,.

.a_ . _

.jr .- -

gw _

y_ _ __ _ _ .. ._

4 _ ....

p _

_ 4 _

n a- . -

90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190

@ (THOUSANDTHS OF AN INCH)

Dgo 0.018 INCH ES Do 7 0.005 INCHES Cu 2.3 (SAND)

C" 2.1 ( FILTER PACK) MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 UNIFORMITY / FINENESS NOTES: FACTOR = 4.0 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Design of Screen and Filter Pack 3 LOT SIZE *18 (0.018 INCHES)

(SK-G-452 Rev 0)

FSAR Figure 2.4-55 6/82 Revision 44 s.-----

l

I.

o o o x o o W N 4 N y w I

RADWASTE BUILDING AUXlLI ARY '

BUILDING ,

- C s N

I J4800 \

n u, i (

"~ '

UNIT I UNIT 2 CONTAINMENT ta:-

{ CONTAIN MENT f.

E SER'E3 too

[" \

r*

1..

~1. .

g

.. g., .-

g l

" " " NN I ADMIN. TURBINE

& AND BUILDING SERVICE BLDG.

I S 5000 -

~

l I I UNIT I UNIT ,

TRANSFORMERS TRANSFOf

, DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING s.. , . . . . _ .. _

r Sszee G.

O b h* ' %

8 8

W W ai.

EXPLANATION

. 2 INCH CONSTRUCTION DEWATER-MG WELLS

+ 3 NCH CONSTRUCTION DEWATER-ING WELLS a o 6 INCH CONSTRUCTION DEWATER-g

• • *

• a

-START-UP TRANSFORMERS S 6 INCH PERMANENT BACKUP WELLS O 2 NCH INDIVIOVAL EDUCTOR WELLS

$ a LOCATION OF DISCHARGE 8"** SMS M e 6 INCH TEMPORARY DEWATERING

.,n... WELLS

g. - . = _

m m.

t i.n .c=

As.a W.c.ece.=.

6 c c .n.c n. , n.

a. oun., m. -.4 o.c rasi i.

7 8 Mi M 7, T s YC20,

'LL'Ac.S'io*:,% Ga'u, oo-4. e oo-s . e

.n *.

...,'" \

SERVICE

,,, WATER

} ,,, PUMP STRUCTURE a- l SERS

! . "' CIRCULATING l

WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE CHLORINATION '> *-M '"

l BUILDING

~

I CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Wells Operating During Drawdown Test l

(SK-G-590, Rev 0) l l

FSAR Figure 2.4-56 6/82 Revision 44 l

• w. ,

I 1

1980 1981 l JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL l AUG SEPlOCT NOV DEC JAN l FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEFlOCT NOV DEC JAN FE8 22 I

2/26/80 DUCT 8ANW AWE m l9/22/81 8/10/80l UNIT 2 I

i 10/2/80M11/13/80 t

11/19/80; UNIT 1 l2/4/83

[

4/16/81; TEW SERIES 4g 4/17/81,. PD-17 l6/25/81 4/17/81l m-20 l 1/4/82 4/20/81; PM & m-27A l9/22/81

'~

PD47 4/22/81l 09/22/81 t,

COE-10 6/26/81: :9/18/81 COE-13A 6/:k x 1: l12/11/81 PERMANENT WELLS 9/,18/81; (H-1-H4 & G-1) l2/4/82 9/18/81! A'A l12/17/81 A

PD4

< 115/81H11/9/81

'. P 11/10/81l O4C,12/11/81 COE-12A 11/15/81l l12/24/81

, PERMANENT WELLS l (G-2-G4 & F-1-F-7) i 11/20/81l l2/4/82

'~

11/20/81 M1/11/82 DD-1 & DD-2 12/24/81l ;2/4/82

. 12/28/81 M 2/4/82 12/30/81M 2/4/82 004A 1/4/82: :2/4/82 1'

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MA 1980 1981

0 g _

1982 W

~

NR APR MAY JUN JUL AUGl SEP N .40V DEC L_

DE ERING DEWA R G SYSTEM b2 SYSTEM .- ,

r 1

1. ~~3 ' CO N DEWA RIN S S E I TEW SERIES WELLS ) ( r)'\

, , PO47 L cog.io Nt PD.27A [

ololo o

clalo 000DeCOE.13A, PERMgNT OA;i s.

COE.12A" ( PO48 fd "^

'" /p. . V':'

OD.4 .eD.2oO C -)

C=u=

POND

[*, ;f * *DD.5 CD

/ Ei> -

9 PD4 e PD4C v , -

.. t

( .

) c-COOLING I

POND SITE PLAN LOCATIONS OF DEWAT'ERING WELLS (NOT TO SCALE)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY i MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 l FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Dewatering Events SK-G-613, Rev 0 R APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

~

1982 E

• 6/82 Revision 44 C

g 7 ,

s, 1 8

= -

3

=~

f by ,

\

/ '

l.

a

\

/ N

\N O >P

(( i j'I I l m .

-. Tg 4wi 1 I I s

% _ o.., wu

. . . . ~

~

\ il ,I, i,i ~

l [g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a 1 Z

ll ng n

'g-c;

! $ o i s I /

%) /t=* V't l  ;$

/

/

/

i .

T L i j ~/"./

s

• /

.m i s r- M" '

, $ / , \ /

w s' ; ,/ i w o,.r..a ..,

l, ...- 4 ,, !. ;, _.,

, , , I l- -t#:l3,"VQ

,, i -

a v. w - -- c "T

+"'- .5 i

i -

,, _ l -

i. h

..- - - + -

. z. .

4 i '

~?'; ololo

/>l'{ l i i

i -

.x. . .

s i-c

\  ;

nw 1

,i < pa c '" 7 %

g .

E I ""**

,i,, d.c"U'"'

g,,

i i l

i  % ..-

I wo

,i e i i

, ~ s <

am

W w w

h w

'N Maa.masser e.vge

. ~

s'&' EXPLANATION SERV TK)N WELLS OF 0 ATER LE L.

CONT 0LsR INTERVAL l$ 10 FEET

\

l

• • h y NOTE.

1. For complete bl. tory of dowatering C0"'*""

activitie., .ee Figure 2.4-67.

I

___ _______ y ua ,, ,,,.

=~

. 27 y

., - s

- __,~~s, s s

-.--. . n- ~~~ 'n ' s. ,i N< w.dfA -

U .+  ? _, e..

/. .sNis .,7-.s ~

Xl s

y

• N N x +. {..s N N y \

s s s D ,,. q ('x ~d\

.., . .__w i

i

\,  ;

,, l

% \ I / i C J.c: \*". ! / /

j..

w c, -K

• l j.c,, p

y. g' i w.'n >

__3fkgl.'

u g

+~ ~,/ -

,s 0

,Lt . R'<p. .~" l l

- ,i /, '

/ t yjn a ,,.-

o lolo '#'t ',I' s .

M ,e.,

e

/9 ,,f '

w .= ,

l

( =i 'a ' a. '

i.,_-

• = g*/ n, 9 ,,//

, CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

_,rh ,- MIDLAND PLANT UNITS I & 2

- _ . ~27/,f,'/.

a _ , , ,

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT _

(tn / . Groundwater Levels Prior to

, 4, Q

e==4 p l

'j Start of Recharge Test (2-3-82)

= = = = SK-G-614 Rev 0

, ( ,

FSAR Figure 2.4-58

" Revision 44 6/82

~

. . . ~ - w 14000 \ -

s 4

/ '

d

1. e \ / -

, u too

\ \Y U i

9 V, , , ,

, , ,a fa

• I e .= ouu = -.u, i

\ il iI, r,i

- s

_ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _J f N ( _ r_u__ _u

_ nsuunnr/unsuss s n i s r- - i - --

T a r.m a  %

g j

f h Q -; h $

, /

l / .l /'

' M','j #p #'

J "[ "! +

\

t i y ~ ::,:

_yaoo -

l $

a d f/t I />

s

\ '

f" T,..,c'r I ) I t ca."'... co#.'i

. i  ; qs a '

w..ro g s s

/ (

t. -

w'_l i

- T /

, ~4-iM \s 'O".

4

\

ca m. nouse mwi i - Sag # +,, gg

/ /

I j gI

.tigpoa 3

.=

/ ) ;'

i h ,

//

I / /4 gBe \

/g l l I l' ,  ; .i.2. ,,,

{. , , vt ._.s .

I c

4 mm

\ '__

I :<

am. 8!"b , . l- m. man 7 I I

s d.

m:;r,ca=",g .N:L"I'.11

\ n ,..

\ \

l \

=

\

1. 1.___."2+_+_*.___*

\

s uoo , i. ,s Ms I I I I I I m

)

W w [

""*a=asur e,,,,

~

=,=v s

EXPLANATION

'h LOC A?iOle OF ME ASusstD OestRvAtion etLLs asse -v, et 550 LOCATIOes C# WE A50eED NgE ME20 METERS

,e **

• APP 810 RIM Att ELEVAflOld OF GROtteD WATER LEvtL-De snor CONTC9im ledTERvAL 15 2

+ vili.

NOTES:

L------- coaums

'"'" 1. Only observation wells and 7N ---- s I

• • d 7'" r pierometers screened t% rough pervious material were used to ro-se s g

prepare this figure, p aiw eas?: s '

N s

"'" N 7 2. For detailed location of the

=% j l "" - agn.as,rs N N

s Duct / Bank Valve Pit dowatering s system, see Figure 2.4-45

• n' L N e ,, 7- N s

s 7 .,== , a s

- s s \ \ % ,,,- -

i N N N -

l \\ N,'# - '/ , -

\

,-s -j,.==.oie(

i m'

/ $lE! D / \

s y o.'s d-. i 7"p .s e \ N

!a., c' y'

[f=>---%"( 's+* g h, O i, ~ + .w s

, - - - _ _ ___._Pt l' a t___ se I. _

\ ~1

=~. /

3-T -

&CJ la t "ti" e_y so co_ .no voo gg B swives d'o,' .e ,. l scas .= esa -- I 0tt ,

i

.'.T,=ros s

i

~ CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 co FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

( * -- t

,\ Ul] n "

s N*. Groundwater Levels After Pond Lowering (2-19 to 2-21-80)

/

]

• • "h.t'th"*

,gr

/ "**"*

/ SK-G-458, Rev 0 I

_ N ,/ ,

FSAR Figure 2.4-59 is 6/82 Revision 44

^^

EXISTING GRADE WELL SEAL EL.634.O' _ ___

\ [MA ,,

c,N r-

~ ~

STEEL SLEE l GROUT SEAL I!i l

' I e

=,

I i i PITLESS ADAPTOR g f l l i ,

!!i ,

l TOP OF SCREEN l l D' REINFORCED I" FIBERGLASS gj  ; ll

[#/ '

DROP PIPE -

4 t l q PERMANENT HIGH-LOW LEVEL i PROBES ll ,

[s N i BOTTOM OF SCREEN t c- Y I q PIEZOMETER TIP AND l/2" PVC RISER PIPE S

{

BOTTOM OF GR AVEL .I__ 5 /

PACK *'"'%

[ 14" M I N NOT TO SCS

'N _ _

j NHOLE COVER KVDp7/

l 4_ I" DRAIN _LINE DISCHARGE PIPING __

.1:4-1 WELL DISCHARGE PIPE ,

BACKFILL NON-SHRINK GROUT SEAL v6" BL ANK PVC CASING

'6" PVC WELL SCREEN

-GRAVEL PACK

-CENTR ALIZE RS PERMANENT PUMP, WIRE AN D DIS CH AR GE PIPING g6" BLANK PVC CASING CAPPED AT BOTTOM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Typical Permanent LE Dewatering well Section (SK-G-449, Rev 1)

FSAR Figure 2.4-60 6/82 Revision 44 s

P-l 250 240 l

N 220 110 200 190 180 110

- 100 E

E iso C

g 140 8

g 130 120 110 1 100 90 80 t~ 10 g

.0 60 40 30 20 10 PUMPlNG STOPPED FOR g RECHARGE TEST JANUARY FEBRUARY l MARCH APRIL i

I 6

('

I

. . ~

l I

I l

I l OCTOBER NOVE MBE R OFCEMBER C]QY l JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMF R TIME (DAYS) 1982 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNifS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Flowrate vs ?'ime Construction pewatering System 1982 (Sheet 3)

(SK-G-697, Rev 0)

FSAR Figure 2.4-63 6/82 Revision 44

h- GM i

a 250 240 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 E

E is0

$ 140 8

a i30 m

120 f

, 110 100 90 80 N

l

.0 l 50 l

40 l

l

=

10

\ 0 APRIL MAy JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

'I l

e s i

i l

I l I

\

i r,

a I '\ ,

l , TI I IV /

I I I l I

I

" ","^"

TN ="as l ^" i# A T "", , (

l . N

\ \n N I \l\ \

l' M\ \ r I

G2 HROUG AND F-1 THR . PUMPING

)UN E f JULY AUGUST SEPTE MBE R OCTOBER NOVEMBE R DECEMBER TIME (DAYS) 1981 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Flowrate vs Time Permanent Dewatering Wells G-1 Through G-9 F-1 Through F-7 and H-1 Through H 4 1981 (Sheet 1)

(sn-u-ouw, aev u)

FSAR Figure 2.4-64 6/82 Revision 44 e

1 4

200 l

260 240

• 230 220 110 200 ,

160 180 l\

170 d\A x PUMPING STOPPED FOR f RECHARGE TEST

- 100 k

e iso j 140 8

e 130 120 110 100 90 30 70 80 60 40

=

10

" JANUARY FESRUARY MARCH APRIL E_

l h

f f

I i

l

,. I l -

a -

)

l I

I k

I l.

,s 1

}

I FTJV I JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTE MBE R OCTOGER NOVE MBE R DECE MSE R Tlu AYS CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Flowrate vs. Time Permanent De-watering Wells G-1 Through G-9, F-1 Through F-7, and H-1 Through H-4 1982 (Sheet 2)

(SK-G-698, Rev 0)

FSAR Figure 2.4-65 6/82 Revision 44 l

& P O O g. O O 3 e a  ; a  ?

e o q 4 - -

/ '

.S_4000_._ _ .. _ I. ~

\ , ,%,

N 1'

N e *** i

, s\ **,.

ee, ,

,sse -es

, s s ~ .

/

N\*p, ~ '~...

.\ g  ;

xX 5420C ._.._ ___ # / '","** 91 . _ _ . . . _ _ . L__ -

s.____ _ _ . _ __ -

___\ ,/' '

/

/

'#p'

.e i

\ f l t i l 1 a s f% l i

l

\'* V[ ..

f-et. y % Ik C*''  ! -

64 .a ] g

e. -

% J  !

4

. ~...a l u...

_5 44Q0 _ _ _ __ -

. t

/ l f i

/ i'r i i I I j

! / .. c< . , _ e _ _ .c sc _ _ ~-

f" //////, '/// ///////// '

M s"////J.

M i

c-f. .. m.m a

~

c. ,A D *y . J Ks bO

[ e .ggI ji j y; . . ., s. -

- y c.t.

swa '*-

e sy ,, '

• r .. ,, m . m. .. , .1 x.

• ' ..'. h ',i,) u.! *'XJ

- - ] .

... .[ h,s ., i.

l -n m.,

. J

$.: ..m .

P..-.

. . w., a

..,J,:_

I , -

i

. *.uA l ,-4 , "M g5' r>< ..

l . u. . .

m

__  ;  ; ' og * ,,7 '"' * " si L. e -. -

, *> . f..ad t. . ,

l c--(-

i .. . a..-. ..,;.

m,.

c-ete g -

I l _f, . r.= *ef a a \

l ,. u., .

• f-/.I ..

r/

.. . . . g. .' e\ .

D"f' es t-*.. Fa\ f l

!. i fg. - li l i

+

..-.3 . ~=*

ls a* l 1 s/ ..=

/*..,

g.%'*.g .

,1.... .

. me-.9

.n_

t l " ' . *

_., . .IuJ,* ej. f. n. ....: .. . '".a. .',.I .

i

... ,~ n.4 e

l-

,j

.s

.. ..m.. ......

t . - -

q_ . , . .;_ ,.1 -

p. ~ ,,

g-.

SS000 IA ____

,6 ,-

Yi On I l I, ' d lI ..:.p'il@ ! cC nh ,;Qr i[

r- * *%"L.

i =O I I ** * *

• i l l 7 I ""'s"o*.'.*'*" ,fU lil l , i _** Et.h

"*"****"** US $ v l 'T""*'

[. wi i l

i .e , .-

.. o *S' ,__ rosi nonims

.:e i I I

• s Loc sta 4 s L.o*

s-au 5* B' g

, ,, Ip/

.. m.;-l.- ..r , ~--- ,a l

.Ssw N

->a,t .

1. --

,i x. <

, 5

, s No a otet.v.ct tee j .' f 5cA/E p

g

• • 'a ...,

nea a.

.%.,,, .'".. av . - i

4. .'

\

i I

l f v^

m*...., -y

{

'. n . i ,,,w,' W e

'y I e I

1- t ae a*

.. -ln -t a, 'OK;."..:'..c. I p/  ; ~. u .

a c ..

/ .* w : cw , m i-

-SS400 -

-cc rs '" I 5

t j A N escu a ....c e. ee i

4 1 -

E '

8,, .

4.f h_

taJ les

"'"'" m . u .

% ( ',,. '--~N,

\ 's."/w N

[ msk ,

] \/

i

' '.a, 4

. .: , . # ' i

,... ... EX PL AN ATION EXPLOR ATION PROGRAM - PRECONSTRUCT 0f' l v v . .n ~

I e MICHIGAN DRILLING COMPANY 80 RINGS 31936 8 1968

\ '

+ DAMES S MOORE BORINGSs N ' /

f 1967,1968 8 1969

\

\ EXPLORATION PROGRAM -CONSTRUCTION PERIOD

. _ a e n'ai,#2 x. u

• '* [ x a WALTER FLOOD COMPANY r r e r--rz , es ' N. 80 RINGS; 1969 81970

,, %js'y . , j \

• BECHTEL BORINGS.1970

• • • ,/** -

'Q"**,,

v

/ a SOIL $ MATERIALS ENGINEERS.

INC. BORINGS; 1973 8 1974

.c 7 . ..,

. m s . x -

. men. s,co N *Q;'* * .' , * * '5 Q / 4 BECHTEL BORINGS,1973 S 1974

• g[

• b N O BECMIEL BORINGS; t977 & 1978

. "- ** / e.m . . , , , ,

• BECHTEL DORINGS;1978,1979,1980 & 1981

(//N I.'E[d'. _

=S

$N  %-

a eOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 80 RINGS; 1988 81982

. Q. E23 BECHTEL TEST PITS;1978 8 1979 C"3 BECHTEL MATE LOAD TEST;1979 i

., *d CROS$*SECTION LOCATION ic

.C, ,."

. .,./

- - . _.g . ^' a NOTES.

.. f .=*

I v, .

1. See Figure 2.5-20 thru 2.5-22 and

,' 2.5 22A thru 2.5 22X for sections A.A'

.4 thru V.V'.

M

,am .. ,. ., 2. For the location of additional cross sections in

,, eg ,. Emergency Cooling Water Reservoir, see Figure 2.5160.

p,. .. .

J . ..

• .'.**r*.

___._y___, . . .

i o

i

'o

, , i --

- . - i

.~-

' . . ..,I

, < risu

. . . , g

,j

. .. -" ,>h'.. . ,l a:...

- / :v \

.u-r-

i-i j

,f.7- *.. .-- ~ a

,f... ,,.. - .....o.u..

m ..

I

,, L_g_ , i e ,, .e

,a

.e .e w:gAac.=u fp /,, ' ~

\ i Sy.5 hg'D'[ ,

E-N "*

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2

@hv .T. 1 l

$ "\ ? ? \ ,,. .. . l.,

• c.

F!NAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT T;. ,p.c  : Cross-Section and Boring

. . I / / .

Location Plan

!I!II' fs b -/ ,

' ** ! (SK-G-443, Rev 1)

FSAR Figure 2.5-17

)

6/82 Revision 44

_ }

.l .*~ P h

I B

s k S n

w"

• w h SOUTH WALL OF TURBINE BUILDING -7 i

Aws-2 6WB-1 CoE46 28 i DCP 13@O $ P 17 ACoE4A y DG.32 rost D4is OD4:s MO v

0

,9, m O14 OCnis DCP4 3 w4 DCP-7 DG-13 O 0 DG4QO DG403 DG-27 @DCP 11 DG 20 w 2' r---- ; , . _ _ ___,

g ,----- ! l DCP-12 I l 3 1 g PEDESTAL l I PEDESTAL l 4 23 i

/t E I PED; T,AL I I I A2 l l ma I I i I i i I '

SS100-I s

'l ,i I

e I s 1

.r ', H2 5

g 4 (DG 15 "8 W l lD424

$ERVKE DCP10 I !Q ) I DCP4 @I DCP4A DG-26 O 3 g WATE R VALVE PIT (CP4 8 Ol I@

gg g g DG-11 IDCP4 L = =- I 6-_-! g,,,_,,_J D48 9

a u u 448A '"

t Aws.3 D484 4 CoE i2a"QE 12AA*8d CoE ii Ag ACOE 11 DG DG-2

• 4D40 DG-PDse S SI3 DG48 * +

((

1 ~

I f B'

[ s a s~

W g e

{

l

)

a a w w 4i ODG 29 COE-10A66COE.io jS 5050 3310P-18 h p

ODG30 i 3/ 'E XPLAN ATION 4

$ - OAMES & MOORE BORINGS;1969 TEST PIT 1 DG13@ '

$ - BECHTEL BORINGS:1970 D - BECHTEL BORINGS;1977

{ ~ - ~ ~ "[ O - BECHTEL BORINGS;1978,1979 and1980 l g gggg l SE R VICE A4  ! - DUTCH CONE PENETROMETER;1978 l VAL E si k l

l DG-22 O 6 - WOODWARD 4LYDE CONSULTANTS BORINGS; 1981 and 1982

{ ,1

-BECHTEL TEST PIT; 1978 I I Dce-a l lo

I CH 17f) O NOTE:

L__J 1. For the location of borings and subsurface profiles in adjacent areas, see Figure 2.5-17 3

we-5 E1 Dae$

d TE MA O 50 $

COE 13R DG1 10

'O S 5150 p

O DG-25 0 0" $

- w 0 o SCALE IN FEET CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Cross-Sections, Borings and Test Pit Location Plan Diesel Generator Building (SK-G-653, Rev 0)

FSAR Figure 2.5-17A 6/82 Revision 44 {

~l

g% - -SD a .

1 00 3 awr4 Oswto  %

Oowt enia we.i.

en2 i cn30 COE 16A O ro-27A COE 16 SM4h.,A su Ots-2 ss___ + c43 Y i

\ sy sg

\

wF-so Po270 g sw.

6, sw4 431 sw-7 O

(,

+

D-24 TEST PIT,4A eM-2A O

cH4 SW-2 sw 0 C ,

c42A oO -1 O sw-s ca4A cn $sWP1 O %g gg 4 D-25 SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE

(

swf-g sw-12 5

.I qr S5100 t CIRCULATING WATER M "33 INTAKE STRUCTURE

$D26 s

i

\

i f

f i

3 i \

i l$

EXPLANATION 4- WALTER FLOOD COMPANY BORINGS 1969 & 1970 4- BECHTEL BORINGS;1970

$- BECHTEL BORINGS;1973 & 1974 O- BECHTEL BORINGS;1978,1979, 1980 & 1981 0- WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 80 RINGS;1981

- BECHTELTEST PIT:1979 f f - LOCATION OF SUBSURFACE PROFILE i S 5000

@COE-1$

OE-15A NOTE:

1. For the location of borings and subsurface profiles in adjacent areas, see Figure 2.5-17 and 2.5-160.

NORTHEAST PORTION OF RETAINING WALL 2A N

b S 5100 g ,

e O 10 20 40 60 SCALE IN FEET

/

a w

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Boring and Test Pit Location Plan Service Water Pump Structure (SK-G-630, Rev 0)

FSAR Figure 2.5-17B 6/82 Revision 44 1

P W

h

~ .

\

1.9000 x %,, ,

r-d \ / -

, uz. \ \9 O P

(( [ _j > -I I I l- s w-

. . . frfim,I i

y ,, _ [ ..

\ il iI, i,i w f

/

~

casununusunnus/

- 1 -

i -

~ "

I O r nsw

! n't n l

h U Uk..

- l l-

- 1

<. +

~l+

j .=::

h-ne*

w.c' i

I I

s 8[s coll".L.

\

. """ wi, !

f. .

I l: es "" -++,,,I

. .u l

! - =T. ,,,,

03" l

l m., i

=

\

,1]OOO

! (

__- i i

e

-l

~

a= nei=== uw ---l ,, [l].,,

f.

• %l g a.=2 joj a k '

/'l'l 'l i  !

{-. ,***""

._< m_

. ~ . - .

l -

+="'

- maw > <

.-,+'-

t,

=

===.,- ,,.,

9 0

Y 5

• f i

+ i I

1 ss m i M

m s I I I I f';I y bww

a w

g a w

v w

)

TI,,Agagggggg ,, gg avg n N  %

I,Nunt j l EXPLANATION

. Ex! STING OBSERVATION WELL (IN USEl DINOPERABLE OBSE8tvATION WELL

.,'f,f muC, *w vat Q

x /

_.- -.i_~_.-- - - - C

,% }~

/ / / / / // ///. _. 7_ .

,_ c" pa=.

'x 'n l 1

- 6. A pg, gig, 'N

.) -e l _, . ,. ,,-..

r- N; u 4.

+_,, . . .

9.* N b_: ', _,,, j .

i e.5,.1.w.

m, y

1 .;, , .-- .-- .

o

+_. .

...: ; .~

i

.l ,,,~.

,.; ,.

p j,

.L i 9 m.

. /

ojcal0 .

e~- .r,::;,

,,.=,

i

.a. ,. - . ._

. _ , , i .

- . ~ . . . . ., 3,. .. -

7m 1

zw

'*e $ cL i m a n n.

=r=

p "."* ._~ 7- , i' CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY q# p. ==' '

MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 h;EE FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT CM m=:~

\ *//

/

~.l Plan of Observation Wells 1

! [ s j (SKG-507)

T/u.in 6/82 Revision 44 f T

J 5

1 622 >

I  ! 8 -,'

s i  :. i ;Ij i j I 8 l I Cos18va?'04 ofLL De-4 [ i

}l g ll I 1 k

!. il d.j -~ n ,y  ! lj

.. . i s ..e l l !: ,

l ,n r 620 -......

, te.e, ,  ! o, .

-1^

1 -:,

3 i

,,i g , i g

4 j# 08 r> . . . . (:Y,3

' i;"%.i i ,

I i i i ,l ~

- t I r i l.-'i . 8 j 2

- l -l l ,

'  ! t q !:.g, . sq g,,

$ ** I ' I pumpins wgLL Tw-s ;1 E i

, i

f. l Teen c.= mews s/es / 79 G ll 8

l l .;

l j

w sis l  % meeesge= 'l l, y us '

.'  ! ] ,

, w '

pourner, wtu po-osa CR d '

d I

i l T.c ce== e

'r a l l

• l w , noe. e ir2 .5/er,--F, g

y ... -

l l '

,  ; r l l y aa w h; .

j r 'i d oestsvar om etLL ow-s l w i

%  ! o.ei c. m N= e we. c.ts n. "  ;

m l i

i I?g i see.e === u.es ses sin. l w sa2 ,7 a tu w  ;

< 1", ;j l 9%:lg 7 pl

.o I

i 60s l I 1  !

so $00 k000 6 86 8 O

,lME tminu.es, TIME (minu.es)

F s27 . - s2s II oestavatiom wta se-s l 3

g y 9 ya7f "  % p s'=es=s=w=eier e

pu mew, ses s72 n.

Levet s26.40 s. ,

l, m ..*

o so. q

l i l -2 t o[i

j l l ,,

2 EM

,..., 2 6M g avua ca no- sa  ; i g ,

g. l' 9- Tese t_ _^p2 /4 / 7, f p l

> >. ,  ; g sw 42*  % . 2.s ...  !

w s2s J . 081g Rvatt04

• ELL LO 8- 40 ' I

. . . ..o s I i ,,

. i '

d 623 I >

" dy 424 l

so.fis eneer Ls.es 627.20 4 f

> oesE#varioer etLL po-is e,e I I W 6 W i I

" J i q,

, o . ace a sw as is n. g -le 1

e se== mee< u a s2s so n.

• a l l ,

l f< ""' <

ii Msas i

a '

s i ,

l 621 j G22 la

- .. _ _ u_ _. . 2. , _ ._

,,M .. ..., ,,M. . _ .s,

\

f I

k I

i

\

s2s lj ' l

i l I

' j ll!ll; j , !!

((

oestavaTion etLL PD-2otf .i i D'a= * *m mea

l,l

• • 4 8 a4 d t

l l . ll..

j' ' 'llj-l '-

.i I  ! +

sec'< **= te.* s24 es a. I i itevmon eta c-e ...

Naw.no .ta co- sc re c .e niisits i.

• t l'j y

. ',..{ ,, e,,,I ! ! : , ll l

l[

..cee % .v. 27essa.

te s2s n. Pl t l P.m ace o es es.

**** ume' , ly i

• j.- g i ,qi ,i.

-l!

li ,'# llll' e I y ll

l, i i

{i[ I.i ljji l Il i

$ s2s l h  !! '

ll! i ' . !!  ! . l' w

I d

jl i s

. ys2s .

w '

I i l oestwarion wtn co-3 I

!l. I ,'

ll

,il' lh,' l l J I owe =e se %=e:g wesi es ter i I i t ' -

e w s2s

!! e f., ; I' , l - q -l s'e'* *eer te.* s24 e2 n. I,

.i g  ! :. ;; g '

'll ', '

• i l

• t,"o **w.UIj!I i I h I "**

-h r j, s24 l ll I ll g ,

! Il 7 ' 'Q l l l  ;

l:l s2 so ,

l l

', 3 l i{,oo

- i i e ,ooooo ,,oon ,ow3 TIME (minutes)

NOTE.

s2s .. . .

ac e n 1. For location of pumping end observation wells, see Figure 2.4 42

' ' . S 8'* ***' L a s24.m n.

.. .  ; , ,3  % .

• • i4G *t L L po- es a lj, lq ll

• l ll i ,

C : *e iz/* / M l g,j

,  ;; g ll l,a ,  !

ll;;;

-e.as awe i2 s see

.' g tp3 . } ;t, l , . .. , ' *!

z s24  :

k.

[!f.

h , 9 ) PLM4G wE L L PD-70 l l lI lI I' li st ,

l g a, l

e i ll: ~-

tea ce = e* 'om m

=. . ee- i l

lf ,.

. If ,3 i

, i l

.ll J d l .' l 8 e i ,!

'bf I l llI' d i l I l  ! f

• " > s22  ;

, I w ll i 33stwatioN etLL PD-Rot

" l

, Il'j l' i sw=. es p g men s.sn. l' l ll m

a l1

,I , l ,

c l! l sv. we.e. te s2s sa n e az'

,, , , i lu <r l :l I , i r'; I' F_ f 3  ! i it; i l  !

.ro g

i= sooooo *% .o i= .ooo iuoo.

TIME tmenetes)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 Pumping Tests Time-Drawdown Graphs Figure 24-14 1

2/80 Revision 5

- l

I Ae

{--

[. I e

~~

625 i

p -e.

624

[~ _

t b

W i -

{ z 623 9

h LLI J

l W

It m 622 a

E r

w 3

I I

621 620 1 10

[

l 1 I

l NOTE:

1. For the Soci PD-5, see F r

i 1-

)

)

COOLINb PON'D EL. 6'26.'25' STATIC EL.624.90'

'l

• s. ,

PUMPlNG WELL PD 20 *sa OBSERVATION WELL PD-5 PUMPING RATE 7gpm 100 1,000 10,000 IME (MINUTES) 3lon of observation well

,:urs 2.4 42 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 Time-Drawdown Graph Observation Well PD-5 Pumping Well PD-20 (Rev 0)

Figure 47-5 11/80 Revision 10

" )

~ ~ .

A

• * ^* * ^*

630 COOLING POND 625 l -

620 -

615

~

630

- PD 9 625 - q

\  ; ;  ;  ; ; ; ;  ;  ;  ;  ;

e

~

620 -

615 -

610 630 PD-3 __ _ _

625 -

,V 620 -

615 630 PD-16

^

625 -

620 -

615 -

, 61C OCT. NOV. DEC. 19 JAN.'80 FEB. l MAR.

DUCT BANK AND VALVE PI' COOLING POND

[" LOWERED

\,.-

h -u

APR. MAY JUN. JUL l AUG. SEP.

630 4

625 620 615 630 625

-S20 615 610 630 625

~ ~

~ ~~ ~ ~

~N:

~

_ s- 620

'615 630 625

^~:  :  :  :

e

_ _ _ _ _ __.,___ ___ _

615 610 l'APR. MAY JUN. JUL AUG. SEP.

l } } UNIT 2, DUCT BANK AND VALVE l DEWATERING WEEP HOLES PLUGGED PIT DEWATERING CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 NOTE:

1. For location of observation wells, see Figure 21-1.

Hydrographs of Cooling Pond and Observation Wells PD-9, PD-3, and l

PD-16 (Rev 0)

Figure 47-6 11/80 Revision 10 f

\

- 4

r p --

t .

J

,l COOL 1 i

P' STATI

,. 0 . .

< ' P w 1 w

E PUMPl 5 OBSEE 6

O 3 PUMP C

f' O 2

[

P P

4 1 10 100 TIME (MINUTE NOTE.

t

1. For the location of observa PD-5, see Figure 2.4-42

.I I

i l

e#'w

% ,s ,

Eb POND EL. 626.'2d' C EL 625.11'

• ,*. , ., . g

• */4 " -

n.#

e.

MG WELL PD-5C (VATION WELL PD-5 NG RATE .83gpm 1,000 10,000 2)

1. "~"

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS I & 2 Time-Drawdown Graph Observation Well PD-5 Pumping Well PD-SC (Rev 0)

Figure 47-10 11/80 Revision 10 f

)