ML20090A829
| ML20090A829 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1980 |
| From: | Afifi S BECHTEL GROUP, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A223 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BOX-12, FOIA-84-96 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8101050527 | |
| Download: ML20090A829 (40) | |
Text
. -
.o
--..i..,
=s 1 e
. 4&,& L~M4"'-
^
2 y,Y}yW;M ~
-Q~'# C..T...~~-~ g;,.f..y*Q~.'
- ..,~;a' ;d..
- ..,fl4z
.1 A -#.4
,w
..w se e,~ e..: m,
.,,.y s.
jQ)g,. [,
- y. gg.y
- ~--
7,.a,:- m ?, V. m ve *. + ^i:,,,
- -~*-
_ _.;;4. ' ~ ~.,. ty '-. - ~,
~,, ~..;** "
- f p Q.}I") ! ? ' - *. L * *..
.s-.. i-- =* a, yC.~,
- ~
- v. ;, ta.
~- -
.*----s---
e9n 9 7
T*__,
,.e n.
,,J'.'i~,~,
. m ;
e.
- m. t z..-
,:..- y r*
,w, f.
a..,.
,y.
._n, 2,. M=. 1.. -
.x 50-329 33o OM,01.
g.<.
ExAbits fram Io z1, 2 *, n to Onl Dep.6fii.,
of Dr.
S4eriF C
A fifi A.rsr/.
Chi <f Soil.r f >,y,
1 Jacht./
1
- xM, bils (- G r
i i
I 810105A$61/
l s
ww+
. 3] -
N... ' %;
0
?
, - Nb Y
5
'7
~~
('
. U s...'.._.,
[d "k
-( ' MT Sherif S. Afifi NAME-mg 10/27/80
=
DATE M
{
Assist. Chief Soil Engineer 28 y
' CLASSIFICATION GRADE
}
i 5
ORGANIZATION & LOCATION Bydro and Community Facilities E.
h=
Division, Geotechnical Services, Ann Arbor 5g-.
h 21/2" a 21/2" GL0ssy SIRTHOATE 8/29/37 v'S*A*-
.E. :
CmZENSMlP
=.
9/17/73 EE ORIGINAL SECHTEL EMPLOYMENT DATE
. h= -
N/A
,, l g-RE EMPLOYMENT DATE51
.E_
i
=
Barbara Jean Afifi g
SP0USE'S NAME
=
PH'JTO OATE CHILDREN SIRTHOATES 3/1/78 2_
=
Bone g
MILITARY SERVICE & RANK 3:
1 PROFESSIONAL LICENSES AND SOCIETIES 5
5*
Profassional. Engineer, Michigan -
3 Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
~
(
M EDUCATION AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMEN'TPROGRAMS
_E=g' oso=rs, cantwicars, Tc.
scwooi.
waJon (on SUBJECT)
Dave E
3.S.
Ain lihans University Civil Engineering 1961 E
Cairo, Egype iE.
=5 L S.E.
University of Michigan Civil Engineering 1967 i
5 Ann Arbor, Michigan
=
7=g=
Ph.D.
University of Michigan Civil Engineering 1970 5
Ann Arbor, Michigan y=
- QTHER SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION (Refer te lammanons before sempionag)
@g
%w ACHIEVEMENTS:
==
l Em E=E 5
,Afifi, S. S. And Woods, 1. D. (1971), "Long-Term Pressure Effects On Shear Modulus of Soils," JSMFD, Proc. ASCE. Vol. 97 SM16,.pp 1445-1460, October.
=.=s i
g Afifi, S. S. and Richart F. E., Jr. (1973), " Stress-History Effects On Shear 5
Modulus of Soils," Soilt and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics.
5 and Foundation Engineering, Vol.13. No.1, pp 77-95, March.
"E5 l
Afifi, S. S. and Luscher U. (1973), "Pernefrost Thaw Settlement " A
^
paper presented at the 10th Annual Symposium on Engineering Geology and
' Soils Engineering, University of Idab6, Mascow, Idaho, pp 1-17., April.
E~
./
)
Te s
L**
~==
~
e, j
-~
,-n,,,, _
c m,.>m--
--,,.w-
..som. <.. -- c. s
- _ b @ h -6,c.s.g- %
A
.L.
---9 r,j. m - N %,G E M M,y tc y h i k.y!3.7 % S M.,.
c _ m -;.,
7_
~ *g.$7-~."T
^@7 N.
m _;...- -- - --
g r
y4--m, u
-n.>-.-
.n,_.,.
.e
.4 s...
.._..m-.
..,. - ~..
.... ~,. ~
~ NAME: W
.a g. =.;-...,. ~
.~.
J.V 3'~~.'
' OTHER SIGNIFICART INFORMAil0N (Continued)
['
W 2
Inscher, U. and Afifi, S. S. (1973), " Thaw Consolidation of Alaskan jE f
< Silts and Granular Soils,? Permafrost: The North American Contribution' iI [
to the Second International Conference on Pernafrost, National Academy of Science Washington, D.C., pp 325-334, July.
h 5
LANGUAGES:
ag Speak and read Arabic, read French.
E CEOGRAPHIC.
E P
REFERENCE:
=
E
~
BA E
~"
ASPIRATIONS:
g.
1 g
g Continued technical development in the area of Geotechnical Engineering.
g Progress within the geotechfeel organization to higher aansgement levels. -O l In suss suPPLauaNTAL PAGE.lF REQUIN s
=
55 WORK HISTOR'Y
=
g
- i.S D ATEs Mo YR.
COMPANY.DIVistoM oR PoslTIoM NELO.
5 oEPARTMENT:,
SUMMARY
oF REsPoNelelLITIEs AND g
rRoM vo LocarloM ANo superior slGNIFICANT ACCoMPLisNMENTs s
l H-9/78 Present H&CF Geote'hnical Assistant Chief Soils Engineer-c 5
Services, Ann Arbor Rasponsible for the activities of the 3
(S. L. Blue and Ann Arbor Soils Group which provides So
(
H. H. Burke)
Engineering Services to in-house nuclea
=[.
and fossil power projects. The work includes subsurface investigations, 5.
g preparation of foundation reports, safe g
analysis reports and construction,
E'"
specifications, and the support of 3,..
construction activitie.s. Areas of.
g
.J7 J.g.'
ff. - -
particular involvement inelnda in-sita massurements of soil properties, labors 5
E testing, foundation evaluations, unter E
front structures, and soil dynamics.-
__.m E
3/74 9/78 B&CF Geotechnical Soils Engineering Supervisor - Supervis Services, Ann Arbor of soil engineering work essociated vid (S.L. Blue and nuclear and fossil power projecta.
B
=
.e -
- n. n.
rua)-
=... -..
m. = r+
~
~
En =:-(
9/73 3/74
" B&CF Geotechnical,.,
Senior Engineer ~ Worked on various..
iiiF" ^-l' :-
Services, Ann Arbor '
assignments in soil, engineering aspecGk (J. E. Allen).
of nuclear and fossil power projects.
E 3
. -. =
. -- u.
=a r- -
g q; h.
...h d. ; -
- ~*. ~..
t*,i.. C.
.-..\\
5
=
... igs:'.
es
- n...h. -
..e 4. :-.
t...
.g g
. 1
=r-I h
s tuss surrLauswrAL eAos.ie maous; g
!~5
=q l i
.,,,,., s. +
~
....i......-,_...wr...-..,.,.--v--
.. ;c 7..,.;....;-
n..--
.g_..-
.. n 3 u.
~.,.,..s
.c WORK HISTORY (Continued E*
... x.
a u
.e O ATEs MO YR.
COMPANY. BlVIs4ON OR POslTION MELO.
E,*
D EP A RTM ENT:
SUMMARY
OF REsPONsistLITIEs ANo 3
, ii PROM TO LOCATION AND SUPERIOR stSMIFicANT ACCOMPLisNMENT3 Ii
(
lF 6/70 9/73
'Woodverd-Clyde
' Staff to Senior ' Staff Engineer - Worked '
g Consultants, Oakland, the geotechnical engineering design of t9
! p,E California, (U.
Trans-Alaska Pipeline Project. Prepared I4:scher) the soil engineering properties reports a
required for design of the 800-mile g
pipeline. Alsoworkedonslopestabilig fi evaluations, bearing capacity evaluationc E
~
pile design and buried pipe support
[E ps
. design.
2.j
=.
=-
E 1/66 5/70 The University of Research Assistant, Teaching Fellow,' and 5
.a.
Michigan, Ann Arbor Graduate Student - Conducted research in E.
(F. E. Richart, Jr.)
soil dynamics, and assisted in teaching
~~
.g soils courses. Comp 1sted Ph.D. degree i
g program.
=
=3 9/61 12/65 Ain Shans University.
Teaching Assistant - Taught undergra(uat' s
Cairo, Egypt (H.
students soils and structures in sessiot
]
Mostafa) designated for problem solving..
=
M 9/61 12/65 Sabry & Yousef Engineer (part-time) - Design of M
Consulting Engineers, foundations and structures for industrid R
19 Khalek Sarvet Str.,
and residential facilities.
5l Cairo, Egypt (A.
E I
Sabry) m_..
b=b '0.:
=
~5 i.:..
.m., - -
.4-a-. :. u..;4 :
w ::
g.. g 2=
.; L'
_E
,=_=,,
==
5 4
==
5_
- * =..
g a-
.==
. sa.
.a Q f k..
it., r
~R. *..ikk.. '., K.'
M s.
. f% '..
.Q%. h*:.
_E,,# E/w
.i '. '.
-
- I.
1;-
- -O s"'-'
' *ii.i* :' ' -.
==
15 2....
s
- d.5.
55_
ar.s
.:i.
. b.*.
..... ?
t.S;ti
=
- J.
. ?*:
E
- q
.~.:-- -- 1 55 g
g
(
m..
s
-.gg 7.2 -
~
,...s
p.
.. :s wry 5f=s.
w :.
= -... ~
.:ngmagg'.._
Bechtel ssoc'Y.m+--#.sJ5t.c.hjd.g
- W,.._.
3 w w.
4:a :..._:s ceMw, C.. I _
2 m we
..ates' Prof..essionafCorporation
.. 7;,%.
-: ? n ;.:,
,.,,n...
.n..,,....-.
g.;,
(
(,;J;s.c...t
'.%1 l
Inter-office Memorandum
'-.i GEoTECH I
- ~'h,' R - : :
..-. n l
't '. :
'~~%
- M AR*0*
/
DISTRIBUTIOh!
To Distribution Date August 3, 1979 $$ 'f7*
acam
- T Subject PROBLEM ALERT -
From T. E. Joh. son onni
,wf ~
Incorrectly Placed Backfill seits w _
8/#/
W Civil /Structursi V
- .. ! 3..
OF copies to File: 502 At Ann Arbor Office7N V " # *V lr ame.arp' w
y poe t*
/ 4.d F
.cen Tzean.E'WV>s Attached for your review is a draft copy of the Problen Ale ar,Eco as 4 un '
to be issued on the large settlements at Midland due to the incorrectly placed backfill. It is requested that your comments be forwarded to us by August 10, 1979.q,g.j yr3
....s
[ ' au>gtw
)(N 0%
i T. E. Johnson J%
VA Tu/ct/wh gg Attachments Distributicu:
E. Rumbaugh K. Wiedner J.Milandin[
P. Martinez R. Castleberry 4
- 3. shar S. Blue !
- s. Afifi 4
1 59501338 I
e l
~ - - ~ &.-
~
..n
,-..a.-g w h-;q r-
.. -m...h -R2hQ~Y :j:: -XQ~%;i,-l..:.
-7.?;;ij.> A,.
[ !,
i ~
s...., ;;.
I.
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLDi Insufficiently compacted plant area backfill under the diesel
(#
generator building was discovered because of excessive settlement 3
i during construction. Both granular and cohesive soils were improperly compacted in other areas of plant fill as van as the diesel generator building. This required extensive reanalysis and/or modifications of the diesel generator building, the service water structure, the feedwater isolation valve pits, and portions of the auxiliary building.
Based on a thorough investigation, the most probable causes for the resulting remedial t'ork inclu'de the following.
A.
All types of compaction equipment used for plant area backfin were not prequalified for. lif t thickness and number of passes.
This was particularly true for the. saan* hand-operated equipment.
Except for the heavy earth-soving equipment used to construct the plant area dikes, reliance was placed on acceptance being established by and result A321 acceptance tests.
3.
An audit has shown that the testing laboratory failed to obtain meaningful and accurate results af ter performing the ASDi acceptance tests. Some examples are the following.
1.
More than one-half of the test results for relative density and percent compaction were outside th'a theoretical comparison limit.
2.
Incorrect soli indentification and calculation errors were also present.
C.
The quality assurance (QA)'and quality control (QC) departments only provided a surveinance program in lieu of an improcess, in-depth inspection program. In addition, a continuous, thorough review of the testing methods being performed was not carried out.
j II. APPLICA3ILITI These conditions are applicable to All projects where structures are supported funy or partiany by compacted backfill material.
i i
ORIGIN:
DIGINEER:
CRIEF PROBLDi ALERT DATE:
AA0 ENGINEER:
i G.A. Tuveson T.E. Johnson Large.settlemen'es due NO:
to inectractly placed backfin a i.
s'43n1599
~
- 3.r O
AY'
- f-
- ~
- y l ~ AT7.:.w;
.r..- v-
.c-
.,-.r
.s...,,
p y.
~
.h4..
t..7..
.y m-.-..-t
~
{$.'].h.._,. III. CORRECTIVI_ ACTION '
'-'- '~- '- - -
e f.'
A.
The structu'res ar4
.ing modified to compensate for the in situ soil condit:-
.: sing the f. Llowing solutions":
1.
Underpinni.; -
the use of caissons and piles for structures partially ::;; e rted by fill 2.
Reduction :f. -idual settlement by surcharge loading structures t: 42y supported by fill J..
3.
Elimination :
the, possibility of liquefaction of extensive sand backfi':
eas during a seismic event by installing a permanent :
Leering system
~
T.
The earthwork sper
. cation.has been revised so that all soil j
compaction requi:t
.ts are clearly defined in the specification.
C.
QA rewrote its 1:
- c. ion plans to implement the requirements in the specificat:.
D.
A resident geoteci
- al soils engineer has been assigned to the site to overs 1 the backfill operation.
E.
The soils testing heratory has been made svare of all testing discrepancies anc va taken actions to prevent recurrence.
y.
All of the constt. : ion equipment to be used for compacting-the various types soils at the site are being qualified to I
a - A m lift th
- ess with a specified number of passes, i
i IV. ' ACTION RICOM1 ENDED TO 1 E IL PROJECTS l
6 A.
The backfill com ;
'cn criteria for project earthwork specifi-cations should hr.
- a. method basis as well as performance criteria for acce; r.ce; 1.e., each type of compaction equipment
]
should be qualifi.
c.t the.jobsite for the respective type of L
soils to be comp:.
f.
This qualification includes lift thickness and nu..
of passes. The final acceptance criteria are still to be t-d on testing by the appropriate ASTM acceptance standr 3.
A resident geotec'-
=al soils engineer should be assigned to j.
the construction.
. to provide technical guidance and assistance
~
in directing the
-hverk, which includes coordination with-j' the soils testint
- cratory.
i i
j l
,i 1
- )
59.?O1G00
$ 8 I
(
p.
e.
r a
e e -_,
'7 Y
ha4
- * '. D.e..
_p
- .? p..,3,. &&&
N : E U. W : G ?::.=. &,?.5 & 3 %.*.?';'.;h'"~"
1... -n ns -...e.
1 C.
The soils laboratory testing specification should be a separate specification and not part of the physical testing specification
(,-
which includes other materials such. as concrete and reinforcing steel.
D.
The subcontract for soils testing performed at the jobsite r
should be awarded to an engineering firm that is specialized in the soils area.
E.
Quality assurance manuals or vendor procedure manuals for the 6
[
soils laboratory testing should be reviewed by geotech as well I
as project engineering. '
F.
A maximum limit of the number of times a proctor curve may be used as representative of the material being placed should be estabmbd.
- * * ~ '
- J
[
G.
To minimize errors in testing, the soils testing laboratory should include the following practica in its testing procedures manual.
C f
1.
Cohesive Soils - The moisture content of the field i
densities cannot fall outside the zero air voids curve I
L for the respective specific gravity.
2.
Granular Soils - The stock piled material should be tested for relative density by both the wet and dry methods as defined in the ASTM standards to enture that the==v4=um density attainable will be used in placement.
3 E.
Backfill Under Structures
~
1.
Only granular material sliould be used with a specified gradation band monitored by frequent gradation tests.
2.
To ensure that proper compaction is obtained, the frequency I
af M arting-proctor-curves or-==v4=um/ min h =. density 6
taats ehould-be-increased.c r T e r re /.'. e
/ 4# ("=*
W,' O.
.sh. ig nc. ok ea c.te.1
^^.TUA;su
- 1
'T**' M*** G CD ' ' ' "Y"
3.
consideration should also be given to performing static plate bearing tests as defined in the ASTM standards.,The i
i resident geotechnical soils engineer.should have the option of requesting this type test when appropriate.
t l
.p 4
~
r
W.h e - L.
G M 4;c C O //A c.,,,cD ep M A..m % u p -- +
m# ^
E.T,.:AEM
.w ps r E @ ! Q f q' y r N y O 4 W M ".. D.
e=
LEE'--9W.!
..... _,.J.
V
< ' :.~
<.3 j
g m L. a
- _l#3/dd
,)
jechtii' oweFNorparEiIMM 4
c.~
i P
l f
Lucal
- )
g l
! /
Inter-office Mcmorandum 9*
-- l-"
('
CRF7
-P s
SOILg To E. A. Rumbaugh o,.
November 28, 1979 subject Problem Alert - Large Settlements y,,,
J. Milandin igHiSfQ Due to Incorrectly Placed Backfill
%C
--f---
of Quality Assurance NEq
[
i
,,q e oao noe p copies to At Ann Arbor 1E_C D se a e % 6 T. E. Johnson W. T. Kellennann G. A. Tuveson gp-Lv Blue (
S. I. Heisler The subject Preblem Alert was originated by Ted Johnson as a result of a meeting which we held on June 13, 1979. The Problem Alert was, in effect, issued to take advantage of the tiidland problem by providing for certain revisions in our specifications and controls, to preclude such a situation from recurring on another project. As you recall, I suggested the Problem Alert. Ted Johnson has been working very closely with me to insure that QA concerns were included. Ted issued the report to Ken Buchert on October 19 and received a reply, attached, from Ken U
Buchert, apparently incorrectly dated, on August 27, 1979.
Buchert's reply, in effect, deleted all the recomended corrective actions by the Ann Arbor Office snd effectively stated corrective actions which are essentially the same as the present program. Without the AA0 recomendations, the Problem ATert is truly incomplete. It will not prevent the problem from occurring again once this Problem Alert has been filed. The idea behind the recommended action of the Ann Arbor Office was to perserve these experiences by revising generic specifications and control procedures which govern the placement of backfill.
It is requested that you look into this matter to determine why the San Francisco Power Division Civil Structural Chief rejected the corrective actions proposed by the Ann Arbor Office. Each of those actions, which were proposed, were tied back to problems which were identified during the course of the investigation and were carefully developed to preclude the recurrence i
of such a situation in the future. Therefore, as the situation now stands, i
i if the office follows through on the Buchert August 27 letter, new projects may fall into the same situation as Midland did when memories dim.
Please respond by 12/12/79. Please advise whether you consider this a matter to be handled by an MCAR.
Od w
J. Milandin JM/le JM-79-122 s
File: AAO-QAR-79-66 SWO2046 l
w, - a
-. Q Q. y :r g ?
m
.:L"
- . e.g;..a.,,.g Dechtel Associates Professional Corporatic
..y 3 -u v.
/() 4, g Inter-office Memorandum l,
To R. L. Castleberry case 13 September 1974 Qge-MH@
suoiect Plant Area Fill From Hidland Units 1 & 2 Job 7220-001 os Geotechnical Services coo.es to J. H. Allen at Ann Arbor - I N. H. Burke /W. R. Terris J. C. Hink R. L. Rixford J. O. Wanseek 1320,3410 This memo is intended to assist in preparing your formal response to Item 3 of BCBE-370 regarding compaction requirements for the plant area. Herein, we address reco=mendations given in the soils reports prepared by Dames & Moore for the Midland project and compare them with our earthwork specifications. The material in this memo confirms our previous discussions with your group.
The evaluation here pertains to plant area fill supporting and surrounding structures, any Category I slopes in the plant area, and the barn fill.
l
\\
In-Situ Clays 1
Tables l'& 2 attached (taken from Dames & Moore's soils report of June 26,1968, Page 15 and its supplement of March 15, 1969, Page 16) present cocpaction recommendations for fill and backfill. In the June 28, 1968 report, the minimum clay compaction is recommended to be 95% for support of criitiUf structures, 90% for support of non-critical structures, an T90' " adjacent to structures, respectively; all percent compaction values are according to ASTM D 1557 Method D (about 56,000 fr-lb compaction energy).
In the March 15, 1969 report, the minimum clay compaction is recommended to be 100% for support.
l of structures, 95% adjacent to structures, and 90% for area fill (not supporting or adjacent to structures); all percent compaction
-values are according to Bechtel Modified Compaction (B.5C: 70,000 ft-lb compaccion energy).
specification 7220-C-210 (Section 13.7) requires 95% of ASTM D 1557 i
{
Method D for in-situ clay in the plant area and barn.
In comparing the reports v'ith the specification for in-situ clay supporting structures, it is seen that the specification and the 1968 Dames f. Moore report are identical. Also, the specification and the 1969 report are consistent since 95% of ASTM D 1557 Method D is approximately equivalent to 100% BMC in some soils. However,
)
SBS00233
.~
y vy
--w P
-'t w.-
1r v
-mew
_ _ _., _m
.*_____m__,_________._e
W
' e. :,,h un. eso. > * * :
- i =.r c ~
^
W.****""'-
~
b '
.,$ 'l."* ***
2*W
- e.,
?'
^
- l,*Q f~}.Q', W f
~ [b
&! khff;Q.*f f hffS5 T
4mpui;;$%-=--,
....,.,,fe., Pf6fessional Corporation" n..
g.
.G.
- 1. m Bechtel Assocta s
=
m
[Q.h[.-_%,..,-
' 77~" h l
R. L. Castleberry f.
13 September 1974 l
('
Fase Two l
l the requirenent cf 95% of ASDI D 1557 Nethod D given in the specification is the appliesble criteria for compacting clay to i
support structures. Further assurance by conducting shear strength tests is required (see Section 12.4.8, specification 7220-C-210). Compressibility tests may also be required.
The bara fill must be compacted to 95% of ASDI D 1557 Hached D to insure adequate seepage protection and stability.
Category I fill placed within the failure zone of a slip circle may require a degree of compaction higher than 95% of BMC, because of design for the full SSE. However, it is conceivable that in-place fill compacted to 95% of the BMC will be adequate
(
if strength and permeability properties are shown to be adequate.
similarly, in-place fill supporting light structu as may be adequate at 95% of BMC provided.its strength and compressiblity are shown to be adequate.
~
Till in the plant area which will not support structures or
/
pipes or be placed within the failure zone of Category I slopes
~ {
may be compacted to a lesser degree than 95% of ASD1 D 1557 Method D (e.g. 95% of BMC). This agrees with Dames & Moore's 1969 report and is consistent with their 1968 report which requires only 90% of ASDI D_1557 Method D.
In-Situ Sands J
The Dames & Mocre June 1968 report presents recommendations for compacting sand in terms of maximum density while their March 1969 report presents recommendations in tarms of. relative density. The later report is considered more applicable for sands since relative density is one of the basic parameters required to control liqued faction. Therefore, in-situ sands supporting structures must be compacted to a relative density of 85% '(ASIM D-2049). For well-graded sands around structures, the 80% relative density.specified i 7220-C-211 is adequate.'
TL E
~ 'LW- - ny in-situ clay which will be supporting structures or be involved in Category I slopes and the harm must be compacted to 95% of ASIM D 1557 Hechod D.
If the fill is aircady in place according to -BMC, it may be adequate for some structures, pipes, or slopes, provided it is shown by sufficient testing that its strength, compressibility and seepage l
s 5B500234 9
e
.--r
,e n
m.,,
v- -..
-v
1 j.:.o,'.A.a.. x 5
.- w :': % 2 hT~ W = W 5 % '* L % Y ^
_c
~
l...
Bechtel. Ass.ociatesfrofessional Corporation
(-
R. L. Castleberry 13 September 1974 6
Page Three t
characteristics are adequate. This raquires sampling and laboratory shear strength and consolidation testing. Section 12.4.8 of the earthwork specification addresses this issue for any in-place fill.
Compaction curves using both ASDI D 1557 Method D and Bechtel Hodified Method must also be, developed and correlated with shear strength and consolidation test results on the compacted soil to evaluate the compressibility and shear strength achieved from both methods of compaction for the in-place fill.
This information vill allow a complete evaluation of any in-place fill for its proposed function, in addition to providing information which vill be needed for the FSAR. It should also elest up any questions as to how fill should be placed in the future.
We vill be happy to discuss this matter further with you at your convenience.
e & J__.
J.7vr S. S. Afi(i SSA: lab At.' tach =ents 9
e
/'*
l SBS00235 5
Si g
=#-
g I
t l. - - - - _ _.... _. _ -.. _,
.. n.
n.,
^ - ~ bh4%
sc Esi '...;id.J.. 3.I
. 51 5."f,-.
_..... Cf. ~ _-
--M ::-e_.-
- g. &;..
'~~ l'jK %'T.T;"%Y Y
-~ ;; -.r _Y"
- 1&&?,-3
.;4%
'qM *f0, 9 '
~
.a
,.e,9 e-,e ~ p :,a,m m-: :.-...,. _ _,,.,,.,., _,. _,,,,, _ _
r
. :s c.._-..-
_-...,.---,e,,.,.~-~,.n....~.
-__ ;N
- b. -
X
. ?
$,,,y.j.;.
" Y
-, - ~ - - -
TAB!.E' 1 l*
.e I
MinimumCompactionCriteriafromDames&hfoore June 1968 Report **
Recommended Minimum Compaction Criteria Percent of Maximum Density
- On-Site On-Site Purpose of Fill Cohesive Soils Cranular Soils Support of Critical 95 100 Structures Support of Non-Critical 90 95 l,
Structures Adjacent to Structures 90 95
[
- Maximum density and optimum moisture content should be determined by the ASDi Test Designation D 1557 Methc,d D.
i i
i p
i,
- j
.i ti D
8,:
d
- Report, Foundation Investigation and Preliminary Explorations for l,
Borrow Haterials Proposed Nuclear Power Plant Midland, Michigan, l
June 28, 1968.
SBS00236 i
9 0
e-
.:* n.. g.: %.,
. cm,.. -g.
.x;.,..u. ~. : J
- s..
s on
- ..~...
w.,n.s
...:..,.'.'..t~,_,...
L
...; g, _. _ w..
.. v.
., ;..g
..<.e c;;
y y.
..{AAij.4,.
'pl{,. -] 1
- , c...
.,e3,,@,..wy5..w.;. v.;.. p:a. b n. - -
TABI.E 2 1-
- k'..
- = 9 j.g..
..-f..5.:.
.e.,~,
.. y:.s..%.
a, w.
. s.
Minimum Compaction Criteria from Dames & Hoore
.J.:.W S.v. iW.., e g
. Cb.0 ;G mm
- a.. ~.,. l ffk. g March 15, 1969 Report ***
Rf(fWMNW M}N*9h'T f*f&I, S 1 ddhtN.
'd:.
$5
?.* Q, W p, n,e. M.n Q. +
y s
{g,g_gx'p>g.gf.
Recommended Minimum Compaction Criteria t;
On-Site On-S1ta s@r W,e' -i f. W f,.
-.. ?u...p..%m'-
-.e Sand Soils.
Clay Soils f.
c pee of Fill Percent Relative Density
- Percent of Maximum Densi hNdg[.[-E.,p+~psyyrg1
$!N 5YkTbDM p:re of Structures 85 100
,,, y,.f. i gj.WN...?!N..y/g s.V,.3. :..
> u.W.:,. fi &y W.;W.% v:@.a
. ~,. v:+a >Q4. 35. W,.ke accat to struecures 75 95 u
..,.s...s
- ,", ?. g.
- c. -;yb.w;:. 5.v,A...:
u
~
vv 9..
t
- t a Fill (noe supporeing 70 90 g, g cdjacent to structures)
-,4;yg. y,,.g.gn meg 3-
.r.. !
e.
a
.,.~.3.
2
.p,c[
t,
.4 OT.
- w 6478k.f*.'.,l/, e.e r _qw=h. %..
-,. *g y,w. u
-. *2..
4 a. ; p...g y..
r..
el.
.'^ dw'.i.gs tximum and minicum density of sand soils should be determined in
.m' M
u.e g 3
c'm.
u e
cetrdance with ASD1 Test Designation D-2049
'r-
+'
.-@j.F Y
'.,4.Q. ?Q:
axi=um dry density and optimum moisture content should be determined v.43ddfsh thitMh$.W '.
n cccordance with ASr! Test Designation D-698, modified to require T.-Q.M 4 / ~if[f; 0.000 foot-pounds of compactive energy per cubic foot of soil.-
ggg.j,
.{,].g.
.,,. g.
m,.
,f D.,
.y.
j.
b.i,. A;, @ Q 'JN 4,.A A}.,,1h e:m.y:nt..w..: A,., ww.,i.c. w a
5
,y
,u...n. #..
u', w sd..^. d M <.u.g.e.....
ss
~.
wrhe q.he M W+'
. h. ~P 4 F,<J'f A f E
,..w.,. m e :.m.w -
G W,.,
- k..'h h
.,s.,.
, h. s. M ih J-
+
' v.eg.
e 3
.S'l M_.9...,%.. s..r
Q v
- 4. w. w m,.,.... a,. s a
. ~.. :... y..
..hkf.fh.%.b...[.
k.
.e:
.y.
.:w,.e.-. mw..
s.,.,1. J e
..I4,*a : 5..C,,;, af
- g.* '.g ?
G. s
~a
.. " pM,,TW::,'M Gr' P *-:.a f
's 67.
sis &Mr 5?b::me:? iUi.?
....e.M :M 7:7
,t.?- m Nh y@.m% m.Q. :s,,:n.w 4
.U
.e.Qn,:<,.t.y v
c d
upplement to Repcrt, Foundation Investir,stion and Preliminary Explor-l ti ns for Borrow Materials, Proposed Nuclear Plant, Midland, !!ichigst
%,;p.4 y& @[/F. Q g n D
'F:-
crch 15, 1969.
4.;t g
. f.g~.p a.
..,.w....,,..,
w.
.y...
m,........
fe {*
- f.1 p;
, Q*. s.'.,T&$**
M~-y,. 1,n9&.,.N.
wE}. ';.3,. t SBS00237 Q..W a m.. n;;.3.
7
- ,e'
.f hf k n. m.} w. n.,. ~**
~
.m;.::
, p v.g.g,g e
. s :-
4
- r. m,
.,. a - - =-
m t
%w4,,., q... :_
.)
N YU
' ' ' ~
c.
n.,..,.,.....,,,
,.4.
._......e-.,.
m.
g.
g.
e '.pu. :.=..
- y...
...y.
-s
..,.s.._,,.
g:j Q
.z*r._-
!!II:11tUl! CO: TAC 310N CRITERIA. _ g*
m i.,i PLANT AREA FILL AND BEDI u(
- l Function of Fill Minimum Compsetien Criteria I
In Situ Sand ( }
In Situ Cisv( }
e Support of Structures (
35%
95%
Adjacent to structures 80%
(Gradation specified in, 1
7220-C-211) 95%
l Category I Slopes 95%
l Berm
-i 95 Ares Fill (not supporting or adjacent to structures) r
).
(1)A11 sand ccupaction is in terns of relative density as determined from ASE! D 2.049 cest.
1 (2)All clay compaction is in teres of maximum density as determined by Ast! D 1557, :*ethod D except for area fill not supporting or adjacent to structures. In t!iese areas, ASI! D 1557 may be altered such that only 20,000 ft-lb/ft3 of ener5y vculd be required.
(3) Strength and conpressibility testing may be required to confirm cdequacy of fill.
h
)
1 i
t j
I t
s I
l 5BS00238
.e
== - _.
m.-.wy % r ~==...,... -
.:' -~ -
/
...... ~ -.~ - ::~x 4'
-^ " t"'C gg
/-
c
. s.
c o
n j$
ub.'Y $ :)\\.1Guu?$ ?
- lf-$p {p..
O?
N,
\\
Si-
+
. (q. o9 C0illptily
- cc.
'q
- e. k. %
,9 i
o w.om..
sisw ew we A A
.m.s a.a.sa we.a eso. A.ed.,'e's
.s it
%p
+
i Octobe 22, 1979 l
. - Jg
,/
q., O e
=m;;
- Q*
1
!k) p t
p Mr. J A Rutgers y
g/
Project Man 4ger fd Bechtel Fover Corporation PO Dox 1000
- y Ann Arbor; MI k810,6
- e s
MIDIA':D PE0JICT -
RDICVAL CF LOCSI' SAND -
FII.I 0130 UFI 08*06 SIRIAL 7802 Referenc e: 1) Consumers Power Company Letter, Scrisi 3kT8, Dated Octob' r 6,1!
e I
- 2) Bechtel Letter,. 3CCC-3587. Dated October 23, 1978 *'
- 3) Bechtel Letter, 3LC 8167. Dated September 17, 1979
{,k We have reviewed 3echtel letter, 3LC-8167, '(Reference 3) and disagree with the conclusion that Bechtel is not responsible for the additional costs associated vith efforts to resolve NRC Question 362.2. We disagree for the following res-l sons:
1.
The URC raised the loose sand question in airly 1970. On Page 8.00-1 of thi PSAR, Bechtel provided the 53C with a discussion of how the sa: ids vould be
. treated. The 3echtel intentions as stated in the PSAR vere as follows:
"For example, in those ai*ess 'of the turbine building adjacent to the emer-t gency diesel generator building, existing sand vill be removed if further tests shev relative density of this sand is less than 75%." It is obvicus i
f that in place density testing was intended.to be performed in,ordor to veri l
the naturs1 sand dens.i.ti.es.
2.
3echtel Insineering cop =unicated this cor.=it=ent to constructica in 1"75 by placing a note on Drawing C kk' indicating that sands with less thnn 75% ~
r,elstive densities z::ust be recoved.
3 The 1.cose sand corr.itr.ent vas also delineated in FSAR Section 2.5.h.5.1 This was a statacent than the design drsving. (C kk) was issued to ree,uf.re re: eval of icoce sands with falkt'ive densities le's t'.:n 755. '
s 4
4 g
,a g
Wr m %,} -
QY!.t jMq+w+,
. -:. r,
- 7... _...., 3. _ -
- = #p._..
n,
.u~~....
i.m.:..
M; - Ud'W%?"='";Wn
~M a~:
m:xy.
z.g w-n n
x.,..- n..m c=u.
.nr;~- 1 m... u.,.~
-.., G# i. a :. y, v 4,c
,,,,,g,,,,m.,
j g
g
=.2..-
In *r.id-1978, Bechtel Engineering asked both the 3echtel Conste?ttien and h.
C.snsuners Power Company yield Engineers. if they he.d any knowleidse of density tests taken for the purpose of c1' earing arecs*vhere natural sands Consumers Power C' =pany civil field personnel spent sirveral-c had existed.
days looking at records in Jackscu to identify any field tests perfo,rmed h densities of the sand. All efforts by Bechtel and Consusers
.to document t e Power Conpany were unable to identi,fy any documented field density tests
- which would resolve this question. In,mid-1978 when th'e 1:rtestigation oc-
. curred, all of the areas in question had heen covei ed by approxi=ately 30' of tackfill.
If seens obvicus to.us that although field density ties'ts vere to be pet fer=ed to, approve aiess where natural, ands exist,ed, they were not perfor=ed" or if per-
~
s Based on the inability to shev by docta=enta-formed, they were not doc,umented.
tion that the e,or.ziitment had been adequately addressed, borings were ordered If density test had been by Bechtel Engineering to resolve the NRC question.
perfor: sed and documented initially, the recent borings and engineering analysis t
vould not have been required. yailure to properly meet PSAR and ySt.R cocsitsents.
f and the req 2irements of Draving C kk, has resulted in significant costs,to IJnsu=ers Pcver Cc=;any.
I-
'Therefore, ve du not' accept the argu=ent that Secause the recent borings shoved catural sands which had relative dehsities greater than 75%, se:htel has.no c
l liability for additional costs. It is ous ccatention that no borings or analysis' vculd have been necessary if 3echtel had properly execut ed drawing, ySAR and PSAR a
.Mir requirements.
o-
&]
G S Keeley
^
Project Managery t
G5K/cg c
1 3CC 'D5 Miller, Midland'(3)
JLBacen, M-lo85A.
DGRandolph, P-lk k22 JIyelber, MidlandeAccounting g
g G
(
g e
g
\\
6 e
.s
N.
en --
g V...m%
- b. :.
.a
+#
UNITED STATES t
(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
r,
,a wasmwaTow. o. c.zosss e{.cr4/
AUG 4 1960 l
l 1
s Docket Nos.: 50-329/330 Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Hr. Cook:
SUBJECT:
CORP OF ENGINEERS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON PLANT FILL liy letter of June 30,1980 requested the results of additional explorations and laboratory testing needed to support certain geotechnical ' engineering studies on the Midland plant fill and associated remedial actions. That P
letter noted that details on the extent of these studies would be provided by separate correspondence. Enclosure 1 is a letter report of July 7.1980
/
by our consultant, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and is fontarded to
' p this end.
Paragraph 4 of the Corps report identifies additional infomation needed to resolve specific problems identified in paragraph 3.
For purposes of cori-trol, we have re-numbered the subparagraphs of paragraph 4 to be sequential with our prior requests on this matter. They have also been marked to reflect the results of NRR review. Your reply should reference the revised numbering system and should address the requests as marked to reflect our i
changes.
Subparagraph 4j of the Corps report entitled Liquefaction Potential, is not included in our re-numbering since it represents an evaluation rather than a request. We consider this evaluation to be tentative at this time since it is subject to the determination of suitable seismic design input for the i
site. We will address this matter shortly by separate correspondence.
1
}
e 6
d
7QEl.s-63._.,,t.s,.
ve.. _.
Q g _ m.3 7 _
'. _ < v ~_
^
t' T @:; =.a t.;; w.? w r... 7 i -- - - -
'.g,,/.%%t.r-;s;.,_:.r s.
e:e p '. m 1.,n..;m. s. o n
?s:..n v.....
e,-
w- * %-
m:5.. 4.a. ac:;;:. '. -
s,,.,...,a vn MrP J.'-W:" Cooka- ' a
<.e. w ~ c. m.. 2. a...._,.. _.. '
.:r,k.. AUG ( 1980 t
=
y..ra,u.......,...,,..,-,,...s....w..,,.....-...
.~..
- 55
.i
~
y.y n.
..-...w.~.
g
, h;. =
m,~w
.;i ;;
We would appreciate your reply at your earliest opportunity. Should you
[.
need clarification of these requests for additional information, please l
contact us.
Sincerely, j
1 j
/.
u w d e
- 1 A. Schwencer. Acting Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 l
Division of Licensing i
Enclosure:
COE Lettei Report i
dated 7/7/80 e
cc: See next page t
0 L'o 1
p 9
9 9
0
u;
- R.. = -.
' _,x.x. ;g.5 r. 2 % :
n- -
.. :x --Sd2~bEC31=.W.? k i. - G 'ik.b $ "s
., - - a..
a ' -
~*
3,
- 15
.....c,.;
...,s A
cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale
/
Suite 4200 t
1 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
Managing Attorney Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201
~
Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
1 IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Sumerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Frank J. Kelley, Esq.
Attorney General l -.
State of Michigan Environmental 3
l Protection Division 720 Law Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Wendell Marshall 3
Route 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 Grant J. Merritt Esq.
Thompson, Nielsen, Klaverkamp & James 4444 IDS Center 1
i 80 South Eighth Street l
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 I
4 g
1 e
l q
O
z 4 t-~ -
Nw c
- r < ",~
A/GE3ff'h-fp:.g[... ;. Jw,_.?fijpW
...:.Q~.::L. 2- -
.z..-.--
"f.?.32.'d.%y),<-:GYfy'[, -
f-Q.
r
- 4... c
--v r o.= -m :,.n %.
,g,g;y
.,,z, g, 2... m
.m m. _,.._.
j.y
\\ ;. p....
..,,~-....,,,,,.,1u
._,,c
- p. TJ:c.2 mn Mr. J. W. Cook E
2. ' ' 'r, '. -
" ~ ' _ ~. ~
-,,g
(
cc: Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Mir.nesota 55108 o
Mr. Don van Farowe, Chief Division of Radiologica] Health Department of Public Health l-P. O. Box 330'3 e
Lansing, Michigan 48909 L'illiara J. Scanien, Esq.
j 2034 Pauline Boulevard 1
Ar.n Arbor, Michigan 48103 I
'J. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Resident Inspectors Office Route 7 2
Midland, Michigan 48640
~
e
.t k
e e
8 t,
r i
1 I
t 4
I r
O 1
6 i
e
~
-..;iQ f.
.., ; vpp x
% V w
~...- m
. ::w2 - ;:3:: _~m,-?g-,
- g..-
- ~r a..
. t
!.t i
cc: Comander, Naval Surface Weapons Center l
ATTN:
P. C. Huang l
G-402 White Oak Silver Spring, Maryland,20910 Mr. L. J.'Auge, Manager Facility Design Engineering Energy Tecnnology Engineering Center P. C. Box 1449 Canoga, Park, California 91304 Mr. William Lawhead U. S. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T 7th Floor 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 I
l Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 *i. River Freeland, Michigan 48623 Mr. Michael A. Race 2015 Seventh Street Bay City, Michigan 48706 Ms. Sandra D. Reist 1301 Seventh Street Bay City, Michigan 48706 i
Ms. Sharon K. Warren l
636 Hillcrest l
Midland, Michigan 48640 Patrick A. Race 1004 N. Sheridan Bay City, Michigan 43706 l
George C. Wilson, Sr.
i 4618 Clunie Saginaw, Michigan 48603 Hs. Carol Gilbert 903 N. 7th Street
(
j Saginaw, Michigan 48601 i
s l
i (
1 x
1 l
~i-mf-s..1.x =MM"5fg##3fE;i. h.jf;d M'2.y# ;
n;-;......
D/ =
e g.
2
- m...n_ ;.i-- ;:.r@te_
-. r. 7 =#
J ^-'WFMFid.Y.r.1 h.
EG3?-
- r--:R.. y...
?,y
- p. e =... -=.n,
.w-- ~,.:.,
. n.
k ) :N s._r... ;
.. a.:. : -,
n--.
--+r
..: a
'v->-
n'
~~'~ ~ ~
~~ ~
N;.
_-e...
.,% * ' a.Jman a.w~ -- -
~_..
m%
's.,
g
./...
4 I j(
e cc: Mr. William A. Thibodeau 3245 Weigl Road Saginaw, Michigan 48603 Mr. Terry R. Miller 3229 Glenddra Drive Bay City, Michigan 4S706 i
l 1
l 8
4.
f t
6 E
)
I i
t i
1 I
e e
1 7.,g e
(.
8 0
s.
8 e
e
')
e
- ~.
...;*it..'s
....r.
.~
... _.n
.m. ;
/
gj/p M-
~ e,.ar v crcogaor fT**__% yggg.)
- .;,-;. Q #
~
ens. eve. =ss saa *=='
g
. m,. s c...u i
q Jt)L $80 l
TSor NCIED-T Task. No.1 - Midland Flanc Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, I,.
SUBJECT:
(
Units 1 and 2, subcask No.1 - 1.etter Report,
\\
(
- !$;f!
i ntral.
Division Engineer, North C9'so U '
TH1U ATTN: NCDED-C (James Sin II l l
e i. i '.
- ; 11
demission /
TDs U.S. Nuclear Regulato Dr.RobertE.Jakyon ATTF:
N, Division of Systens saf4' a-Mail 5 top F-314
'/
N.
Washington, D. C.
2055 t
\\.
.l The Detroit District hereby submits this letter reporr with regard to completion of subrask No.1 of the subject Interagency Agree =ent conce 1.
l The purpose of this report is to l
the Midland Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
identify unresolved issues and aske recommendations on a course of action
. and/or cite additional information necessary to'settia these matters prior to preparation of the Safety Evaluation Report.
The Detroit District's team providing geotechnical. angineering support to the NRC to date has made a review of furnis,hed documenta concerning 2.
foundations for structures, has jointly participated in briefing meetings with l from-the NRC staff, Consumers Fover Company (the} applicant) and personne North Central Division of the Corps 'of Engineers and has =ade detailed site The data reviewed includes all documents received through t
Amendment 78 to the operating license request, Revisina.28 of the F5AR, inspections.
s Revision 7 to the 10 CTR. 50.54(f) requests an'd MCAR N Report No. 8.
i separate entity.
s A listing of specific problems in reviev' of Midland Units 1 and 2 follows The issues are unresolved in many instances, l
3.f or Category 1 structures.
The scractures to be addressed because of inadequate or missing information.
follow the description of the problem.
Inadequate presentation of subsurf ace information from completed All structures.
a.
borings on meaningful profiles and sectional views.
u 1
(
- j
~.
ff..
hyg E W n
l
~ " Y ' SUBJECTS' 'IAcof age ~ncy. Agre scent No. -NRC-03-79-167,' Task No0,15 - Midland Planc
',n M -
. ' ' Units 1 and-2, Subcask No.' 1 - Letter Report.
,M'
- - + y-.
T Discrepancias between soil dese?, ions'and classilientions on bo
[,!Jeri = -.m l
- ipt b.
logs with sub=itted laboratory use results summaries. Izamples of such discrepancies are found in boring T-14 (Borated vatar tank),which shows stiff
'; (
l to very stif f clay where laboratory tests indicate sof t clay with shear ctrength of only 500 p.s.f.
The log of boring T-15 shows stiff, silty clay, while the lab tests show sof t, claye, sand with shear strength of 120 p.s.f.
All structures.
Lack of discussion aboup riteria used to selset soil samples for c.
Also, identificatid, foundation design from the lab testn df the bas lab testing.
for the various parameters use ini
/
(
results. All structures.
fj e-he inability to compled y ide'ntify the soil behavior fron lab d.
testing (prior to design and ce truction)- of individual samples, because in general, only final test values ' a sumury form have been provided. All structures.
e (1) Lack of site specific information in estimating allowable kaaring pressures. Only textbook type information has been provided.
If necessary, All structures bearing capacity should be revised based on latest soils data.
5 on, or partially on, fill.
(2) Additional infor:ation is needed to' indicate the design nethods used, design assuspelons and computations in estimating settlement for safety related structures and systems. All structures except Diesel Generator Building where surcharging was performed.
A co= plats detailed presentation of foundation design regarding e.
remedial ceasures for structures undergoing distress is required. Areas of re=edial measures except Diesel Generator Building.
.\\
f.
n ere are inconsistencies in presentation of seismic design information as affected by changes due to poor compaction of plant fill.
Response to NRC question 35 (10 CTR 50.54f) indigates that the lower bound of I
shear wave velocity is 500 feet per second. We understand that the sans velocity will be used to analyze the dynamic response of structures built on i
fill. However, from information provided by the applicar.t at the site nesting on 27 and 28 February 1980, it was stated that, except for the Diesel Centrator Building, higher shear wave velocities are being used to re-evaluate the dynamic response of the structures on fill material. Structures on fill c
or partially on fill except Diesel Cenerator Building.
l 4.
A listing of specific iss.ues and information necessary to resolve then.
(
3 f
. Raaetor Building Foundation 1
(1) Settlement / Consolidation. Basis for settlement / consolidation of the reactor foundation as discusset" in the TSAR assumes the plant site would 2
y e
8 em
i
- . :.. z. c n,
5:505'i?i: CW~?bE. 3 dW%Y g;a. 2-; Y ~
n..
-K
-3..
.NCIID-T SURJECT: Intefagency Agreement No.' NRC-43U9-167, ' Task No.1 - Midland Plant Units I and 2, Subtask No.1 - 1atter Report
- t not be dewatered. Discuss and furnish computation for settlement of the Reactor Buildings in respect to the changed unter table level as the result of
(
site devataring.
Include the effects of bouyancy, which were used in previous f
calculations, and fluctuations in unter, table which could happen if the devataring systas became inoperable.h;
,t (2) Bearing capacity. Besiing capacity compucations should be assumptions, adopted soil properties,fd, foundation design, design
}
provided and should include methoglus and basis for selecting ultimate bearing capacity and resulting factor 'ff, safety.
..l;n
%.l. Diesel Generator Buil gN
(
1 s.-
~
(1) Settlement /Consolid'a' ion.'
- In the response to NRC Question 4 and 27, (10 CTR 50.54f), the applicaqt has fiarnished the results of his computed settlements due to various kindffof l' ading' conditions. From his explanation o
of the results, it appears that compressibility parameters obtained by the preload tests have been used to coupute the static settlements. Information pertaining to dynamic response including the, amplitude of vibration of generator pedestals have also been furnished. 'The observed settlement pattern of the Diesel Generator Building indicates a direct correlation with soil l
types and properties within the backfill material. To verify the preload test settlement predictions, compute settlements based on, test results on samples from new borings which we have requested in a separate mean and present the results. Reduced ground water levels resulting from devataring and diesel plus seismic vibration should be considered in settlement and seismic analysis.
Turnish the computation details for evaluating amplitude of
~
vibration for diesel generator pedest:1s including nagnitude of exciting forces, whether they are constant or frequency dependent.
s (2) Bearing Capacity. Applicant's response to NRC Question 35 (10 CTR 50.54f) relative to bearing capaci~ty of soil is not satisfactory. Figure 'p' 35-3, which has been the basis of selection of shese strength for computing bearing capacity does not reflect the characteristics of the soils under the Diesel Generator Building. A bearing capacity et,sputation should be submitted based on the test results of samples from new borings which we have requested
)
in a separate meno. This information should include method used, foundation.
i design assumptions, adopted soil properties and basis for selection, ultimate bearing capacity and resulting factor of safety.
+
l
'(3) Preload Effectiveness. The affacedveness of the preload should he studied with regard to the moisture content of the fill at the time of praloading. The height of the water table, its time duration at this level, and whether the plant fill une placed une or. dry of optiaun would be all important considerations.
3 6
l l
l
)
i
- Y**
ae e
f r. j,~ [ - O ' "'~ &t% g
^
bM - _ '
$;lk-d;.L:
.l Y 2.UdICyII.l N*'IMNE ENJ.5jYMO by 3'. M*V SU1 JECT
- Interagency. Agre seent.No. NRC-03-79-167, Task 'No.
9 Kidland Plant 1
9
-Units-1.and. 2.mSubtask.No.1,.. Letter Repo'rt.. [-
(,7
.n.
~ "1..
Ws u u.- --
7 g
When suffic.i'ent load is applied to granular soils it usually causes a j[\\
reorientation of grains and novenant of particles into more stable positions plus (at high stresses) fracturing of particles at their points of contact.
t I'
Raorientation and breakage creates a chain reaction among these and adjacent particles resulting in settlement. Reorientation is resisted by friction between particles. Capillary tension! ould tend to ine: ease this friction. A i
l soisture increase causing saturati'o'n,I och as a rise in the veter table as oc' curred here, would decrease capilliry tension ~resulting in more compaction.
Present a discussion on the water l: table and capillary water effect on the granular portion of the plaht fill both above and below the unter table during and af ter the preload.
f,/lj'
(
(b) Impervious and/or C1'l*
SoiIs.
l
)
i l
Clay fill placed dry of optimum would not compact and voids could 2
1 exist between particles and/or chunks. In this situation SPT blow counts would give aisleading infettation,as to strength. Discuss the raising of the veter table and dateristne if the time of saturation was long enough to saturate possible clay lumps so that the consolidation ccanid take place that would preclude further settlement.
Discuss the preload effect on clay soils lying above the tuter table (7 feet +) thae were poasibly eampaeted dry of optimum.
It would appear only limited consolidation from the preload could take place in this situation and 7
the potential for further settlement would azist.
Discuss the effect of the preload on clays placed wet of optiana. It l
vould appear consolidation along with a gain 1.n strength would take place.
~
Determine if the new soil strength is adequate for bearing capacity.
an[e M8 act* ni orns ion Co lu on-5 ce he alia i
o# exi in fil f
id r tio an i
er* in ad ti al in a
te.s de o s) ela v de
.ty ois r con at den ty, olid ion top t1 Cave ~
6/30 pushA.a/,
a s* en.h ri a
est uld p r to e si ble a or er t
}
j t
r gs ho be at ou at* fa or y sue the be e q sti l
l di ur dc esi s 1 api ta n.
j b
(4) Miscellaneous. A contour asp, showing the settlement configuration of the Diesel Generator Building, furnished by the applicant at the meeting of 17 and 28 Febr.uary 1980 indicates that the base of the building has varped due to differenti,a1 settlements. Additional stresses will be i
induced in the various components of the structure. The applicant should evaluate these stresses due to the differential settlement and furnish the I
computations and results for review.
4 e
e s
t i
.. j s.- A~%=E-+M.ww.stssw.u.amre.w..we n.w.m3,,me,s.
~.
' * *^
et,..
l.: 3.gc.;?>& - 57&
w.1 N - 5.+ *A ~ M s h D. $ 5_ _f 5 E I. ID O W Y NCZZD-T s,,
SU3 JECT: Intsragendy ' Agreement No ~ NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant Units.1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report N. [ 5errice. Water Building Toundation.
t (1) " Bearing Capacity. A detailed pile design based upon psrtinent soil data should be developed in order to more effectively evaluate the proposed pile support system prior to load testing of
- rest' piles. Proeide adopted soil properties, reference :tof test data on which they are based, and method and assumptions'used to est te pile design capacity incInding
)
computations.
Provide estimated /=r =>a static and dynamic loads to be imposed and individual contr1Wtion- (DL LL, OBE, SSE) on the nazimum loaded pile.
Provide fa'ctor of safe ' 'against soil failure due to -14=m pile load.
if
(-
(2) Settlements.
lj' -
s.
~
(a) Discuss and provide nalysis evaluating possible differential settlement that could occar bets en the pile supported end and the portion Desee fe the empee,I of fal/ere. dieest /nelM/of placed on fi11And l
$ **lst till.
- feete e,r (e.g#
en es/el
=
behind oc r
- resent ".Biscuss(my why Nr#TaNi g wall adjacent to the intake (b) e structure is not required to be" Seismic Category I structure. Evaluate the observed settlement of *both the service unter pumphouse retaining walls and the intake structure retaining wall and the significance of the settlement including future settlement prediction on the safe operation of the Midland settleareer assinet' s Hews.bdr stresser permit $rd by uproved codes. y 44t Nuclear Plant. Thie eve /*effen 24* eld addnrr anyeel sf>erser jndeerd b (3) Seismic Analysis. Provided the proposed 100 ton ultimate pile load capacities are achieved and reasonable margin of safety is available, the j
(
vertical pile support proposed for the overhang section of the Service Water
\\
Punp Structure vill provide the support necessary for the structure under i
combined static and seismic inertial loadings evec. if the soil under the ove: hang portion of the structure should liquefy. There is no reason to think j
this won't be achieved at this time, and the applicant has canaitted to a load test to demonstrate the pile capacity. The. dynamic response of the structure, including the inertial loads for which the structure itself is designed and the mechanical equipment contained therein, would chan&e as a result of the introduction of the piles. Therefore:.
l (a) Please summarias or provide copies of reports on the dynamic j
analysis of the structure in its old and proposed confignration. Ter the latter, provide detailed information on the stiffness assigned to the piles and the way in which the stiffnes' es' vers obtained and show the largest change s
in interior floor vertical response spectra resulting from the proposed modification.
If the proposed configuration has not yet been analysed, describe the analyses that are to be performed giving particular attention to the basis for calculation or *selectica, of and the range of numerical l
stiffness vaIues assigned to the vertical piles.
(b) Provide af ter co=pletion of the new pile foundati9n, in accordance with commitaant No. 6, item 125, Consumers Fount Company memorandun 5
(%.
s e
g, n
_. 4 % ';..i'.; f *.-
r&g' _
_ _ - - _ *. ~ ~ r.m. :.. =%
N6z ^*
.. l.Te.!:;.-.... -
"['
{.4 j..
. ~ ~ " ' '
~ ~
W M E:.M T 4 :.. M G D E N [*
-- m.
'sMW[M.M-O =.r.
W.%.?~-
b-
..... a.e,.:cEED-T -
.r.
2 i ;@w _SUBJECTt_. Intaragancy AgNenIniiEI.~ECM79-167,1* Task,Ni.Il - !iidlan'd' Plant
^
- 1..its 1 and.2, Subtask No. 1.c.Lastar 2eport.
'y i
Y p w = a.m. ~.. =- -- --
. _,, (
_ 7.
a y
,y.,c dated 13 !! arch 1980, the results of men'sure=ents of vertical applied load and absolute pile head vertical deformation which will be made.when the structural
[
load is jacked on the piles so that the pile stiffness can be determined and conpared to that used in the dynamic analysis.
N.
Auxiliary Building Electricai Penetration AreIns an'd Feeduster i
Iso ation Valve Pits.
i (1) Settlenect. Provid e assumptions, method, computation and estinate of expected allowable la'teral and vertical deflections under static i
I and seis=le loadings.
4;f I
s s
(2) Provide the cons rugtion plans,.and specifications for i
underpinning operations beneath/ he El'actrical Penetration Area and Teeduster Valve Pit. The requested info tion,to be submitted should cover the l
following in sufficient detaila' for 'evaluationt ike tenoperary Details of deuntering system (locations, depth, sise and capacity (a)
A of wells) including the monitoring program to be r'equired, (for example.
l measuring drawdown, flow, frequency of observations, etc.) to evaluate the performance and adequacy of the installed systaa. -4 Location, sectional views and dimensions of access shaf
(
L (b) drift to and below auxiliary building wings.
~j (c) Details of tenpora:/ surface support system for the valve pits.
l efP Devatoring before underpinning is reconnended in order to
^
preclude differential settlement between pile and soil supported elements and negative drag forces.
~
() Provide adopted soil properties method and assumptions used to estinate caisson *ad/or pile design capacities, and computational results.
Provida estimated maxinua static and dynamic load (compression, uplif t and l
1staral) to be imposed and the individual contribution (DL, LL, CBE, $$E) on
=axi man loaded caisson and/or pile. ' Provide factor of safety assinst soil f ailure due to maxinua pile load.
i e(E) Discuss and furnish computations for settlement of the portion of the Auxiliary Su11 ding (valve pits, and electrical penetration area) in i
respect to changed water level as a result of the site devatoring. Include the effect of bouyancy, which was used in previous calenistions, and fluctuations in water table which could happen, if dewatering systen becomes l
l inoperabis.
(f) Discuss protection asasures to be required assinst corrosion, if piling is selected.
l 6
.h
\\
1 e
l w-
,--er,.,
y
.y,
\\
,...: i:., w.. % - h
.c e-
~
N M - W 5 ~- W Y n A ~ W U 'a 7 JUL SO NCZID-T
.., ~
g,
, g.
4 -
' SU3 JECT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter ReportTask No.1 - Midland Pla2t (h Identify specific information, data and method of pres of
- be submitted for regulatory review at completion of underpinning operation.
(
This report should summarize construction activities, field inspection records, results of field load tests of.the completed fix for assuring t.he,on caissona and piles,and an evaluatio stable foundattor.
[ ], [ Borated Water Tanks.
(1) Settlement. 'Ibe artlement estimate for the Borat1d Water Storage Tanks furnished by th applicanc in response to'NRC Question 31 (10 l
l C7R 50.54f) is based upon the foundation elevation (II, 627.00t) of the ta'nks.asults of tvis plate load tests. cond not effective in providing inform]ation regarding the soil beyon Since a plate load test is than twice the diameter of the bearing plate used in the test, the estimate of the settlement furnished by the'fpplicant does not include the contribution of the sof t clay layers located at depth more than 5' below the bottom of the tanks (see Boring No. T-14 and T-15, and T-22 thro T-26).
j
.I (a)
Compute settlements which inclu'de contribution of all the soil layers influenced by the total load on the tanks.
Discuss and provide for review the analysis evaluating differential settlement that could ocaar between the ring (foundations) and the center of the tanks.
(b) The bottan of the horated tanks b ng flexible could warp under I
differential settlement.
Evaluate what additional stresses could be induced in the ring beans, tank walls, and tank bottoms, because of the settlement, h
and compara vith allowable stresses.
Furnish the computations on stresses
\\
including method, assumptions and adopted soil, properties in the analysis.
i (2) Bearing Capacity.
T-15 show a sof t stratum of soi1~ below the tanli botton.I.aboratory test results Consideration has not been given to using these test results to evaluate bearing capacity 1:forsation furnished by the applicant in response to NRC Question 35 (10 C7150.54f).
Provide bearing capacity c~omput'ations based on the test results of the samples from relevant borings.
This information should include nethod used, foundation design assu=ptions, adopted soil properties, ultimate i
bearing capacity and resulting factor of safety for the static and the seismic loads.
Underground Diesel Tuii' Tank " Foundation Design.
(1)' Yearing capacity.
Provide bearing capacity computation based on the test results of samples from relevant borings, inc2nding nothod used, foundation design assumptions, adopted soil ' proper-ies, ultimate bearing capacity and the resulting factor of safety.
(2) including methods, assumptions made, etc. Provide tank sectiesent analys I
"TWYO.YE.);,'[
- ']hQ{@gg%yg{]p4 n;1 gg;.g..,,,..
l
- _ _ _ _ _ ~. _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _. -.. - ___.._ _________. _..___. _ __
.yp.,,,
... -..n..
.n n
.' I h.h5bb Eh; hINEbNk'
,r,.s 4
=
. ~ :
a... g... egg 3
}*;! p,_ SD3JE,CT: Interagency; Agreement,No'., NRC-03-79-167,. Task l' - Midland 71 ant
..m,m.x._,...n.,,.....,..
., _u c..e..u-
-- g 3 and 2,.' Subtask' No.1 - Letter Report f.Y F
". 3 r...e.
9'C
~ ~ ~~\\M
^~
(3) What vill be effects of uplift pressure on the stability of the e'
tanks and the associated piping system if the devataring systen becomes I
M, [ Underground Utilities:
I.
l
.r (1) Settlement (a) Inspect the interior' of water circulation piping with video
~
1 i
l cameras and sensing devices to show pipe cross section, ~ possible areas of erackings and openings, and siopes of piping following consolidation of the l
l P ant fill beneath the imposed buircharge loading.
i ij f.
w.
(b) The applicant has stated'in his response to NRC Question 7 (10 CFR 50.54f) that if the duct ben')i,s remain intact af ter the preload program has been completed, they will be abik to with' stand all future operating loads.
Provide the results of the observations made, during the preload test, to deter =ine the stability of the duct banks, with your discussion regarding their reliability to perform their design functions.
(c) The respo'nse to Question 17 of " Responses to IIRC Requests Regarding Plant Till" states that "there is no reason to believe that the stresses in seismic Category I piping systa=s will ever approach the Code allowable. " We question the above statement based on the following:
Profile 26" - CEBC-54 on Fig.19-1 shows a sudden drop of approx. 0.2 feet s-ithin a distance of only 20 feet. Using the procedure on p.17-2, (b " E(*) " E ( D ) " E ( D 3 ( 85 )
k'
- 21 2
L2 p = 30000 ( 26 ) [ 8(0.2)(12)_'] = 130.0 III 2
(20x12 P as a.//sval/,
-T. ::h n... ;i. 3 10 '.;.f 1 ;'..:. 24 5.5. _,
- , A. l.i ; _ 1,. *.:..
-J.CC -.. 3 1..: :h: :::: i... '...ifi;._:1._ T..:...
1.m.... _-' _
x; _ :;4..; d.._: :::::x:.
Tet, Table '17-2 'lises only 52.5 K318' stress for this pipe.
This aetter requires further review. Please respond to iki, apparent discrepancy and also specify the location of ammh computed settlement stress. at the pipeline stationing shown on the profiles. More than one critical stress location is possible along the same pipeline.
(d) During the site visit on 19 February 1980, we observed three instances of what appeared t6 be degradation of rattlespace at penetrations of Category I piping through concrete salls as follows:
e l
8
(
e e
M4.Ar44rhN*,kth og
@tE" f.9 NLa.
b N4h
~ _.-
.1
i S'~ '
h~
'it; ~~
E' ~
~
- z; W M T
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreement No. 31C-03-79-167 Task No.1 - Midland Plant lini6~1 'And 2,' Subtask No.1"- latter Report Vest Borated Vater Tank - in the valve pit attached to j
the base of the structure, a large diancter steel pipe extended through a steel sleeve placed in the mall.
(
3ecause the sleeve sus not cut flush with the unll, 1
clearance between the sleeve and the pipe was very j
t smalli
! [
?.
J.- SI****
/
['
,a
' #
- t
- V.*.
- e l p ;1r wut 4 ::.t.:
.q o
Yeat ad6v
- l.'...!
T l
l 1
Servic Aister Structure - Two of the service unter i
pipes penetrating the northwest us11 of the service water str ture had settled differential 17 with respect'}[short pieces of 2 x 4 placed in the bottom j
the, structure and were resting on slightly squashed the penetration. Fram the inclination of the pipe, there is,a suggestion that the portions of the pipe further back in the well opening (whiah uns not
. visible) were actually bearing on the invert of the opening. The bottoa surface of one of the steel pipea had small surface irregularities around the edges of the area in contact with the 2 x 4 Whether these irregularities are normal, manufacturing irregularities or the result of concentration of load on this temporary support caused 17 the settlemmat of the fill, was not *anown.
i These instances are sufficient to warrant an examination of those penetrations where Category I pipe derives support from pl, ant fill on one or both sides of i
a penetration.
In view of the above facts, the following information is required.
7 i
I j
(1) What is the minimum seismic radlesp'e'ce required between a l
Catagory I pipe and the sleeve through which it penetrates a unlit 1
(2) Identify all those locations where a Category I pipe deriving support from plant fill penetrates an exterior concrete mell. Determine and report the vertical and horisontal rattlespace presently available and the inimum required at each location and describe remedial actions planned as a result of conditiona uncovered in the inspection. It is anticipated that the j
answer to Question (1) can be obtained without any significant additional s.xcavation.
If this is not the case, the decision regarding the necessity to
.l obtain information at those locations requiring major escavation should be deferred unti.1 the data frem the other locations have been====f ned.
3, x
9 i
h 3
e i
a I
j, e
1 x
i' 1
q l
'f; 1
....'D.
, M: e w~s r +..
e.,,*
. N.;,jy
'hQ[
- y.< T _ N Li'
_,n...
..;.6--
[^
r-[:: i"' c.. _-.1CZ23-T.
NS-M1,EN^Erf.M C ^
r*13. m-W.M'-
~ ^ ~'
~
+*
- 'F SURRCTt ' In't'e'r'sseacyAgr'e'e'anns Nof NRCM79-167$ Task 'No[h.
~ ~
- Midiand Plant
( )
- u...,, a c e Units'I and'27 Subtask No.'1.: 1,etrer Report. * #
I,,,# #^ "
~
.. y.c
- m 1-r Provide details (thickness; type of asteriai etc.) of bedding or (e) cradle placed beneath safety related piping, conduits, and supporting i
structures.
Provide profiles along piping, and conduits aligaments showtag the properties of all supporting asterials to be adopted in the analysis of pipe stresses caused by s'attlement.,
i (f) The two reinforced con. It 'rgte return pipes kich exit the Service c
Water Pump Structure, run alo,ng'#ther side of the emergency cooling enter reservoir, and ultimately ente ( into the reservoir, are necessary for safe shutdown.
These pipes are buried within or near the erest of Category I 1
i slopes that form the sides of [he emergency! cooling water reservoir.
There is j
no report on, or analysis of,,thCseismic s'tability of post earthquaka residual di'splacement for these, j
do not raise the specter of any,ppopes While.the limited data from this area l
bles.. for an important eleasst of the plant i
such as this, the earthquake sta 111ty 'should be examined by state-of-the art anthods.
Therefore, provide res es of the seismic analysis of the sit. pes leading to an estinate of the parassent deformation of the pipes. Please i
provide the followings (1) a plan showing the pipe location with respect to other nearby structures, slopes of the reservoir and the coordinata system; (2) cross-sections shosing the pipes, normal pool levels, sic,ws, subsurface l
conditions as interpreted from borings and/or. logs of.azcavations at (a) a location parallel to and about 30 ft from the southeast outside vall of the service water pipe structure and (b) a location where the cross section will include both discharge structures.
Actual boring loss should be shown on the profiles; their offset from the profile noted, and soils should be described l
using the Unified Soil Classification System; (3) discussion af available shear strength data and choice of strengths used in stability analysis; (4) j h
deter =ination of static factor or safety, critical earthquake acceleration, and location of critical circler (3) calculation of residual anvenant by the method presented by Newnerk (1963) or Hakdisijand Seed (1978); and (6) a i
determination of whether or nog the pipes can, function properly af ter such novenents.
i cooling Pond.
. d I
(
i (1) Energency Cooling Pond.
In recognition that the type of i
anbankment fill and'the compaction control used to construtt the retention
)
dikes for the cooling pond were the same as for the prob 3 a p2 ant fill, we request reasonable assurance that the. slopes of. the Category I Emergency Cooling Pond (baf fle dike and asin dike) are stable under loth, static and dyna =ic loadings. We request a revised stability analysis for review, which will include identification of locations analysed, adopted fossidation and enhankment conditions (stratification, seepage, etc.) and basis for selection, adopted soil properties, meth*od of stability analysis used and resulting f actor of safety with identification of sliding surfaces analysed.
Please address any potential impact on Category I pipes near the slopes, based on the l
results of this stability study. Recausendations for leastion af new esploration and testing have been provided in a separate letter.
10
+
.. -.,. g-.m7-L_ w.= -
t.,. m m r r. g c.n m
.v..,. n a.
_am e_.
C
-- %, w. w.
l
i i
- ; -e
.=3 ~; ~s,...,.-y
....n.c.
..; -Qiz.g3., -QqL
,['} y c.:w:.-- k ?
.-wa
. n.
.,,icggs.y Intiira'gency Agreement No. EXC-03-79-167, ' Task No.1 - Midland Plant
SUBJECT:
Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report r
(2) Operating Cooling Pond. A high level of safety should be required for the remaining slopes of the Operating Cooling Pond unless it can
/
be assured that a failure vill nots (a) endanger public health and
(
properties, (b) result in an assault on environment, (c) impair needed l
Recommendations for. locations of new borings and laboratory energency access.
tests have been submitted in a separate letter. These ' recommendations were made on the assumptions that the stability of the opera".ing cooling pond dikas should be demonstrated.
/
Y.
Site Devataring Adequa
['
n:
(1) In order to provid h's ascessary assurance of safety against enonstrate' that the water vill not rise liquefaction, it is necessary t'o ~
above elevation 610 during nor=alf}perations or during a shutdows process.
The applicant has decided to accomplish this by pu= ping from wells at the In the event of a failurehpartial failure,*or degradation of the site.
devatering system (and its backup system) caused by the earthquake or any other event such as equipment breakdova, the water levels vill begin to rise.
~
Depending on the answer to Question (a) below concerning the nornal operating
~ vater levels in the i=nediate vicinity of Category I strucnures and pipelines founded on plant fill, different amounts of time are available to accomplish repair or shutdown.
In response to Questien 24 (10 CFR 50.54f) the applicant states "the operating groundwater level vill be approximately el 595 f t" j
(page 24-1).
On page 24-1 the applicant also states "Therefore el 610' is to be used in the designs of the devatering system as the caximum per=issible grounduater level elevation' under SSE conditions.* On page 24-15 it is stated that "The wells vill fully penetrate the backfill sands and underlying natural sands in this area." The bottom of the natural sands is indicated to vary f rom elevation 605 to 540 within the plant fill, area according to Figure 24-12.
The applicant should discuss and furnish response to the following questions:
(a) Is the nozzal operating devatering plan to (1) pump such that the water level in the wells being pumped is held at or below elevation 595 or (2) to pump as necessary to hold the water levels ~ in all observation vells near Category I Structures and Category I Pipelines supported on plant fill at or
~
below elevation 595, (3) to pump as necessary tu hold water levels in the wells senti'oned in (2) above at or be.'.ov elevation 610, or (4) something else?
If it is something else, what is it?
(b) In the event the water levels in observation wells near Category I Structures or Pipelines supported on plant fill exceed those for nornal operating conditions as defined by ycur answear to" Question (a) what action vill be taken? In the event.that the water level in any of these observation veils exceeds elevation 610, what action vill be taken?
a
~.
l 11 1
l l
(
l L..,
. al ' ;*i T v.S 3 T- ' m :. m.q, g. Q g z+a.t. Q u: y y y,.y., 4 p
,y
.g
m:
_ _ J.E
..c... y._.m.
4.T'2~%5W N ::== -%
..,W
.=
1a'idi P1 h i f e -
67b. nTa f %4
~
G Mjnph rfEMD-tw m
%,M. 7.d*+5C2.ECTrr.-Intcrestac'y'Agrecnent N2. NRC-0:- - n
,.1.e eter Report m<-
~
Q,.
./s
.m..._.,
fin area be
[; h. J aw.-.m IC1tihere vill the observation wells in the, plantlocated that vid7e c the screened intervals be? Vill the combination of (1) screened interval in cohesionless soil and (2) deconstration of timely response to changes in
(
cooling pond level prior to draudoun be made a condition for selecting the cbservation wells? Under what conditicus win the alaru mentioned on page What vill be the response to the alarm?' A worst case test 24-20 be triggered?
cf the completed per:anent devataring"an'd groundwater level nonitoring systens or not the time required to accoisplish eculd be conducted to deternine whether]s could be done by shutting off the shutdown and cooling is available' //Th'i entire devataring system when the' cooling pond is at elevation 627 and The dater =ining the water level versds[ tine curve for each observation ven.
- sst should be continued until thelsater level under category I structure, whose foundations are potentially,fiiquefiable', reaches elevation 610 (the nor=al water level) or the sun of, jthe time intervals allotted for repair and s
the time interval neeced to accosphsh shu,tdo 'n (should the repair prova In view of the unsuccessful) has been exceeded, 01[iichever occurs first.
heterogeneity of the fin, the lik&,17 varia' tion of its permeability and the necessity of making several assumptions in the analysis which was presented in the applicant's response to Question 24a,,, a full-scale test should Zive more reliable infornation on the available eine. Is, view of the above the applicant should furnish' his response to the fonoving:
If a desatering systed failure or deg adation occurs, in order to assure that the plant is shutdown by the cine water level reaches elevation of a failure 510, it is necessary to initiate shutdovu earlier.
In the event of the devataring systen, what is the water level or condition at which shutdown vin be initiated? Eev is that condition deter =ined? An acceptable nethod would be a full-scale vorst-case test perforced by shutti=g off the j
entire devatering systen with the cooling pond. at elevation 627 to deternine, at each Category 1 Structure deriving support fran plant fin, the water level at which a sufficient time window still rerains to acconplish shutdown before the water rises to elevation 610.
In establish'ing the grnundvater level or condition that win trigger shutdown, it is necessary to accou=t for nor=al surface water inflow as van as groundwater recharge and to assume that any additional action taken to repair the devatering'systa=, beyond the point in time when the trigger condition is first reached, is unsuccessful.
(2) As per'spplicant response to,NRC Question 24 (10 Cn 50.54f) the design of the permanent devataring system is based upon nao =ajor findings:
(1) the granular backfin materials are in hydraulic connection with an underlying discontinuous body of natural sand, and (2) seepage from the l
eccling pond is restricted to the intake and pump structure area, since the plant fin south of Diesel Generator 3uilding is an effecnive barrier to the l
l inflo: of the cooling pond water. However, soil profiles (Figure 24-2 in the
- 2asponse to NRC Requests Regarding ?lsnt Fin"), pu= ping test time-dravdown graphs (ylgure 24-14), and plotted cones of influence (yigure 24-15) indicate
. hat south of Diesel Generator Suilding, the plant fin =atarial adjacent to i
l 1
12 l
l l
\\
e p
e g
l l
.s
~'C-
-l%.;.w.~~ :~. ; s.-l-f '[~g :~ ~
.-)
~J
_~ y g.'zly.. Jn M E'?
a
.s
- ~
'NCIID-T
,.-e."-
1.y,,
.:;.,, g.
y
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreesent No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant l
r Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report the cooling pond is not an effective barrier to inflow rf cooling pond water.
('-
The estinated permeability for the fill asterial as reported by the applicant is 8 feet / day and the transnissivities range from 29 to 102 square feet / day.
Evaluate and furnish for review the recharge rate of seepage through the fill 1
naterials from the south side of thegiesel Generator Building on the i
permanent dauntering system. Thisi evaluation should especially consider the Io{s.
't ta from PD-5.
recovary data from PD-3 and com
\\
(3) The interceptor we'11s have been positioned along the northern side of the Water Intake Structdreand service unter pump structurss. The l
calculations estinating the toi:aI'jgroundwat'er inflow indicate 'the structures serve as a positive cutoff. However, the isopachs of the sand (71gures 24-9 and 24-10) indicate 5 to 10 feet 4f redaihing natural sands below these The soil profile (Ffgure 2f-2) neither agrees nor disagrees with structures.
the isopachs. The calculations 3er total flow, which assumed positive cutoff, reduced the length of the line source of inflow by 2/3. The calculations for the spacing and positioning of we'Is assumed this reduced total flow is applied along the entire length of the structures. Clarify the existence of seepage below the structures, present supporting data and calculations, and reposition wells accordingly. Incide the supporting data such as draudoun at the interceptor wells, at nidway location between any 'evo consecutive wells,.
and the increase in the water elevations downstream of the interceptor wells.
The presence of structures near the esoling pond appears to have created a situation of artesian flow through the sand layer. Discuss why artesian flow was not considered in the design of the devataring system.
(4) Provide construction plans and specification of permanent deustering systen (location, depths, size and. capacity of valls, filterpack design) including required monitoring progran The information furnished in response of h"RC Question 24 (10 CTR 50.34f) is not adequate to evaluate the' adequacy of the system.
(5) Discuss the ra=ifications of plugging or leaving open the weep holes ia the retaining vall at the Servie.e Water Building.
(6) Discuss in detail the maintenance plan for the dovutering system.
(7) What are your plans for monitoring water table in the control tower area of the Auxiliary Building?
(8) What measures vill be required to preunt incrustation of the pipings of the dewatering systen. Ide=tify the controls to be required during plant operation (nessure of dissolved solids, chemical controls). Provide i
basis for established criteria in view of the results shown on Table 1, page 23 of tab 147.
13
.L i
i
~
m-
-e,--
=
- - -- = _gus
. w _
i.'I.*L..... SVans i unw'[dfa$daura * '". wa b,A*%=F. ET :. I.y*:' y.yg
'3'
,..;hQpg+;;.
[g Q?.;l
~;fdS$4[T.r!'MW
- ---G~ s==. bon" reaching a steady.. state.,in devatoring, a 'groun'dwater. survey
,.;s).-g-
^should'be made to. confirm the.. position of the unter table and toiinsure that.
(9)
'~
., j,.,
( )@:.-,,.6ao_p3rched vater ' tables exist.
_{
y..
Dewatering of the site should be scheduled with a suffitent lead time
(.
before plant start up so that the additional settlement end its effectsSettlan l
(especially on piping) can be studied.
fl* *! f*** ***Nb",$Inf b l151 y od b d W A S
- during this period.
frov/dc yove
/\\/
- j. Liguefaction Potential.
I An independent Seed-Idrisjs ied Analysis ses performed for the fill area under the assumption that.' the groundwater table f 1.5:
elevation 610.
that blow counts as follms werej j '[uired for# a factor of safety o Zievation
[! Min'iaus'SPT ' Blow Count *1 ft
< for 7.5. = 1.5
'e :
14 610 16 605 i,
',17,
600 19 395 ns (a) no
.The analysis was considered conservative for th's follaving reaso i
account was taken of the weight of any structure, (b) liq considered nothing larger than 3.5 for' an earthquake with the peak acceleration level of 0.19 3's, (c) unit weights were varied over a range h
broad enough to cover any uncertainty and the tabulation above is based on t e Out of over 250 standard penetration
[
nost conservative set of assuspelons.
tests on cohesionless plant fill or natural foundation sate t-and in 23 tests located in the natural noterials located below the plant filli These tests involve,the following ' borings:
plant fill.
S*.T3, SW2, DG-18. AZ 13, AK 4, AI 15, 417. AI 5. AI 11, DC 19. DC 13, DC 7. DC 5, D 21, GT 1, 2.'
Some of the tests o'n. natural material were conducted at depths of at less than Prior 10 f t before approximately 35 f t of fill was' placed 'over the location. factor to comparison with the criteria these tests should be sultiplied by a of about 2.3 to account for the increase in effective overburden pressure that results from the placessac and future desatering of the fill.
1*For M = 7.5, blev counts wobd increase by 30%.
l
\\
14
.1
'}
,% ~., e..
- g.
33
((?.f.uja:j j ': sh:~ w:-
Interagency,Agr.eement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No.' 1 - Midland
~
/
,.. SUI.1ICT:
Units 1 and 2,' ~5ubcask-No.' 1 "I.etter Report Of the 23 tests. on plant fill which fail to satisfy the criteria, most are near or under structures ubers remedial nessures anaviating necessity for support from the fill are planned. Only 4 of the tests are under the Diesel
(
Generater Building (which win sein derive its support fron' the fin) and 3 I
Because these locations where low blow counts were others are near it.
recorded are van separated from on' '/another and are not' one continuous e
stratun but are localized pocket - Qoose asterial, no failure mechanism is
/ /
i present.
,1 I
rings in tho' plant fin area and the i
In view of the large number of conservatism adosited in analysis,!'/these few isolated pockets are no threat to The fin area 1'sliafe agains't liquefaction in a' Magnitude 6.0 earthquake 'or saaner which pio'dui:es a, peak ground surface acceleration of plant safety.
0.19 3 or less provided the gr ', 'dseta'r,e'levation in the fin is kept at or below elevation 610.
- p..
%, [ 5eismic analysis of structures on plant fill meterial.
From Section 3.7.2.4 of the ySAR it can j
(1) Category I Structures.of about 1350 f t/see sans used in the be calculated that an average V, interaction analysis of the Category 1 i
original dynanic soil structureThis is confirned by one of the vievgraphs used in the 28 Plant fill Y, is clearly much laser than structures.
Bechtel ;,resentation.It is understood from the response to Question 13 (10 Tehrus:7 this value.
ecacerning plant fill that the analysis of several Category I structures are underway using a lower bound average V, = 500 f t/sec for sections supported on plant fill and thz : floor response spectra and design forces will be taken The questions as the most severe of those from the new and old analysis.
/{
which fonov are intended to make certain if.this is the case and gain an understanding of the impact of this parametric variation in foundation
.{
conditions.
heta Discuss which Category I struc'tures havegand/or will be (a) reanalyzed for changes in seismic soil structurn interaction due to the change Have any in plant fill stiffness free that envisioned in the original design.
Category I structures deriving support free plant fill been excluded from i
reanalysis? On what basis?
Tabulate for each old analysis and each reanalysis, the (b) foundation parameters (v,9 and P ) used and the equivalent spring and da= ping constants derived therefrom so the revisvar can sein an appreciat of the extent of paramatric variation perforned.,
Is it the intent to analyze the adequacy of the structures and (c) their contents based upon the envelope of the results of the old and new Tor each structure analyzed, please show on the same phe the old, new, and revised enveloping floor response spectra so the effect of the analyses?
15 e
l l
" * '- - - ~
s-
.-m
-_.m,
(
l
_... ~,.._,.-.-- -
u. w,, -
- - R
- jy lhw,J.,, ;.
ik?f.": :&W ~".'.,,,,_. l-$E* Rs.QW.,.Mdun a. ;..;; m
,, s y.:p/@ f@Se
. EQW
,._m
_~
,' =,. 4,, -. y C EI D eT r.
f;p Midland Plant
. *SUBJECTr^~ Interagency Agre ement No.. NRC-03-29 _167, Task No.
1-
. (g,
..Unita 1 and.2, Subtask.No.1..-, Letter Report' --
M T'b-6 r..b u n.,. r s
.p.
y 4* ' ". e~1 -an'hEdYcElllT on interior response : et-a predicte'd by tgvarious models n: '
c can be readily seen.
l (2) Category I retaining vall near the southeast co'rner of the Service Water Structure. This vall.1,s experiencing some di'fferential settlement. Boring information in Figure 24-2 (Question 24, Volume 1 Responses to NRC Requests Regarding F} ant Fill) suggests the umil is founded F1sase on natural soils and backfilled 'w'ith.51 ant fill on the land side.
furnish details clarifying the [{$11oving:
l l I., !
l, (a) Is there any plant ifill underneath the wall? What additional data beyond, that shown in Figurdj.24-2 suppo'rt your answerf (b) Have or should the sign se'istic loads (FSAR Figure 2.5-45) be changed as a result of the changay'd backfill conditions?
(f.'
(c) Have or should dynanic water loadings,in the reservoir be I
considered in the seismic design of this wall? Please explain the basis of your answer.
In your response for the comments and questions. in paragraph 4 above, if 5.you feel that sufficiently detailed information alr'eady exists on the Midland docket that may have been overlooked, please make ' reference to that t
Resolution of issues and concerns will depend on the expeditious information.
receipt of data awntioned above. Contact Mr. Neal Cahring at TTS 226-6793 regarding questions.
y:z gzz 7,I3:21g; 233Cs
.tn.G &-
F.McCEdISTER Chief, In'gineering Division I
l l
I I
l 4
4
,i 16 l
1 4
,=
.~.- ~~ m m m.r.. m.,.w.m y y-m.,.nu p m,.g m15y;; m y 4.
.k L ~ 1*.
~~
.._,. ;,C _.. ; -- n _ v :...JD q ;;p.;Aa #
[
~h b
L
~'
/pg g
l 1
(
Hidland Units 1 & 2 Job 7220-001 TRIP RIPORT DATES:
January 30 to March 24, 1978 LOCATION:
Midisad Units 1 & 2 Midland, Michigan
SUBJECT:
Piazometer sad Settlement Marker Installation ATTENDEE:
W. R. Kinzer - Geotech/Ceology During February and March, concurrent with several other related drining programs, the design cooling pond dike piezometers and settlement markers were instanad under my inspection at the Midland Power Plant.
The work was performed in accordance with technical specification C-77 and technical drawing C-69, and issued for construction as an anendment to subcontract 7220-FSC-318.
complaced during this phase of the field work.A total of 20 piezensters Ten piezometers each were installed along two separate dike sections 4,
designated F1 and P2 (stations 25 + 48 and 12 + 13) respectively.
\\
pneu=atic type and 7 casagrande type piezemeters were instaned along Three section P1 at elevations between 565 and 607.2 feet.
8 casagrande piezemeters were instaned along dike section P2 at elevations Two pneumatic and between 563.0 and 609.1 feet.- Au piezometers were installed as close to the specification design as possible.
As-built drawings as well as boring logs, daily reports, and other miseenaneous data vara transmitted to S. S. Afifi as they became available. Pluid levels in 17 of the instan ed piezemeters were obtained on Parch 20 1978, the remaining 3 were read on March 24, 1978.
On site personnel were instructed in the operation of the.
test equipment on March 24, 1978 Consumers Power Company at that time.and au test gear was turned over to Installation of the settlement markers was begun on March 13, 1978 with all 24 markers completed by March 22, 1978.
feet from the dike reference line and were au bottomed 15 f i
the existing dika crest.
Rust resistant paint was substituted for use i
on the exposed tips of the instaned steel bar stock as "Galvanox" was
)
unavailable locany.
On site surveying was informed of the completion of the settlement markers and instructed to begin the first elevation survey i
as soon as possible.
The first elevations are expected to be available l
by March 31, 1978.
/
/.
3 9.'.*
a'$
sa_
/ Vayne R. Kinzer WRK/ lag i,;d.00564
.