ML20090J474
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:__.__ _ MIEfC ~ Mp .f UNITED STATES / 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c. I e REGIOl4111 g c:f 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD Q' o,g..... / atsu sLLvw,ILL Nois sois7 October 5,1979 i I Ms.~ Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Drive 3 Midland, Michigan 48640 I'
Dear Ms. Sinclair:
i This is in response to your letter dated September. 11, 1979. We had j previously seen the news article which you sent, and therefore we were aware of comments attfibuted to Congressman Albosta regarding letters t received from workers 'at the Midland Site. He has not provided us with j copies of these'1etters, but has informed our agency that he will provide l information from these letters which is appropriate for NRC review. Minor acts of vandalism at construction s ites are not unusual, nor are j they unique to nuclear power plants. It is possible that certain acts of vandalism have occurred at the Midland site of which we may not be aware. There are no NRC requirements for physical security programs at construction sites until such time as nuclear fuel is received onsite (a matter of concern to Congressman Albosta). Consequently, licensees 1 are not required to inform the NRC of such matters.' Safety systems are tested prior to operation, and any act 'of vandr.lism'which could cause i disruption of any safety system would likely be identified during the testing process. Resolution of the diesel generator building settlement problem has not j been finalized. Consumers Power has completed the preloading procedure i on the diesel generator building. Measurements were made of the com-pression of soils beneath the diesel generator building under the ~ l preload conditions, and monitoring will be continued to determine the soil response. Based on this information, the settlement of the I building will be projected for the life of the plant. This information will be factored into the final resolution of the problem. I We are not svare that any pipes beneath the diesel generator building I have been sheared because of excessive differential settlement. We were aware that some of the pipes were stressed and somewhat deformed. As a part of the preloading process discussed in the previous paragraph, certain (' h5220494940517 FOIA PDR RICE 84-96 [ t O i
Ms. Mary Sinclair 2 October 5,1979 : I I. of the pipes were disconnected so that they would not prevent the building from settling under the pre-loading test conditions. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, O,. _ _. % f* y vk-FJamesG.Keppler Director Congressman Donald Albosta cc: I t s L b e e e B v' ~ i ( + 4 o h \\ 9 e . _,,, _... _ - ~ ,c,-_,._--.-- . -..... -.. _. - -., ~. - - -.. _. - - - - - -. - - - -
I i ? f,cL/\\/Js i pJ r O ~~ ~- 2.11-Section 2.4 of Amendment 5 did not include the data and methods of analyses N requested in Question 2.4 of Enclosure A to our letter dated September 26, 1%9 This information is needed to complete our evaluation. Answer: Refer to Pages 2.4-1, 2.4-2 and 2.4-3 of Amendment No. 6 transmitted to Dr. Peter A. Morris on December 29, 1969 4 i i i l i i 2.11-1 Amendment No. 7 1/19/70
2 2.14 In Section 5 1.11 of Amendment 5, you have s~tated that certain Class I components or piping vill be founded or placed on the upper, loose sands. Justify the placement of Class I equipment on the loose sands considering densification from vibratory loading. Discuss the possibility and sig-nificance of relative differential settlement between structures or components. Answer: As noted in Section 51.11, certain Class 1 components and piping will be founded on the, upper natural undisturbed sands or on controlled com-pacted fill placed above the undisturbed sands. Standard penetration tests and/or in-place density testa vill be performed to identify for removal all loose sands. (For the purposes of this project, sands with a relative density of 50 percent or less are classified as loose sands to be removed. ) The only sands remaining under Class 1 items will be undisturbed sands with a relative density greater than 50 percent. The controlled compacted fill is either a cohesive material or a granular material, the latter compacted to not less than 75 percent relative density as recommended in the Dames & Moore Report " Foundation Investigation and Preliminary Explorations for Borrow Materials," Page 16. Therefore, because loose sands will not be pres-ent in the undisturbed sand layer or the compacted fill, the question of densification of loose sands from vibratory loadings does not arise. For those remaining sands with a relative density greater than 50 percent, some settlement under vibratory loads theoretically could occur. However, no significant settlements due to densification under vibratory loadings are expected because of the following reasons: 1. Vibratory loadings with limited duration (ie, earthquakes) are of insufficient length to significantly densify the relatively thin soil layer. 2. Vibratory loadings with a sustainci duration (ie, machine vi-brations) occur at only one Class 1 structure where the structure is founded over natural undisturbed sands. This structure (the Emergency Diesel Gen-erator Building) is located at plant grade over approximately 25 feet of controlled compacted fill. The vibration effects will be largely dissipated through this 25-foot thick layer of fill and, thus, significant settlements in the underlying natural sands are not probable. Se_ttlement from densification of either the cohesive backfill or bC the granular backfill (placed with relative density greater than 75 parcent) I T, ~ is not anticipated. 2.14-1 Amendment No. 8 2/9/T0 e
Although settlement from densification uhder vibratory loadings is ~ not foreseen, settlements from other load conditions, ie, overburden, struc-tural loadings, etc, have been estimated and are summarized in ar.swer to Question 8.0 of Amendment No. 6. However, as discussed in Paragraph 5 1 3, design provisions have been included to preclude overstressing of components due to diffarential settlement. For example, Class 1 piping will include sleeves .1/or mechanical joints to incure flexibility where piping enters the structures. s 2.14-la Amendment No. 8 2/9/70 -m
~. 4.0 The text of the Dames and Moore Retort. titled " Report, Foundation _ Investigation and Preliminary Erolorations for Borrow Materials, Pro-p
- cr^^ ""M aa" Dover Plant. Midland. Michigan, ror consumers rower Company," which was submitted as Amendmen+
__ the application, i na +n indicates on rage y tnan you have been provided with the results of geologic studies made by others. Provide these results for our review. Answer: The material referred to has been issued as a site report dated March 22,1968. Six (6) copies were left with the DRL staff at a meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, in May 1968. Further, two (2) copies of this mate-rial were transmitted by Consumers Power letter by Mr. G. B. Matheney to Mr. J. Murphy dated August 15, 1969 This material is included as a fomal part of cur application. The material is comprised of: 1. " Seismic Measurements and Overburden A=plification Curves" by Western Geophysical Engineers, Inc. 2. Soils Expbration by Michigan Drilling Company dated October 19, 1956. 3 Soils Exploration by Michigan Drilling Company dated March 13, 1968. s ( I 4.0-1 Amendment No. 6 l 12/26/69
.i 7.0 Provide sub-surface profiles for all Class 1 st'ructures and soil strata penetrated by the soil borings, as discussed at the July 2f+,1969, meeting.between representatives of Consumers Power Company and the DRL staff. (An example of such drawings has been presented in figures 6.2-1 and 8 3-1 through 8 3-6 of Amendment No. 5 to the Cook PSAR). Answer: Attached are Figures A7-1 and AT-2 showing subsurface profiles for all Class 1 structures except the service water intake structure, which is shown in Figure A9-1. These profiles are based on borings by Dames and Moore and Michigan drilling soils investigations, s i 7 0-1 Amendment No. 5 11/3/69 9 O
e 4 e t jDOCUMENT PAGE ~ PULLED ~ ~ l l ANO~ ssowow NO. OF PAGES c 1 REASON l OPAGElu.EGS2 CF l O MAD COPt FMD A1. PDR / 0144 _ 3 3_ i D E1ER COP (REQUESTED ON _ \\- PASt 100 LAR3510 FE.M f
- 0R D M4DCCP(TEID AT:
014R _ F W b FWib ON MRTWI CMD ND L_ 4 ) \\_ g = is s
b 8.0 As discussed at our July 24, 1969, meeting, provide information and cal-culations in support of your settlement tabulations on Pages 19 and 20 of the Dames and Moore Supplement to the Foundation Report, submitted as Amendment No. 3, to the application. Answer: The settlements tabulated on Pages 19 and 20 were evaluated from a consideration of the following conditions : I. Settlements due to lowering of the water level to El 560 and pressure relief due to excavation of overburden soils above foundation level (short-term conditions). II. Settlements due to placement of fill to grade and application of structural loads prior to flooding of the reservoir water level at El 600 (short-term condition). III. Settlements due to fill and structural loads after reservoir ""~ filled water level at El 625 (long-term conditions). For our settlement computaticns, a total of 72 settlement points were established on a grid and at selected structural locatior' as shown on Figure A8-1. Thirteen consolidation tests were performed for use in settle-ment analysis. The boring numbers and locations, and the elevations at which the consolidation tests were performed are also indicated on Figure A8-1. Four loading areas were delineated for the Case I condition (Figure A8-2) and 17 loading areas were delineated for Cases II and III (Figure A8-1). Loading criteria, including net stresses at foundation elevation, are indicated on Figure A8-2 for the Case I co,ndition and Table A8-1 for the Case II and III conditions based on the respective loading conditions, site soil conditions, and soil consolidation characteristics as evaluated from test data. Settle-ments at each of the 72 points were calculated utilizing an in-house computer program because of the variation in the thickness of the upper sands across the plant area. Two computer runs were made for each case: A. Soils consisting entirely of clays. B. Upper 20 feet of soil consisting of sands which are underlain by clays. The soil conditions in the plant construction area, as determined from , test boring data, indicate that a sand layer of variable thickness overlies very 8.0-1 Amendment No. 6 19/26/69
=l stiff to hard silty clay. In portions of the Turbine Building and Auxiliary Buildings A and D, the sand is practically nonexistent. The maximum sand thickness in the area is 59 feet, in Boring 9, northeast of the reactor build-In the building area', the thic' ness of sand is generally less than 20 k ings. feet. Computer Run A (scils consisting entirely of clay) and Run B (upper 20 feet of soil consisting of sand, underlain by clay) were made to bracket the nonuniform soil conditions in the building area. Settlements at a specific point were then selected or interpolated from.the Computer Run A and B values based en the estimated soil conditions, as determined from test borings, at ths; point. As indicated on Table A8-h, practically, all of the evaluated settlements are the clay condition (Computer Run A) settlements. This occurs because excavation to buildint ~cundation levels.will remove all of the sand with the exception of the Turbine Building area where some sand will remain. The above described method utilizing Computer Runs A and B to approximate actual site conditions is the most realistic apprc'sch to the settlement analyses. Thus, the computer-run settlement analyses were made as follows : 1. IA - devatering and escavation case, clay soil conditions. 2. IIA - fill and ' structural loading case prior to flooding reservoir, clay soil conditions. 3 IIIA' - fill and structural loading case after reservoir filled, clay soil conditions. 4. IB - dewatering and excavation case, upper sandy soil con-ditions. 5 IIB - fill and structural loading case prior to flooding res-ervoir, upper sandy soil conditions. 6. IIIB - fill and structural loading case after reservoir filled, upper sandy soil conditions. The Case I duration was 15 months; the Case II duration was 2 years. Case III was a permanent condition. Computer printout sheets for the above six settlement caliulations are attached as Figures A8.-3 to A8-8.' Results for a few of the settlement points are presented for, purpose of illustratica. Our settlement computer prograu has been developed based on current . coils en61neering practice. Settlements at a point are computed by summing s- ~ the individual compressions of soil slices of a predetermined thickness.- The j 8!0-2 Amendment No. 6 12/26/69 ,7
stress influence from all the loaded areas, as determined by the Boussinesq formula, is computed for each slice. The compression of each soil slice is calculated by the following general forumla: I I P, + AP 3 = C x T x log p I O l S = slice of compression C = slope of consolidation curve (percent per log cycle) P = overburden pressure 9 AP = total accumulated stress influence due to the loaded areas considered T = thickness of soil slice Values of C used in the computer settlement analyses were evaluated from the thirteen consolidation tests performed and correlations with other laboratory test data. Adjustments were made to the consolidation test curves to correct for sample disturbance. The evaluated values at various depths, for both virgin and recompression conditions, are presented on Figures A8-3 to A8-5 for the clay condition (Computer Run A) and on Figures A8-6 to A8-8 for the upper sand condition (Computer Ran B). As noted on the figures, the values did not vary for the various cases analyzed. Tabulations of the calculated settlements in the structure areas for Cases IA, IIA and IIIA are presented on Table A8-2. Similar tabulations for Cases IB, IIB and IIIB are presented on Table A8-3 As noted in the tabulations, Cases IA and IB were adjusted for ex-cavation relief and time effects, and those for Cases ILL and IIB for time effects (calculated settlements are ultimate settlements that must be modif tv' for short-term loading conditions). The adjusted settlements were then summed to obtain the total settle-ment at each point for the clay and upper sand condition. These settlements are also indicated' on Tables A8-2 and AB-3 Based on estimated sand thickness as determined from borings in the plant area, settlements at specific points were then selected or interpolated from the appropriate values in Tables A8-2 and AS-3 These resulting values are tabulated on Table A8-4. Based on the Westergaard stress distribution theory, these settlement values were modified 8.0-3 Amendment No. 6 12/26/69 e
by a factor of 2/3 The Boussinesq equations for calculating stresses are based on an elastic, isotropic, homogenous mass, whereas Westergaard's equations consider a stratified, nonisotropic condition. The test boring and laboratory data indicate that the soils at the site are nearer to the conditions upon which the Westergaard solutions are based. Therefore, it was concluded that the Westergaard stress distribution theory was more ap-plicable than the Boussinesq 7,heory for calculating stress distributions at the site. Finally, the modified settlements were further evaluated in light of our past experience with similar soils to obtain the estimated settle-ments noted on Pages 19 and 20 of our report. These settlement tabulations are also presented in Table AS-4. l f s 8.0-k Amendment No. 6 -12/26/69
d 10.O ' In reference to the compaction curve of brown fine sand, with some silt, from boring G at 5 feet as presented in plate A-9 of the Dames and Moore Report submitted in Amendment No. 1 to the application, provide the following infonnation: 1. Is this curve reproducible using similar material from the same source ? E. Is this curve representative of the uppermost granular sand? 3 State the maximum and minimum relative densities as defined in ASTM designation D2049-6hT of the material from which the compac-tion curve was obtained. k. State the values of the dry density and moisture content from which this curve was constmeted. Answer: 1. The curve is essentially reproducible using similar material from the same source if similar test procedures are utilized. The results were obtained from compaction tests performed in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D1557-66r. Small variations in the values of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content should be expected, however, due to slight.varia-tions that exist even among similar soils, and to the scatter of results that is generally obtained when compacting fine sands. 2. The indicated-curve is representative of the uppermost granular sand (fine sand with silt) encountered in various areas of the plant and cooling pond sites. Grain-size distribution tests performed on the upper fine sands in the area (see Plate A-10 presented in Dames and Moore Report submitted in Amendment No.1) indicate the similarity of these sands and thus it is expected that the compaction characteristics would be similar. L '3. A relative density test was not performed on the material from which the compaction curve was obtained. However, a relative density test was performed during a subsequent investigation at the-site on a sandy soil. which had similar grain-size characteristics. This test was performed in accordance with ASTM procedures on a fine sand with.some silt, obtained-from ~ a boring located approximately h000 feet west of Boring G, and the results were as follows: Maximum ~ Density 116 Lb/Cu Ft ' -Minimum Density 85 Lb/Cu Ft .k 10.0-1 Amendment No. 5 11/3/69
j q, s. The dry density and moisture content values from which the compac-tion ~ curve was constructed are as follows : Trial Dry Density Moisture Content .No. (Lb/Cu Ft) (of Dry' Density) 1 106.5 o 2-106.6 h.4 3 108.2 79 4 109.4 11 9 5 108.7 13 5 h-I, k J i i t I~ I ~ r i: l a t, - 10.o-2.
- Amendment No. 5~
i
- 11/3/9
t-j L :. 4 .a
.. e s. I 11.0 Indicate if the upper, natural, undisturbed sands vill be used to support any critial appurtenances such as piping. Answer: The answer to this question is found in the answer to Question 51.11 in the Enclosure A to Peter Morris' letter to R. D. Allen dated September 26, 1969 I f s a l 11.0-1 -Amendment No.'5-11/3/69 l-
8. Criteria for Foundation Soils The following consnents by AEC soil consultants relate to the criteria to be used in foundation soils and were communicated by telephone to Consumers Power Company on March 13, 1970. Following each comment is a discussion which is intended to resolve the issue. 4 1. We would not concur with the conclusion stated by the appli-cant in Section 2.1h-1 of Amendment No. 8 that vibratory loadings with limited durations (i.e., eartnquake) are insufficient to significantly densify a thin soil layer. This conclusion does not take into account reported instances of densifiestion of granular soils during earthquakes. The applicant has indicated that soils with relative densities less than 50% vill be re-moved and replaced with compacted fill having a minimum rela-tive density of 75%. In the absence of any analytical basis for the above procedure, it is our opinion that where Class I comparisons are to be founded upon upper sand layers, any sands with relative density less than 75% should be removed and re-placed with compacted fill having a relative density of at least 75%. Discussion: The design criteria calling for the removal of all natural sands with a relative density of 50% or less was developed from published data as discussed in Section 5.1.11. However, as a result of the concern of the DRL consultants for the adequacy of the 50% criteria, the design criteria for these Class I structures will be modified to remove all natukal sands with a relative density of less than 75% and to replace these sands with a controlled backfill compacted in accordance with Page 16 of the report titled FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION AND PRELIMINARY EXPLORATIONS FOR BORROW MATERIAIS PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT dated March 15, 1969 In addition, beneath the non-Class I structures so sited that their failure could endanger the adjacent Class I structures, all in-situ sands with relative densitites less than 75% vill also be removed. For example, in those areas of the Turbine Building adjacent to the Emergency Diesel Generator Building, existing sand will be removed if further tests show that the relative l l 8.00-1 Amendment No. 9 l-3/20/70 y J
l \\ e density of this sand is less than 75 percent. Please note that the sand depths beneath the Turbine Building are generally small, as shown in Fig. No. AT-2. The updating of previously supplied PSAR infomation reflecting the 75% relative density foundation criteria vill be supplied with a future amendment. 2. The discussion presented in Section 5.2.20-1 of Amendment No. 8 refers to the work of Seed and Idriss, but does not fully explain how the values of Young's Modulus were obtained. They appeared to be too high by about an order-of-magnitude: reference Barkan (1962) and the values computed fra seismic velocities are valid at lov stress levels and can therefore be considered to be upper bound. In summary, we cannot concur that the values of Young's Modulus presented by the applicant are conservative. Discussion: The Young's Modulus values listed in Appendix A to the FT)UNDATION INVESTIGATION AND PRELIMINARY EXPLORATIONS FOR SORROW MATERIALS PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, dated March 15, 1969 are being reviewed and a relation-ship vill be established between Young's Modulus and varying strains as determined both from field seismic surveys as well as laboratory tests perfomed on representative samples of cohesive foundation materials over a range of strains. We note, however, that the Young's Modulus values based on the seismic surveys by Weston Geophysical, which can be considered as the upper bound, 6 are T x 10 psf for the upper 50 feet and 63 x 10 psf for depths from 50 feet to 140 feet. 8.00-2 Amendment No. 9 3/20/70
2. Pursuant to the AEC soil consultants' comments ' relating to the Young's ~ Modulus (reference Item 2 of Page 8.00-2 included in Amendment No. 9 of this report), a further review was made of the moduli of elasticity values proposed for the plant design criteria. The fol.oving is a summary of the various studies conducted to establish the moduli of elasticity (E) values: Dynamic E Based on Laboratory Testing - In mid-1968, two samples of a. undisturbed silty clay containing some sand and gravel were subject to cyclie triaxial tests to determine the dynamic modulus of elasticity of hard silty clay stratum which underlies the site at a depth of up to 30 feet belov existing ground surface. Sample descriptions and test results are detailed be3cv: Boring Number 1 2 Sample Elevation (Ft) 533 562 Dry Density (PCF) '119 116 MoistureContent(%) 16 17 Confining Pressure (PSF) 5,000 3,000 Peak Shear Strength (PSF) 10,000 10,000 Poisson's Batio (Assumed) 0.42 0.42
- 1 Dynamic E (PSF)
E = 1 31 x 10 e E = 1.22 x 10 c' Based on these results, the dynamic modulus of elasticity of the soils supporting the containment vessels at their initially proposed locations was es-6 ticated to be 2 92 x 10 PSF, for an anticipated cyclic shear strain level of approximately 0.02 percent. An E value of 3 x 10 psf was included in the orig-inal soils report submitted with Amendment No. 1. b. On-Site Seismic Work - Based on Western Geophysical Engineers, Inc, on-site seismic survey measured shear and compression wave velocities, soil properties and E values for the very low strain levels caused by seismic investigation work are as follows: From Ground Surface From Approximately 50 Ft to Approximately 50 to Approxi:nately 140 Ft Feet Deep (Sand) Deep (Silty Clay) Dry Density (PCF) 110 135 Shear Wave Velocity (Ft/Sec) 850 2300 Compression Wave Velocity - (Ft/Sec) 5200 6100 Poisson's Ratio .49 .42 6 Modulus of Elasticity (PSF) 7 34 x 10 63 x 10 8.00-3 Amendment No. 10 4/10/70
c. Dynamic E Based on Seismic Survey and Published Data - Although the above dynamic E value was based on laboratory tests, it appeared conservative 1 in comparison with the results of the site seismic survey. Accordingly, in October,1968, Dr. I. M. Idriss performed a reevaluation and Bechtel corpora-tion provided site seismic velocity data to assist the reevaluation. For a depth of approximately 50 to lh0 feet below existing ground surface, the shear velocity was measured at approximately 2,300 feet per second. The shear modulus (G) calculated from this velocity was approximately 20 x 10 psf for the low strain levels of site seismic survey work. As this value corresponded reasonably well with the cyclic shear strain vergus shear modulus divided by unconfined shear strength data published by Seed and Idriss in the December,1968, issue of the Bulletin of the Seismology Society, the published data were used to correlate strain level with bulk modulus and thus dynamic E. Assuming that the shear stress resulting from an earthquake equaled the total weight of the column of soil above the depth in question by the maximum acceleration coeffi-cient, then at a depth of 50 feet where the site soils have an average unconfined shear strength of approximately 8,00 psf, the dynamic E was determin' d equal to e the following: EQ Acceleration Assumed E at 50 Feet at Surface Poisson's Ratio Depth (PSF) 6 0.05 g 0.4 30 x 10 0.10 g 0.4 22 x 10 0.15 g 0.4 17 x 10 It was recommended that these E values be varied by plus or minus 50 percent during analysis to check the effect and allow for possible variation in E from the computed values. These results were incorporated in the soils supplement in PSAR Amendment No. 3 d. Short-Term Stiatic E and Dynamic E Based on Additional Iaboratory Testing - Subsequently, static and dynamic laboratory testing was perfomed to develop more ~ refined data. Two available undisturbed samples were subjected to a comprehensive testing by cyclic triaxial, resonant column, and static triaxial tests. Sample descriptions, soil properties and laboratory E values in terms of cyclic shear strain are tabulated below. No marked variation between laboratory static E and dynamic E was apparent from the test results. l l t 8.00-4 Amendment No. 10 4/10/70 L 1 I
'j Boring Number 14 15 Se2nple Elevation (Ft) 587 5 546.6 Soil Description Gray Silty Clay -Gray Silty Clay With Some Sand & Gravel Dry Density (PCF) 109 136 Moisture Content (%) 20.4 13 9 Confining Pressure (PSF) 6,000 6,000 Peak Shear Strength (PSF) 7,500 3,600 Poisson's Ratio (Assumed) 0.42 0.42 Dynamic or Static E 6 -0 53 6 -0.48 (PSF)* - E = 1.00 x 10 e E = 0 32 x 10 c
- where c is ahear strain.
Based on these test results, the laboratory dynamic or short-term static E values for various shear strain levels are as follows: Shear Strain Dynamic or Short-Term E,-(PSF) (Percent) Boring 14 at 587 5 Boring 15 at 546.6 D 1.0 1.0 x 10 0 32 x 10 6 6 0.1 3.4 x 10 1.0 'x 10 6 O.Ol 11 5 x 10 3 0 x 10 6-6 0.001 -39 2 x 10 9,g x 19 An overall review of the previously outlined field and laboratory testing. -and analyses indicates the following: 6 1. The initial dynamic E value of 2 92 x 10 developed by the first set of dynamic triaxial tests is conservative and has not been substantiated by subse-quent studies. s 2. The dynamic E values calculated by Idriss are the E values that would be expected for the site soils on the basis of.their strength characteristics. For an acceleration of 0.12 g, the dynamic E value at a depth of 50 feet should be assumed equal to 20 x 10 pef 150 percent. This value assumes the cyclic shear strain will be approximately 0.005 percent. 3 The final set of laboratory tests indicates that the laboratory static and dynamic E values are approximately equal for short-term loading conditions. At least one of these tests indicates similar E values at. comparable strain levels as would be expected from (2) above. ? I 8.00-5 Amendment No. 10 4/lOhO .m-s
4. The field seismic survey 1'adicates that the upper limit of the dynamic E is on the order of 60 x 10 psf for very low strains. As the average unctnfined shear strength of the in situ soils supporting the subject foundations is approximately 8,000 psf, it is considered appropriate to increase laboratory E values in proportion to their unconfined strengths to give interpolated E values for soil with an 8,000 psf strength. Considering all other data available, averaging test results and adjusting from laboratory mea-sured E values to probable field values, by a correction factor of 15, the field E value for various strain levels is estimated to be as follows: Cyclic Shear Strain E (Percent) (PSF) .001 45 x 10 .01 14 x 10 .1 4.4 x 10 6 1.0 1 3 x 10 The E value is related to cyclic shear strain in the above values by the equation: E = 1 3 x 10 c'U'5 As the cyclic shear strain during seismic loading vill be in the range of 0.001 percent to 0.01 percent, it is concluded that the E value used in seis=le design (22 x 10 50 percent psf) is apprcpriate, and that the initial E 6 values developed in 1968 (2 92 x 10 psf) should be disregarded. s 8.00-6 Amendment No.,10 4/10/70 m
f' ' ). 1.. E .s t l w J .) n 9 w a= n - eg.h
,n '5/ \\ M-p*- .. n. ,( r.: v p,di4001.nhel,. 7 u D ,..,g -f7 - g) lJilifiell Stephen H. Howell $tnior Vice Press, lent Generet offices: 1945 West Pernan mood. Jackson. MisNgan 49201. (517) 788-0453 Noveu.er 2, 1978 Hove 227-78 Director of Iinclear Reactor Regulation Attn: Mr Roger 3cyd, Director Division of Project I'anage=ent IE Nuclear Regulatory C:n=ission Washi=6 ton, DC 20555 MIDLA.D PROJECT T DOC)IT Ho 50-329, 50-330 5 RESP 0:: SIS TO SU??LESITAL REQtF.STS FOR ADDITIO:IAL LTIOR".ATIO:i: PATC 2 FILE: 0485.11 SIRIA1,: 6026 I Inclosed with this letter are Const=ers Power Co=pany's responses to Supplemental a Requests for Aiditional Infor=aticn: Part 2, transmitted by ::r S A Varga's letter of October 13, 1978. In stiitien, respenses fre= previous requests for additional infor=ation are ; ovided where new updated infer =ation has becc=c available Responses are provided via letter format to meet your schedule date for receipt of responses frc= Supplemental Q-l's by Iiovc=ber 6,1978 so that Regulatory Staff Positiene (Q-2's) can be issued by the IIRC Staff en Dece=ber 1,1976. The enclosure contains printed pages containing responses and updated FSAR pages. New and updated info:=ation provide 4 vith the enclosure is =arhed as Revisien 15. Infcmation contained in the enclosure vill be sub=itted as Revision 15 to th Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 FSAR ae en amend =ent to the Co=pany's application for construction pe. its and operating licenses on Nove=ber 30, 1978. Should changes occur that necessitate revising the technical content in the enclosure between ncv and the Hove =ber 30, 1976 a=end=ent, they vill be clearly designated in the Hove =ber 30, 1978 sub=ittal to facilitate staff review. We are available to discuss these and previous responses should the staff find it desirable to do so prior to the issuance of Regulato:/ Staff Pesitions on Decenher 1, 1978. M l l $} I/ ~.t i k D U( ._ - gem me w P w --e
f UNITED STATES i 't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON {, ( ) E, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5 December 11, 1978 Docket Nos. 50-329 50-330 Mr. S. H. Howell, Vi~ce President Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Howell:
SUBJECT:
STAFF POSITIONS A10 REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (PART 1) During the course of our review of Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Le 8 have adooted several 00sitions that differ from those in your FSAR, We also find that we need additional information in some areas to complete our evaluation. Positions not provided in previous correspondence and further information requests are contained in. Several of your responses to our previous positions and requests were not orovided to our established schedules and some of our technical review branches have been unable to adjust other workload assignments to review the delayed information recently provided, Still other branches have found that issuance of positions must await receipt of information previously requested. Accoroingly, additional staff positions will be issued as they become available. We presently anticipate issuance of additional positions in mid-December and late-December, 1978. We will need response and resolution to Enclosure 1 by January 19, .122 1 If you cannot meet this date, inform us within seven days after receipt of this letter so that we may revise our schedule accordingly. Should you desire a meeting to clarify Enclosure 1 or to discuss preliminary responses, please contact me, Silicerely, Pf 1 / t (varg eke Light Water Reacto g Branch 4 Division of Project Management l
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Listed on following page b0 '~ w
I ~ = consumers Power Company ccs: Michael I. Miller, Esq. Isham, Lincoln & Beale ( Suite 4200 ] One First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60670 Judd L. Bacon, Esq. Consumers Pcwer Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Paul A. Perry Secretary Consumers Power Company 212 W. Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Myron M. Cherry, Esq. One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Orive Midland, Michigan 48640 Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental Protection Division 720 Law Building-Lansing, Michigan 48913 s Mr. Windell Marshall Route 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 D L
=. I ENCLOSURE 1 t STAFF POSITIONS (0-2s) AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PART 1 MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 I These positions and requests for additional information are numbered such that the three digits to the left of the decimal identify the technical review branch and the numbers to the right of the decimal are the sequential request numbers. The number in parenthesis indicates the relevant section in the Safety Analysis Report. The initials RSP indicate the request represents a regulatory staff position. Branch Technical Positions referenced in these requests can be found in " Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-75 /087. s I l l f I I l ? l l
J 130-1 130.0 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH 130.21 Provide an evaluation of the ability of those seismic Category I structures which are located upon backfill and which are (3.8) experiencing settlement in excess of that predicted, to (2.5) withstand appropriate loading combinations, including SSE, throughout plant life. Describe how stresses associated with differential settlement of the structural foundations and any corrective preloading activities have been or will be factored into these evaluations. Also provide a comparison of the stresses predicted due to settlement to those allowable stresses permitted by the ACI Code. s 2 9 9 e
362-1 362.0 GE0 TECHNICAL ENGINEERING 362.11 The March 15, 1969 report by Dames & Moore for foundation investigation (2.5) and preliminary exploration for borrow materials which is included in your PSAR provided final foundation design criteria, including: "d) Recommended foundation type and estimated total settlement for the auxiliary building which is located between the two reactor buildings. Its structure and foundation will be separate from those of the adjacent three buildings to allcw for possible differential settlement which must not exceed 3/4 inch." [ Emphasis added] The June 28, 1968 report by Dames & Fbore on this same subject also states their understanding that the maximum allowable differential settlement between the radwaste building and the adjacent reactor containment building is 3/4 inch. Provide documentation that this maximum differential settlement between buildings has not and will not be exceeded throughout_ plant, J.!.2 362.12 Describe your preloading program which is planned to further consolidate .5.4) backfill material underneath the Diesel Generator Building. Include your schedule for these activities. 362.13 Provide your program for reassessing the properties of the backfill (2.5.4) materials after completion of the preloading program of request 362-12. This program should differentiate between: 1. Areas affected by the vertical conduits in the Diesel Generator Building area, and 2. Areas not affected by the conduits. Also, provide your program for confirming the dynamic characteristics of the fill materials used in seismic analyses of supported structures. Include your schedule for this program. i e-
kW W Y$$4 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION _ Midland
- 7p,((f DISTRIBUTION:
1 NRC PDR Local PDR Docket file t Branch file 1 RSBoyd A DBVassallo A FJWilliams y SAVarga ro] t Manager Darl Hood RJMattson A JKnight o ng VAMoore RHVollmer [ MLErnst RPDenise OELD IE (3) bcc: JRBuchanan TBAbernathy ACRS (16) jpi t O ~ l 'e
WYf plph ./kiffivp(l0,6 'd l \\ 4 5n/ REQUEST FOR ADDI fION.\\L INFOR.'IA f!ON urnLA;ia Distribution: C' 4 [, '). NRC PDR S Local PDR 'p , _. m _ Docket File \\ LWR 84 File CE R. S. Boyd // R. C. DeYoung / (_. 7 / \\'/ D. B. Vassallo F. J. Nilliams S. A. Varga Project blanager DARL H000 bl. Service R. J. Stat tson D. Ross J. Knight R. Tedesco dp H. Denton 4 V. A. blo o re R. H. Vollmer \\l. L. Ernst l( W. P. Gammill / i N. >lcDonald '3 j u s (.J.%_IE(fD g 1 N. iiaass Q h,) j( u bec: ACRS (16) V,,'- .I T..ib e rna t h:-
- d
E, J. R. Buci.anan %. t ! E;r lY~ ;'
- c, 0 Y
Q,gy $/ - 2l2 k'N/ ? l' VA27 # l
- 3,// 5 / W PALT & -
V/J'l7Y m / M i t
.* [ca t o,+4 v UNITE 0 ST ATES 'S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON 5 5. k,). h WASHING TON, C. C. 20555 ','dd g i %.....f J = February 24, 1978 Cocket Nos. : 50-329 & 50-330 Consumers Power Company ATTil: Mr. S. H. Howell Vice President 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Gentl emen:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - PART ONE In centinui'1g our review of the FSAR for Midland Plant Units 13 2, we find we neea additional infomation to complete our evaluation. This iafor-mation request is contained in Enclosure 1. The information requests provided in Enclosure 1 use a secuential r.umcering system continuing frcm tnose folicwing our acceptance review and provided by our letter of Noverroer 11, 1977. As indicated in our letter of Decer.ber 27, 1977, we have scheduled our round-one requests in three sepa ate parts for wnich this is the first part. is based upon our review of FSAR ~, revision nur:ters three er four. We will need complete and adequate responses to Enclosure 1 by April N, 1973. If you cannot.reet this date, inform us within seven days af:er receipt of this letter so that we may revise our schedule accordingly. Scme of our requests also represent Regul6 tory Staff Positicns ar.d are ~ identified by the initials RSP. If, during the course of cur review, you believe there is a need to appeal a staff position because of dis-agreement, this need should be brought to our attention as early as possible so that the aporopriate meeting can be arranged on a timely basis. A written request is not necessary and all such requests should be initiated through our staff project manager assigned to the review of your apolication. This procedure is an informal one, designed to allow oportunity for aoplicants to discuss, with management, areas of disagreement in the case review. Please centact us if you desire clarification or other discussions cf tne information requested. Sincere 1y, (iaN(,'$(% j Q
- 5. A. y rga, Chief a
Light ECer Reactors Erar:h 'ic. 2 Division of Project Mar,agerenc
Enclosure:
As Stated _ f !8 m
~ Consumers Power Cortpany + ces: Michael I. Miller, Er.q. Lee not ?, { s ;. Isham, Lincoln & Deale Micaigan Divi: ton Sutte 4200 Tne Ocw C:wiaical crepar.y One First National Plaza 17 auilding Chicago, Illinois 60670 Hidl and,.'lienigan 43610 Jucd L. Bacon, Esq. Managing Attorney Censumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Paul A. Perry Secretary Consumers Power Company 212 W. Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Howard J. Vogel, Esq. Knittle & Vogel B14 Flour Exchange Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Hyron M. Cherry, Esq. One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Honorable Curt Scht.eijer Attorney General State of Kansac Topeka, Kansas 6r,612 Irving Like, Esq. s Reilly, Like and Schneider 200 i;est Main Street Babylon, New York 11702 Jaces A. Kendell, Esq. Currie and Kendall 135 North Saginaw Road Midland, Michigan 48640 Louis W. Pribila,'Esq. Michigan Division Legal Eepartment L--- 47 - Building Dow Chemical USA Midland, Michigan 48640 -l f
F ~ _= / RE00EST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORi1ATION (Qls)_ PART 1 of 3 MIOLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 m--- These requests for additional information are numbered such that the three digits to the left of the decimal identify the technical review branch and the numbers to the right of the decimal are the sequential request numbers. The number in parenthesis indicates the relevant section in the Safety Analysis Repbrt. The initials RSP indicate the request represents a regulatory staff position. Branch Technical Positions referenced in these requests can be found in " Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Pcwer Plants," NUREG-75/087 dated September 1975. s' h .N -l 4 s aw= h. e p.c g ,g, 4 4 i
u.-- 262-1 362.0 . GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING m 362.1 Provide a summary.of the results of field density tests for 'sk (2. 5. 4. 5. 3) compaction and moisture control of structural fill beneath and i adjacent to Category I structures. 262.2 Question 1 and the resulting discussion on page 8.00-1 included in (2. 5. 4. 5.1) m--- Amendment Nu=b-r 9 to vour.PSAR stated that all natural sands with relative densities less than 75% would be ramoved beneath all class I structures and beneath non-Class I structures so sited that their failure could endanger the adjacent Class I structures. Discuss the methods employed in mapping and removing the sands havtag am less than 75% relative density. Provide plan and c2: tion 21 ficeres showing the areas where these caterials were rer.;v ad. Figure !?-2 of the PSAR which displays sub-surface profiles of Cicss i piping should be updated to show removal of sands of less than 75% relative s density and be presented in the ESAR. Figure 2.5-21 ef the FSAR shows loose sands beneath t're Class I tanks although they were to have been removed. Explain this inconsistency, and provide proper documentation of as-built conditions, i 362.3 Reference is =ade in section 2.5.4.10.2.3 to Table 2.5-14 for design (2. 5. 4.10. 2. 3) values of passive pressure. The table number is incorrect and should read Table 2.5-15.
=
I k h
s, 362-2 i _ = 1 362.4 Provide the results of all benchmark survey measurements taken \\ (2. 5. 4.13) during construction. Graphically, compare the measured results it to predicted settlements. Provide a commitment 2nd schedule to subnit the results of future survey settlement neasurements. 362.5 Provide gradation curves for the 12 inch thick crushed rock bedding (2.5.6.4.2) layer beneath the riprap. Discuss the adequacy of the bedding material with respect to the requirements of a filter. 362.6 Provide figures showing the f ailure surf aces that resulted in the (2. 5. 6. 5. 3) minimum computed factors of safety for all slope stability conditions studied. 362.7 Paragraph four of section 2.5.6.5.4 states that the outer slope of -r ( 2. 5. 6. 5. 4) cross-section I was used to simulate the plant area fill and a seismic coefficient of.12g was used. Hewevse,. Table 2.5-20 indicates that cross section G was used for this condition. E:cp12in o. and correct this inconsistency. 362.3 Provide a detail of a typical pio:ometer as installe'l in the (2.5.6.3) cooling pond dike. Also provide crosa sections showinz the decelepcant of the phreatic surface frca initial pie:cmetric head to full pond steady-state condition and a comparison to the phreatic surfsee assumed for the stability analysis of the steady-state condition. 't = ~ t e .,,--u,=.e. 5 * * < .l i
~~~
- \\~
s i \\ ( w s 3 's l ~ g,j g D((k CONSUMER 3 PC'n'ER COMPNPI 3 s* APPLICATIOH FOR g. REACTOR COETRUCTION PERMIT AND SPERATING LICENSE h x ~ DOCKET HO. 50-329 DOCKET NO. 50-330 A 3,s AMENDMENT NO. 30 g .:nclosed herevith, revising and supplementing the above'-entitled application, are revised pages for incorporation in the Final Safety 1 Analysis Report. The Final Safety Analysis Report was submitted with Amendment 33 to the above dockets on November 18, 1977 The enclosed material consists of the following:
- 1) A revised description of the Reactor Building Spray System showing the replacement of sodium hydroxide and sodium thiosulfate additives with hydrazine and disodium phosphate additives has been partially incorporated into the FSAR text, tables, and figures. Completion of thece revisicas vill be made in subsequent amendments.
- 2) Appendix TA has been added to provide a failure modes and effects analysis for the safety related portion of the Control Rod Drive Control System.
- 3) Additional infor=ation the FSAR stated would be submitted at this time.
' h) Changes in various ISAR sections resulting from routine design developments.
- 5) Reduction of the page size for selected "11 x 17" tables.
- 6) Correction of minor errors and,omiss ons.
- 7) Changes relating to the above (Tables of Contents, Figurcs, Tables, etc.).
? These new and revised pages bear the notation " Revision 13 8/78", and are marked in the cargin to indicate where changes have been made. Additional pages and figures have been added as reflected on the revised Midland Plant FSAR " List of Effective Pages". .y [s s 4 3 g Consurers Power Company Dated: August 29, 1978 .by /s/ Stephen H. Howell Stephen H. fiovell, Vice President Sworn and subscribed to before me on this 29th day of August,1978. (SEAL) /s/ Beverly A. Avery Notary Public, Jackson County, Michigan Mr commission expires March 14, 1981. f I r 4 o -Q (
Responsca to NRC Qusstions Midland 1&2 Question-362.2 (2.5.4.5.1) Question 1 and the resulting discussion on Page 8.00-1 included in Amendment Number 9 to your PSAR stated that all natural sands with relative densities less than 75% would be removed beneath all Class I structures and beneath non-Class 1 structures so sited that their failure could endanger the adjacent Class 1 structures. Discuss the methods employed in mapping and removing the sands having less than 75% relative density. Provide plan and sectional figures showing the areas where these materials were removed. Figure A9-2 of the PSAR which displays subsurface profiles of Class 1 piping should be updated to show removal of sands of less than 75% relative density and be presented in the FSAR. Figure 2.5-21 of the FSAR shows loose sands beneath the 8 Class 1 tanks although they were to have been removed. Explain this inconsistency, and provide proper documentation of as-built conditions. Responses Subsection 2.5.4.5.1 has been revised in response to this question. The request to provide plan and sec~ tional figures of areas where the loose sands were removed will be responded in more detail by amendment in October 1978. l 13 l I w e Revision 13 Q&R 2.5-3 8/78 l
f Rasponsde to NRC Questions Midland 1&2 estion 362.1 (2.5.4.5.3) rrovice a summary of the results of field density tests for compaction and moisture control of structural fill beneath and adjacent.to Category I structures. 8 f
Response
subsection 2.5.4.5.3.has been revised in response to this question. I v t i 5 s 4 + - .i / \\ ,i i 1 s t \\ + s 9 ', ,/- i
- l l
+.,. t 1 l-i Q&R'2.5 4 . Revision 8 7 ?p-4/78' D
- li u.
MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR 2.5.4.3.2 Exploration Programs (Q&R 362.2) The borings taken for this project are plotted in Figures 2.5-16, 2.5-17, 2.5-35, and 2.5-36 and also arranged by area in Table 2.5-8. Several preconstructid.n field exploration programs were undertaken between 1956 and 1969. The major part of the subsurface investigation for plant foundation, cooling pond dike, railroad bridge, and other related facilities at the plant site and borrow rource was done by Dames & Moore "3 during the period l 1968-1969, and by the Michigan Drilling Company "' during the I year 1968. Additional borings were made in 1956 by Michigan Drilling, and in 1967 by Dames and Moore, for Dow Chemical Company. Exploration programs were also performed during the plant construction period of 1969 to 1974 for various specific purposes. The borings designated by the letter "C" were performed a. by Walter Flood Company under the supervision of Bechtel in 1969 and 1970. ~ These were made in conjunction with the cooling pond dike construction operations. They were intended to identify sand pockets, determine the depth of the dike cutoff trench, and estimate the location and extent of the slurry trenches. b. A. series of borings designated by the letter "D" were performed by Canonie Construction Company under the supervision of Bechtel in 1970, along the originally planned route of Seismic Category-I buried piping, mainly to locate loose sand pockets for liquefaction evaluation. A series of borings designated by 'the letters DG, T, Q, CT, CL, DF, and TR was performed by Raymond International under the supervision of Bechtel in 1978 over the entire plant area to locate any loose 15 sand pockets after the plant construction. These are listed in Table 2.5-25. c. Two exploration programs supervised by Bechtel_were performed by Soil and Materials Engineers and Raymond Drilling Company in August 1973. These. borings are designated by hole numbers 800 and the 900 series. They were made to evaluate the possible changes due to frost action and flooding on the in-place ' foundation soils for plant excavation and the partially completed northeast dike that might have occurred during the construction shutdown period from May 1970 to August 1973.
- Also, several borings were drilled to inspect the completed foundation dike materials.
d. A series of' borings designat:d by the letter "M" were performed by Raymond International. Company under.the -2.5-1 Revision 15 11/78 i .I
MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR supervision of Bechtel in 1974 in the Mergard property area for borrou source investigation. ~ e. Other letter designated borings presented in Table 2.5-8 were made by Raymond International Company and supervised by Bechtel in 1974 for the foundation investigation of the makeup water pump structure, the { _ service water pump structure, the river intake i structure, and the cooling tower. { { Appendix 2A contains a tabulation of the bore hole information, l which includes depth of boring, ground surface elevation, purpose of boring, type of drilling, and number and type of samples taken. The borings have been arranged numerically according to three major groupings: Bechtel supervised borings, Dames & Moore borings, and Michigan Drilling Company borings. The boring logs are given in Appendix 2A following the tabulation. 1 s i i t 2.5-2 Revision 15 11/78 l
~ MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR TABLE 2.5-25 PENETRATION RESISTANCE OF NATURAL SAND IN PLANT AREA Boring Elevation Blowcount Material Number (ft) (blow /ft) Tyoe I. Borings made in 1970 during construction D-1 595 30 SM 590 85 SM 589 95 SM 586 100 SM D-2 594 100 SP 590 100 SP 586 100 SP D-4 600 ~ 22 SP 595 64 SP 590 100 SP I 588 98 SP D-9 595 78 SP 590 61 SP 585 80 SP D-10 '597 39 - SP 591 72 SP 587 100 SP 582 76 SP D-11 597 92 SP 592 91 SP 587 100s SP D-12 597 34 SP 592 90 SP 587 84 SP 587 100 SP D-13 600 39 SP 595 41-SP 590 84 SP 585 86 SP 580 91 SM D-14 600 29 SP 595 56 SP 590 83 SP ~ l 585 84 SP 1 QER 362.2 (sheet 1) Revision-15 11/78 r n v w - - - < - - + - -
1 \\ MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR 1 TABLE 2.5-25 (continued) Boring Elevation Blowcount Material .. Number (ft) (blow /ft) Type D-15 600 25 SP 595 77 SP 590 98 SP 585 70 SP D-16 597 49 SP 592 53 SP 590 85 SP 586 60 SP D-17 595 30 SP' 590 47 SP 585 57 SP 580 90 SP D-22 599 15 SP 594 64 SP 590 89 SP 15 588 87 SP 585 100 SP 583 100 SP D-24 594 80 SP D-31 600 40 SP 595 48 SP D-32 600 40 SP 582 69 SP 580 100 SP s D-33 595 42 SP 590 72 SP D-41 600 18 SP 595 26 SP D-42 600 78 SP 595 71 SP 590 21 SP 585 100 SP 580 100 SP D-45 601 18 SP 596 41 SP 595 100 SP 591 23 SP QER 362.2 (sheet 2 ) Revision 15 11/78 O .-----y
MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR TABLE 2.5-25 (continued) = Boring Elevation Blowcount Material Number (ft) (blow /ft) Tvoe D-47 600 41 SP 595 74 SP 593 68 SP 590 77 SP 587 90 SP D-48 595 5 SP 590 29 SM 585 100 SM 580 100 SM 575 63 SM D-48A 603 20 SP 599 57 SP 596 76 SP 594 91 SP 591 89 SP D-49 600 39 SP 15 595 78 SP 593 57 SP 590 78 SP l 587 100 SP D-51 601 22 SP 596 54 SP 595 82 SM 592 29 SP D-52 600 18 SP 596 33 ' SP 589 83 SM D-53 600 33 SP 595 73 SP 592-89 SP 590 83 SP 587 79 SP D-56 602 26 SP 600 78 SP 597 93 SP 594 86 SP 591 81 SP Q&R 362.2 (sheet 3) Revision 15 11/78 i- _..... _. _ _. _. ---.w -6..._
MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR TABLE 2.5-25 (continued) Boring Elevation Blowcount Material Number (ft) (blow /ft) Tvpe D-57 602 22 SP 600 54 SP 597 83 SP 594 86 SP 591 81 SP D-58 602 16 SP 600 27 SP 597 85 SP 595 81 SP 591 86 SP 590 80 SP D-59 602 16 SP 600 37 SP 597 86 SP 595 90 SP 592 87 SP 590 85 SP D-60 601 37 SP 599 91 SP 596 92 SP 593 89 SP 591 84 SP 1-MICH 607 9 SP 604 18 SP 602 6 SP II. Borings made in 1978 after, plant area fill DG-1 606 93 SM 604 91 SM 4 602 150 SP 598 100 SP 593 100 SP 588 100 SP 583 100 SP DG-2 605 40 SP 604 100 SP 599 100 SP 594 100 SP 589 100 SP 584 100 SP I s QSR 362.2 (sheet 4) Revision 15 11/78
MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR TABLE 2.5-25 (continued) Boring Elevation Blowcount Material Number (ft) (blow /ft) Type DG-3 601 100 SP 599 100 SP 593 100 SP 588 100 SP 583 100 SP DG-5 605 57 SP 604 55 SP 598 100 SP 593 100 SP 588 100 SP DG-7 604 17 SP-SW 603 25 SP-SW 601 17 SP-SW 600 10 SP-SW 599 15 SP-SW DG-8 606 57 SP 604 50 SP 15 599 26 SP 596 34 SP DG-9 603 21 SP 599 24 SP DG-11 606 68 SP 604 57 SP 599 72 SP DG-12 599 69 ' SP 594 .100 SP 589 100 SP DG-13 604 39 SP 601 44 SP 599 31 SP 594 51 SP DG-14 606 100 SP 603 100 SP 598 74 SP DG-15 606 66 SP 602 100 SP 59,7 66 SP l QSR 362.2 l' (sheet 5) Revision 15 11/78
2 MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR TABLE 2.5-25 (continued) .l llowcount Boring Elevation B Material Number (ft) (blow /ft) Tvoe DG-16 606 37 SP 603 68 SP 598 100 SP DG-17 603 35 SP 602 77 SP 599 52 SP DG-19 602 59 SP 597 100 SP DG-20 600 34 SP 597 100 SP DG-21 603 78 SP 597 104 SP DG-23 604 85 SP 599 57 SP 594 33 SP 15 589 100 SP DG-25 603 76 SP 600 154 SP DG-27 600 41 SM DG-28 601 9 SP 599 37 SP 596 89 SP s DG-29 602 26 SP 592 70 SP T-1 602 61 SP 596 100 SP 591 100 SP 587 100 SP 581 100 SP T-2 601 80 SM T-4 593 65 SP 588 100 SP 583 76 SP i OCR 362.2' (uheet 6) Revision 15 11/78 e-
MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR TABLE 2.5-25 (continued) Boring Elevation Blowcount Material Number (ft) (blow /ft) Type T-8 595 100 SP 590 100 SP T-9 601 66 SP-SM T-10 586 100 SP 582 100 SP 577 100 SP 572 100 SP T-12 599 138 SP 597 131 SP T-13 593 140 SP 588 100 SP T-14 599 197 SP 595 103 SP 589 100 SP T-16 597 165 SM 15 593 183 SM 588 100 SM T-18 598 171 SP, GP i CT-1 603 11 SP 600 24 SP 4 598 29 SP 593 40 SP 588 49 SP s CT-5 603 140 SP \\ DF-2 600 59 SP 595 59 SP TR-7 599 155 SP C-1 613 68 SP 608 33 SP Q-1 595 15E SP Q-2 601 32 SP 596 '102 SP 591 54 SP Q&R 362.2 (sheet 7) Revision 15 ~ 11/78 -l
MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR TABLE 2.5-25 (continued) Boring Elevation Blowcount Material Number (ft) (blow /ft) Tvoe Q-3 595 100 SP Q-8 595 105 SP 590 108 SP 585 95 SP 576 100 SP RW-3 590 100 SP-SM W-1 599 100 SP 594 100 SP W-3 597 54 SP 594 56 SP 15 589 100 SP CL-1 598 100 SP CL-2 602 81 SP CL-3 ~597 76 SP LN 583 100 SP 581 100 SP 579 100 SP HT 582 111 SM E 600 88 SP 597 81 SP s D 604 107 SM 601 113 SM 598 102 SM t QER 362,2 (sheet 8) Revision 15 11/78 e ,-n-- g .a w --n
I I DN OP GN U OO C ER iu R s 3 e& T n cn wi s EE R K R h f (s AU w hT T 4T v 0 - e A 9C / m L U 1 RR U N f t IET s e G C S eA e .e f ./. U Cw O O C = N .e [" a E e.- e L e = n e U 5 IG a
- F N
D D*TN RS O OK W, T Td Ae N ..I:: AA EA
- (
euD o ' RT s l
- ( C c C "'
ME RL EE TR Ou g NG AA 4 0.f L s. " EA H EK GR C RN e M S O 1 m TA LT 5' 3, G 4 u 3. g e ES RT E EL e a T I e DC A T s w N E l R l. d O ( AC- + 2e u T g p LA T T A ER stN MT S SG$ U N ' EE iAK e O II M$ t. ?,. C ., = **. D E G LOA T T M I D d J :..*.,,'s e 4 D G L B ee( y. U L e. s. ES A e..r 3 Y S w e-L.., f*s, e e e R e, I E a A .,-_ ~ ' ng N I S i L I - y e _ e ~ X R U U 'a A T g \\ 1# <g 1 N J 8
- s
- , A K
g e. I e e eA .e e s T m _W t N e sT 4 Q,-e O e C M O l. e L Q.- l u ,s lE .T I.- x S 0 A w ~ D 4 A e. s 9 D d fE ACG ls 8 s tve 8 b e, unD EEL dss L A B o 0 O 0 o, 2 s s s s ~'
k e*' O F k N/h Deumarsas -WATER TRE ATedENT TANN AREA OOUNG TOWER 4 % g m g peg g pg
- p. -.,, 'M
+ sow s.anoi pm g a new smes cm, e% pm a pm 7
- ] ~ *
.h,~ s e . saws,m a aeuw.h==ner.im 4 o rl rs, r +,, auxiuART suiLOiNa en + L Ih. OsAssi 5.nnes, aupst memqh Ostub.r, 54 .nnw m ennen..h.e. Se newN e e Q g ctals em r.latv. density Isss ensa De h v.han 9 e %s (' n am '\\ __,A* f t as s.rinsierosi.s pri., e am n sh-n a UNeit kakses sw imanme em sud rods ees CONTAsedENT isarsann wnaFe s u e j 4* / 4-== y ej.i$g., TuRenE suuses d e r- ^\\ CRM I l FBI (" mR E ,,..,.t. era J'" ~~ .O,l G. 3 l0 TM a a.*.*.,*. *.". ; r .s_. s
- -"* p= pg,.
p.* -= csca.Am e *# =. V "** wArER nTut .+- N pm , *I[.- "w.Y P 4 gg , g,#* STRIATURL g, -,,,, gg y 'g y( a ,.g, mmTE STORAGE ,.'C. Tare (5 -.. -.. .c: "...jik.. /' DESEL GENERATOR M CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 I I I 'TN / FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT All Plant Area Boring Locations to Determine the Removal of Natural Sands with Relative Density Less than 75% FSAR Figure 2.5-40A 11/78 Revision 15
7A{ %) Roeponses to NRC Qantions Midland 1&2 j Question 362.2 (2.5.4.5.1) Question 1 and the resulting discussion on Page 8.00-1 included in Amendment Number 9 to your PSAR stated that all natural sands l with relative densities less than 75% would be removed beneath all Class I structures and beneath non-Class 1 structures so sited that their failure could endanger the adjacent class 1 i structures. Discuss the methods employed in mapping and removing the sands having less than 75% relative density. Provide plan j and sectional figures showing the areas where these materials l were removed. Figure A9-2 of the PSAR which displays subsurface j profiles of Class 1 piping should be updated to show removal of sands of less than 75% relative density and be presented in the t FSAR. Figure 2.5-21 of the FSAR shows loose sands beneath the i Class 1 tanks although they were to have been removed. Explain this inconsistency, and provide proper documentation of as-built conditions. Responses ~ ---- Numerous borings were made 'in August and September 1978 to determine that all natural' sands with relative densities less than 75% have been removed beneath all Class I structures, piping, and non-Class I structures so that their failure could i endanger the adjacent C1' ass I structures. These boring locations are shown'in Figure 2.5-40A. Up to a 35 foot thick compacted fill has been placed in the plant area to achieve a final plant grade elevation of 634 feet. 1 Split spoon samples were obtained for the natural sands i encountered using a standard split spoon sampler. This' procedure utilized a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a l 1-3/8 inch inside diameter split spoon sampler (ASTM D 1586). 15 Blows required to advance the sampler through each 6 inch increment were recorded. The atandard penetration test blowcount s j is the number of blows corresponding to the last foot of sampler i penetration. Standard penetration test blowcounts are presented on these boring logs. Standard penatration test blowcounts are presented on these boring logs. A tabulation of the blowcounts associated with the natural sands is shown in Table 2.5-25. These logs and updated soil cross-sections will be presented in a i later amendment. The blowcount obtained from the standard penetratiion test can be used as a measure of the relative density of sand in situ as described by Gibbs and Holts. Dasad on such a relationship, a standard penetration test with the range of 20 to 25 blows would be required to obtain the 75% relative density (see l FSAR Figure 2.5-42). By examining all the borings, most blowcounts of the natural sands are greatly in excess of required I 362.2-1 Revision 15 11/78 i
-. \\ Rasponsas to NRC Qcstiona Midland 1&2 blowcount range of 20 to 25 blows witb the exception of the few N sand lenses encountered in the following borings. Blowcount Boring Number Elevation (blows /ft) DG-7 604 17 DC-7 601 17 DG-7 600 10 DG-7 599 15 DG-28 601 ,9 CT-1 603 11 15 It is seen that the existing natural sands are dense with a relative density much greater than 75%. The sand lenses with the relatively low blowcounts encountered in the borings DG-7, DG-9, DG-28, and CT-1 are isolated and will not endanger the integrity of plant structures. ~ ~ ~ H.J. Gibbs and W.G. Holtz, "Research on Determining the Density of Sands by Spoo'n Penetration Testing," Proceedings-Fourth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol I (1957), London, England, pp 35-39 '~ 1 s i t i i l l 1 362.2-2 Revision 15 11/78 l ~~ + - - ,e m-~, ,,,,-v --w, , - - + .-~a,- r e--
Racpon2s3 to NRC Qucationn Midland.1&2 I Question 362.10 (2.5.4) = The SER on the PSAR stated that continued surveillance for subsidence should be maintained throughout the life of the plant. ) Provide in Substetion 2.5.4.13 of the FSAR a discussion on the scope and details of the subsidence monitoring program. Include a commitment to monitor subsidence throughout the life of the plant, and indicate the proposed survey frequency. Submit all subsidence data measured since installation of the benchmarks.
Response
1 Subsection 2.5.4.13.3 discussed the Midland subsidence surveillance monitoring program.. A discussion on the effects of salt mining operations in the plant vicinity is presented in Subsection 2.5.1.2.5.4.1. Included is reference to the subsidence monitoring program initiated to determine any ground movement caused by the removal of salt. First order surveys of the 24 monitoring points that make up the system will be made at least annually for the operational life of the plant to detect any subsidence in the area. The results and analysis of these surveys will be presented in future amendments when they.become available. s i t t Q&R 2.5-1 Revision 15 i 11/78 C
= _. ~ _- Responsas to NRC Qastions Midland 1&2 Question 362.2 (2.5.4.5.1) = Question 1 and the resulting discussion on Page 8.00-1 included in Amendment Number 9 to your PSAR stated that all natural sands with relative densities less than 75% would be removed beneath all Class I structures and beneath non-Class 1 structures so sited that their failure could endanger the adjacent Class 1 structures. Discuss the methods employed in mapping and removing the sands having less than 75% relative density. Provide plan and sectional figures showing the areas where these materials were removed. Figure A9-2 of the PSAR which displays subsurface profiles of-Class 1 piping should be updated to show removal of sands of less than 75% relative density and be presented in the 1 FSAR. Figure 2.5-21 of the FSAR shows loose sands beneath the Class 1 tanks although they were to have been removed. Explain i this' inconsistency, and provide proper documentation of as-built conditions. Responses Numerous borings were made in August and September 1978 to determine that all natural sands with relative densities less than 75% have been removed beneath all class I structures, piping, and non-Class I structures so that their failure could i endanger the adjacent Class I structures. These boring locations i /" are shown in Figure 2.5-40A. Up to a 35 foot thick compacted ) fill has been placed in the plant area to achieve.a final plant grade elevation of 634 feet. Split spoon samples were obtained for the natural sands i encountered using a standard split spoon sampler. This procedure utilized a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 1-3/8 inch inside diameter split spoon sampler (ASTM D 1586). 15 Blows required to advance the sampler through each 6 inch increment were recorded. The standard penetration test blowcount j is ~ the number of blows corresponding to the last foot of sampler penetration. Standard penetration test blowcounts are presented on these boring logs. Standard penetration test blowcounts are presented on these boring logs. A tabulation of the blowcounts L associated with the natural sands is shown in Table 2.5-25. These logs and updated soil cross-sections will be presented in a l later amendment. l The blowcount obtained from the standard penetration test can be used as a measure of the relative density of sand in situ as r i described by Gibbs and Holts. Based on such a relationship, a standard penetration test with the range of 20 to 25 blows would be required to obtain the 75% relative density (see FSAR Figure 2.5-42). By~ examining all_the borings, most blowcounts of the natural sands are greatly ~in excess of required f I 362.2-1 Revision 15 11/78 U*. _ v /* g I t I b f ~,, -
R:sponsas to NRC Qastions Midland 1&2 blowcount range of 20 to 25 blows with the exception of the few q sand lenses encountered in the following borings. Blowcount Boring Number Elevation (blows /ft) DG-7 604 17 DG-7 601 17 DG-7 600 10 DG-7 599 15 DG-28 601 9 -CT-1 603 11 15 It is seen that the existing natural sands are dense with a relative density much greater than 75%. The sand lenses with the relatively low blowcounts encountered in the borings DG-7, DG-9, DG-28, and CT-1 are isolated and will not endanger the integrity of plant structures. H.J. Gibbs and W.G. Holtz, "Research on Determining the Density of Sands by Spoon Penetration Testing," Proceedings-Fourth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol I (1957), London, England, pp 35-39 s Q 362.2-2 Revision 15 11/78 J
au=Punnea to NRC gu;sticns ,[. Midland 1&2 ,e Question 362.2 (2.5.4.5.1) ~ Question 1 and the resulting discussion on Page 8.00-1 included in Amendment Number 9 to your PSAR stated that all natural sands with relative densities less than 75% would be removed beneath all Class I structures and beneath non-Class 1 structures so sited that their failure could endanger the adjacent Class 1 structures. Discuss the methods employed in mapping and removing the sands having less than 75% relative density. Provide plan and sectional figures showing the areas where these materials were removed. Figure A9-2 of the PSAR which displays subsurface profiles of Class 1 piping should be updated to show removal of sands of less than 75% relhtive density and be presented in the FSAR. Figure 2.5-21 of the FSAR shows loose sands beneath the 8 );. Class l' tanks although they were to have been removed. . Explain this inconsistency, and provide proper documentation of as-built conditions. Responses Subsection 2.5.4.5.1 has been revised in respo,nse to this question. The request to provide. plan and sectional figures of areas where the loose sands were removed will be responded in more detail by amendment in October 1978. l 13 9 k D e a f (g> Revision 13 Q&R 2.5-3 8/78 e
r' /.~ i . Ta JLCsel 1 [ s / Fm BHPec MW F CGnsumers h-04rc S*Ptember 26, 1978 POW 0r susscer MIDLAND PROJECT CWO 7020 - NRC QUESTION #362.2 REMOVAL OF LOOSE NATURAL SANDS File: 0505.2 Serial: 3448 ll",ll Q cc DBMiller CSKeiley The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of the results of Bechtel and CPCO-PMO efforts to answer the NRC licensing question relating to whether a nat-ural sand layer near elevation 600' was removed during construction or if the
- ~
sand tested out to be graater than 75% relative density. A copy of this q'uestion is attached. A search of the records to date has not yielded any verification the sands were ever removed. Also, a search of the test. records indicates that no tests were j performed to confirm the in place density of the natural sands. The current l boring program for the Diesel Generator Building problem will also be used as a data base for confirming the in place condition of the natural sand. We will keep you informed as the situation develops. I i \\ CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 0101BV EJ SEP261978 J FIEl.D QUALITY ASSURANCE glotAND, MICHtGAN y e*Neg i 9 ( e w---
MIDLAND 162-FSAR 2.5.4.2.5 Specific Gravity a i specific gravity of solids was determined in accordance with (;g ASTM D 854-58 in conjunction with consolidated-drained triaxial tests for cooling pond foundation and embankment soil samples. Results are presented in Table 2.5-3. ] 2.5.4.2.6 Compaction Compaction tests were performed to develop criteria for placement of fill underneath and around structures, and for embankments. Two-compaction methods were used. These are the ASTM D 1557-66T 2 method and the ASTM D 1557-66T method modified to achieve a d, compaction energy of 20,000 foot-pounds per cubic foot of soil. Compaction tests were performed cn bulk samples retrieved from the borrow source. Results ate presented in Appendix 2B, Section 2B.3. 4 ] 2.5.4.2.7 Relative Density Relative density tests were performed on bulk samples of granular soils. These were made in accordance with ASTM D 2049-64T. Results are presented in Appendix 2B', Section 2B.4. 2.5.4.2.8 Permeability Constant head permeability tests were conducted in the manner r described in Appendix 2B, Section 2B.5 on undisturbed samples from the cooling pond foundation soils and on compacted samples from embankment borrow material. Most compacted samples were l prepared at optimum moisture content and compacted to 95% of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557-66T modified to achieve 20,000 foot-pounds of compactive energy per cubic foot of t soil or 70% relative density as determined by ASTM D 2049-64T. Three samples were compacted to 955, 935, and 100% of maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D 1557-66T. The permeability data are presented in Appendix 2B, Section 2B.5, and summarized in Table 2.5-4. j 2.5.4.249 Consolidation f Thirteen consolidation tests were performed by the dead load-pneumatic consolidometer developed by Dames & Moore. The test procedure is described in Appendix 2B, Section 2B.6. Samples were loaded (at the field moisture content) with a pressure equal to or greater than the existing overburden and were rebounded prior to performing standard consolidation tests. The standard test was then made under submerged conditions. An additional test was performed on a compacted specimen prepared i from a bulk sample from the cooling pond area. The data are g' .r 2.5-42 ( l . ~ -.
MIDLAND 162-FSAR e / = 2.5.4.5 Excavation and Backfill 2.5.4.5.1 Excavation Plan and Sections The plant area excavation plan and sections are presented in i I Figures 2.5-37 and 2.5-38. The excavation extended through the sandy surface soils into relatively impervious clay soils. Slopes were no steeper than 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. The maximum depth of excavation was approximately 40 feet (to elevation 561.5) at the auxiliary building location. The safety of the slope geometry was verified by stability analysis and is discussed in subsection 2.5.5. l A lean concrete blending mat was used to prevent disturbance of the soil structure during construction. The working mat i thickness was no less than 6 inches for the two containments and auxiliary buildings and other structures as needed for workable conditions. 2.5.4.5.2 Dewatering Dewatering during construction is discussed in Subsection 2.5.4.6.2. j 2.5.4.5.3 Fill f Up to 35 foot thick compacted fill was required to attain final l plant grade elevation 634. Fill was also required to achieve uhe foundation elevation for portions of the auxiliary and turbine buildings. The compaction criteria of the plant area fill for various functions are presented in Table 2.5-9. Select sand backfill adjacent to structures was also required and placed i according to Table 2.5-9 around all structures. Onsite excasate3 soils meeting gradations as shown in Tr51e 2.5-10 were used for l fill material. N -- -#" L j _ All fill and 6ackfill were elaced according to Table 2.5-9i) The uncompacted lift thickness was not more tnan 12 inches. Sheepsfoot rollers and vibratory compaction equipment were used to meet the minimum compaction criteria as shown in Table 2.5-9. In areas not accessible to heavy compaction equipment the material was placed in 4 inch layers and compacted to the l required density by mechanical hand tampers. One hundred and sixty-eight proctor tests have been performed on various fill source materials to establish moisture-density relationship curves and used to deteredne the percent of compaction for in-place fill. Figure 2.5-39 shows representetive moisture-density relationship curves obtained by the ASTM D 1557-66T method, modified to achieve 20,000 foot-pounds of compactive energy per cubic foot of soil. Frequency of 2.5-51 I4 [$Sr<-<J7, 0 Esk/L -.-.,__-..,--.-_.m.. ______..-_..,_...__..y
MIDLAND 162-FSAR r, TABLE 2.5-9 MINIMUM' COMPACTION CEITERIA Compaction Criteria Zone (*3 Soil Function Designation Type _ Degree ASTM Designation Adjacent to Structural Sand 80% ASTM D 2049 structur_ep--backfi-11 s%g> ASTM D 1557-55T$ Support of Clay 95% (modified)<as structures Plant area 1 or 1A Clay 95% fill 2 Clay or sand 95% 3 Sand 95% Cooling 1 or 1A Clay 95% pond embank-2 Clay or sand 95% ment 3 Sand 95% (13For zone designation see Table 2.5-10 ( c a)The method was modified to get 20,000 foot-pounds of compactive energy per cubic foot of soil. I l 9 e r
MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR { { = 2.5.4.5 Excavation and Backfill 2.5.4.5.1 Excavation Plan and Sections The plant area excavation plan and sections are presented in Figures 2.5-37 and 2.5-38. The excavation extended through the sandy surface soils into relatively impervious clay soils. Slopes were no steeper than 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. Engineering design drawings required that loose sands be removed as part of the work scope to be performed in the earthwork subcontract. These loose sands were identified by shallow depth l borings made before and during construction operations. j 8 Figure 2.5-21 was prepared to show the original soil profile, including the loose sands, and is based on these shallow depth j borings. This figure represents the condition before cons truction. The request to provide plan figures of areas where the loose sands were removed will be responded to in more detail by August 1978. The maximum depth of excavation was approximately 40 feet (to elevation 561.5) at the auxiliary building location. The safety of the slope geometry was verified by stability analysis and is discussed in Subsection 2.5.5. ~. A lean concrete mud mat was used to prevent disturbance of the 5 I soil structure during construction. The mud mat thickness was no less than 6 inches for the two containments and auxiliary buildings and other structures as needed for workable conditions. 2.5.4.5.2 Dewatering Dowatering during construction is discussed in Subsection 2.5.4.6.2. 2.5.4.5.3 Fill Up to 35 foot thick compacted fill was required to attain final plant grade elevation 634. Fill was also required to achieve the foundation elevation for portions of the auxiliary and turbine buildings. The compaction critoria for fill in different areas are presented in Table 2.5-9. Onsite excavated soils meeting gradations as shown in Table 2.5-10 were used for fill material. Select sand backfill adjacent to all safety-related structures was also required and placed according to Table 2.5-9 around all 1 structures. \\__ (# All fill and backfill were placed with an uncompacted lift thickness of not more than 12 inches. Sheepsfoot rollers and xevision P 2.5-51 / C
MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR = vibratory compaction equipment were used to meet the minimum l1 compaction criteria as shown in Table 2.5-9. In areas not / accessible to heavy compaction equipment the material was placed in 4 inch layers and compacted to the required density by mechanical hand tampers. One hundred and sixty-eight proctor tests have been performed on various fill source materials to establish moisture-density J relaticnship curves and used to determine the percent of 1 compaction for in-place fill. Figure 2.5-39 shows representative moisture-density relationship curves obtained by the ASTM D 1557-66T method, modified to achieve 20,000 foot-pounds of campactive energy per cubic foot of soil. Frequency of laboratory and field testing for control of materials is shown in Table 2.5-11; additional testing was done when required by field 3 engineering. The numbers of field in-place density control tests taken in structural and plant areas are sammarized in Table 2.5-12. Figures 2.5-66 through 2.5-69 show summaries of field density tests for compaction and moisture contents of fill placed beneath 8 and around Seismic Category I structures. The quality assurance program during construction was performed 'n accordance with Chapter 17. Quality control was a daily program that checked both field and laboratory work. The program was approved by a quality control engineer before any work was accepted; any deviation from specifications required a nonconformance report which had to be satisfied before that portion of the work could proceed or be accepted. /e ,s ~Test fills were constructed to evaluate compaction equipment to be used on the site. Given below are the results of this investigation. Three types of compaction equipment were used to compact a 1 foot lif t of similar Zone 1 material on the three pads. They consisted of the following units: 1. Bros roller, having four pneumatic rubber tires on one axle, which has been loaded to a gross weight of 50 tons, pulled by a Terex 8240 dozer 16--* 2. A smooth steel drum vibratory roller, P.aygo Rumbler, pulled by a Michigan 280 tractor with the following specifications: l gross weight 20,000 pounds drum diameter 60 inches drum length 100 inches dynamic vibration force 45,000 pounds vibration frequency 1,100 to 1,500 vpm -s Revision 8 "/78 2.5-52 ? l
i MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR = 3. A CF43 Vibroplus Sheepsfoot roller, pulled by a Michigan 280 tractor with the following specifications: static weight 12,000 poupds centrifugal force 11.5 tons F total applied load at 35,000 pounds 1,600 vpm vibration frequency 1,400-1,600 vpm diameter of drum 63 inches length of drum 75 inches I \\ l l l l-Revision 8 2.5-52a 4/78 r
\\ g g w ... u7.. o .v -i.>hk ^ ~ A. Each roller made four passes over its respective test pad. All =s the mdt'erial placed in the test pads corresponds to the same i compaction curve with optimum moisture content being 10.3% and the maximum dry density being 124.7 lb/ft3 The ASTM D 1557-66 T compaction method modified to achieve a compaction energy of 20,000 foot-pounds per cubic foot of soil was used. The results of the tests are tabulated below: U. Dq Test Moisture Density Passing Type Pad (lb/f ts) compaction
- 200 Sieve Roller 1
10.9 110.2 88.4 50 ton rubber tire s 1 17.9 112.6 90.2 64 50 ton rubber tire 1 12.0 111.4 89.3 50 ton rubber tire 2 O.0~ 117.3 94.1 ' vibratory steel drum 2 12.8 121.2 97.2 60 vibratory steel drum 2 9.7 123.3 98.9 vibratory steel drum 3 8.0 117.5 94.2 vibratory sheepsfoot 3 12.4 123.8 99.3 58 vibratory sheepsfoot 3 9.8 128.5 103.0 vibratory sheepsfoot t Acc9rding to these results, both substitute rollers achieved higher soil densities than the 50, ton roller. JBoth substitute rollers were acceoted for comnacti'On of Zone 1, 1A. and ? smaterial. Tne four passes woro voquired for nach substitute } roller. ( 2.5.4.6 Groundwater conditiony 2.5.4.6.1 Effects on Stability of Facilities The, groundwater effects on the structural design of the plant facilities are discussed in Su'bsection 2.4.13. All plant structures, systems, and components are designed to withstand 1 hydrostatic loading resulting from the site probable maximum flood of elevation 631. This level is greater than any potential groundwater level in the site area. 2.5.4.6.2 Dewatering During construction No permanent dewatering syskem was required during the foundation l excavation and subsequent construction of the plant facilities. Only minor quantities of groundwater entered the excavations. occasional ponding of water occurred from precipitation and surface runoff. This situation was relieved either by direct 1 removal of water by small pumps or by diverting the water, by means of surface ditches, to nearby cumps. %w Revision 1 2.5-53 11/7.7.. 1 W e
MIDLAND 162-FSAR relationship between field values of cyclic stress ratio and standard penetration test data. It is seen that both analyses t indicated that, for an SSE of 0.12g, there is no liquefiable soil l at the Midland power plant. Furthermore, placing up to 35 feet of fill on the plant area should further decrease the potential for liquefaction because of the additional confinement provided l by the fill. 2.5.4.9 Earthquake Design Basis The maximum earthquake for the tectonic province in which the site is located is intensity VI. The SSE, as described in Subsection 2.5.2.6, is based on a local event of epicentral intensity VI on the Modified Mercalli (MM) Scale. A number of relationships between MM intensity and epicentral acceleration (ss se,s?) show this intensity to be associated with a peak acceleration of approximately 0.06g. Consequently, 0.10g would be suitable for the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) for the site. However, for additional conservatism, an acceleration of 0.12g was used for design purposes. As described in Subsection 2.5.2.7, the operating basis earthquake (OBE) is one-half that of l the SSE, or 0.06g. Design response spectra for the OBE and SSE i are presented in Section 3.7. i l 2.5.4.10 Static Stability This section deals with the static stability of all safety-related facilities. The containments and certain portions of the auxiliary building are founded on the layer of very stiff to hard cohesive soils. i other portions of the auxiliary building are founded at various elevations. The original ground surface elevation in this area was between elevations 605 and 612. The surface soils encountered in this area were sand pockets of varying thickness 1 I overlying very stiff to hard cohesive soils. The sandy soils were removed and foundation grade attained, if necessary, by the i placement of compacted fill. All in situ sands, soft or compressible clay soils, and organic soil were excavated in the turbine building area. The turbine building and turbine generators are supported on mat foundations on controlled compacted fill. The remaining plant facilities, building, yard
==twJiE==gwaste_ building,_anCb_ orated _ water _dations -are tanks, sol.td storage tanks ...orhoompacted filldpuilding foun pIreerH ~~ T 3-1/2, feet;below.,the, plant., grade to mitifate pbt~e'nTQ. rost.1 pen'etfatl,Ke f f actsp ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' 2.5-61 d ., ~,. _. _,.. -.,. _,,. -. _, - - _, - _ - -,, , - -. - -..,,,,,. - - ~. _.. - - -. _. _.. -..,. _. - _, _. -.,.. - -.. - _ - -.,
' ?i'- i. f.*., 5l.; _ ~ 7 Q] l l U' ~_,.VQ R }_
- L
- ~ :;" L -? ?.. ) ~, 4. ; _ ' % '
MIDLAND 1G2-FSAR 2.5.4.10.1 Bearing capacity To adequately design the foundations against shear failure of the supporting soil, it is necessary to determine the ultimate Be&rTng_capacTtres,~as'whown,rin ~ h bearing capacity of.J.he,,, soil.wer4*deGrmined -by DamasiG%oretfo'r ~ ,I TabI p t3 ~A L 5_1.4m ~ t I:.both mat. foundations'and-spread ~ footing The plant facilities I were-estab1'i5hef~iHhTPon mat-ar-ge'a foundations. Table l 2.5-14 shows the contact stress beneath footings subject te 'a=^4nca the f-ound=*4en i static and static plus dynam4r elevation ', a N 3 cf-supporting M for various p a - Foundations placed at elevation 580 and below were struc res. ded on the in situ stiff..cla (layer.
- structures foundationr a elevAM ana? 4nLabovahwere--supported
~ ~ N "N'
- compactieUfi
_p
- ir noted that +ba ** tic: teLwsen tne calculated ultimate net bearing capacity versus the maximum contact stress beneath footings shown in Table 2.5-14 for varicus plant facilities are greater than three for the combination of dead and live loads and greater than two for the combination of dead, live, and seismic loads.
A factor of safety of three is used for maximum loads normally expected to act upon the foundation and a factor of safety of not less than two is used for the maximum loads ever to be expected. 2.5.4.10.2 Lateral Earth Pressures The walls of structures below grade, elevation 634, are subjected to horizontal earth pressures imposed by backtill materials, hydrostatic pressures, and lateral pressures from adjacent structured loads. The earth pressure depends on the soil strength, groundwater conditions, the method used in placing the backfill, the degree of compaction of the backfill, and the amount of wall movement. The principal earth pressure conditione are categorized as the active earth pressure, the at-rest earth s pressure, the passive earth pressure, and dynamic earth pressures. The earth pressures resulting from any of these conditions are calculated by appropriate earth pressure theory. The equivalent fluid weight concept is used to express earth pressures. Equivalent fluid weights for all conditions are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. 2.5.4.10.2.1 Active Earth Pressure A nonrigid retaining wall, which is free to move laterally at the top, causes the active earth pressure condition to develop. Most of the unrestrained nonrigid retaining walls and sheet pile walls can move sufficiently to permit the development of the active earth pressure condition. 2.5-62 e
~ MIDLAND 162-FSAR Table 2.5-15 shows equivalent fluid weights used in design for the active case (nonrigid walls) as conservatively derived by 7 Dames & Moore for sara and clay above and below the water table. 2.5.4.10.2.2 At-Rest Earth Pressure Rigid walls and walls sufficiently restrained can cause at-rest soil pressures to develop. At-rest pressures are those pressures developing at a point in the ground not subject to any lateral movement. For in situ clean sands, the theoretical at-rest earth pressure coefficient k varies from about 0.35 for dense sands to about 0.5 for loose sands. However, backfilling and compaction processes may cause the lateral earth pressure to increase the above theoretical at-rest value. Table 2.5-15 shows equivalent fluid weights used in design for at-rest case (rigid walls) as derived by Dames & Moore for sand and clay above and below the groundwater table. For sandy soils, the results are based on k of 0.5. 2.5.4.10.2.3 Passive Earth Pressure When a wall is pushed into the backfill, the horizontal stresses in the soil will increase until the shear strength of the soil is fully mobilized. The horizontal stress developed under this condition is known as the passive earth pressure. However, the movement necessary to develop full passive pressure is quite large. This movement is on the order of 5% of the height of the wall. Because movements of this magnitude cannot normally be tolerated, a factor of safety of two is usually applied to the total passive pressure. Design values for passive pressure are included in Table 245-14. 2.5.4.10.2.4 Dynamic Earth Pressure During earthquakes, active and at-rest pressures will increase, while, under worst conditions, the passive pressure will reduce. The simplified design procedures for dynamic soil loads are based on the Mononobe-okabe analysis of dynamic pressure in dry cohesionless materials. See seed and Whitman.cta) Based on the Mononobe-Okabe approach, dynamic lateral pressures were estimated for sand backfill. These pressures, along with l j the method used to combine them with active, at-rest, or passive pressures, are shown in Figure 2.5-45 for clean sand backfill under the water table. l 2.5-63 o - +,, e,.,-- e e,- m v
i MIDLAND 162-FSAR 2.5.4,10.2.5 Surcharge Load Due To Adjacent Structures Surchirge loads caused by adjacent structures can generally be defined both in magnitude and area of application. The pressure developed by adjacent structures is additive to the lateral pressure directly applied by the backfill material. This additional earth pressure can best te determined by using methods ( derived from the theory of elasticity which are available for most loading shapes encountered in engineering applications. Suitable solutions are given by Bowles.(7a> If the wall is considered to be rigid, the earth pressure will be twice that due to the elastic solutions as described and accounted for in this reference. 2.5.4.10.2.6 Live Ioad Surcharge The lateral earth pressures due to live load depend on the load intensity, location, and shape; therefore, these lateral pressures can best be determined by elastic methods. Several possible load configurations that may be anticipated are given by Bowles.(va) Surcharge pressures caused by dead or live loads were added to the pressures shown in Figure 2.5-45. 2.5.4.10.3 Settlements 'fhis sesiof dealsTwithlfieTevalua~tTen~ofgvertical~ ground moviiie'nts.,(hepra.orJaettlement) uiidEGhe-plaiiti. facilities esiilree ~ - by. construction. An excavation up to 40 feet below the original ground surface was made to enable the construction of the containment and portions of the auxiliary building. A large area fill up to 35 feet high, measuring approximately 1,000 feet by 1,100 feet, has been placed as shown in Figure 2.5-46. Heavy
- 3. - m'._
teg structural loads will be appl,ied on this fill. mm 1... ' e s e e w i-l Wisebto elevath. ur when-the. L Eso_ETWaMMiTEPiF6 fels'Ji. leg.~ ^" "*~
- A ' #
coo 1 r \\ The effects of the above construction operations on ground movements at the Midland site are as follows: rb,ing e n spe -till,was-laced,and structures v b. ,Nex e s, aY.e_ -- J tteM@YlTri ; oilanTWeb'iipYess~ed the uweW . a. f=M,a== M EcauseEXdWit_io. nil pr.iv2-N pj ' %.-isin(Jaihd)froundwAtehtable w11gj$MiiV c. 2 paCJe=Ad%plegpr,aggh;]However, some settlement will 2.5-64
= - m.nni a u., .w _ ~ ~s u u s.e,w.+. "ng MIDLAND 162-FSAR ~.l confirmation of predicted settlements. Permanent benchmarks and control monuments will be established at the site and used for survey reference points. Periodic elevation checks against the benchmarks and control monuments will be measured. 2.5.4.13.2 !&tWFiETYMutricyl O a. During Construction [yor.yW4 mca&seoa; HEX id!if fdr5tdei,Fsurvey
- (
measurements.will-besmadesevery-(O' days. b. During Plant Operation s 1. For Seismic Category I and II structures, survey ? measurements will be made every 90 days during the first year of operation. 2. Frequency of survey measurements for subsequent years will be established after evaluating the measuremente taken during the first year. c. Seismic Category I and II Tanks 1. Survey measurements will be made after the tanks i a,re erected and just prior to hydrostatic testing 2 O of the tanks. I-2. During hydrostatic testing 3. Immediately after the hydrostatic testing is complete with the tanks empty 4 At the completion of filling of tanks for plant j operation 5. At 90 day intervals for the first year of plant operation l 6. Frequency survey measurements for subsequent years 3 will be established after evaluating the measurements taken during the first year. 2.5.4.14 construction Notes The earthwork operation was started in July 1969 and was suspended between May 1970 and August 1973. During the first construction period, the work generally involved the clearing of selected portions of the cooling pond and plant site, and the clearing and grubbing of the foundation areas. The plant area i was excavated to grade and concrete was poured for some footings, 9 floor slabs, and walls. During construction stoppage, the 2.5-69 .-e.
MIDLAND 162-FSAR excavation was left open protected with straw cover. Five soil borings (899, 900, 901, 904, 904A) were drilled in June 1973 by soil and Materials Engineers, Inc., ranging from 20 to 71 feet deep, to ensure that no major changes had taken place in the subsoil as a result of flooding and frost penetration within the plant area. Three of these borings were drilled as near as possible to the containment structures and the other two borings were made in the plant dike. Both undisturbed (Shelby tube) and disturbed (Split Spoon) samples were obtained at various depths in all borings. Various laboratory tests were performed on these samples in order to evaluate the shear strength of the in situ soils. See Subsection 2.5.4.3 for details. The boring locations are shown in Figures 2.5-16 and 2.5-17. Legs of borings, together with other pertinent information, are presented in Appendix 2A. A summary of the test results is given i in Tables 2.5-17 and 2.5-18. Although the clayey soils in all borings were fully saturated er close to being so, it should be noted that in every case the in situ moisture content was very near the plastic limit (shown M on the boring logs). This indicated that even though the area had been inundated, the subsurface soils had not absorbed much, %g /)s.f any, additional water.This waMr.ygf*-i.;
- Thus,
~ weakening of the pil wa* avida"+ nu m anuated b N confinea - m F comprcssion tests perfo on selected undisturbed sam es which \\. ~ showed undrained shear strengths of 3.7 to 5.9 ksf. Some at lower shear strengths f 1.9 ksf in boring 899 and 2.5 ksf in (y/ f j/ boring 900 were noted, hough significantly higher valpas were found at higher elevations AcaGis.; 'e *'* cerclu-in.. Luat the weaker soil strengths noted were not due to inundation. Considering the type of soil, it was likely that these samples contained very thin sand or silt lenses as noted in the split Spoon samples and in some of the triaxial test specimens, thus accounting for their lower strengths. Based on the information obtained from laboratory tests performed on undisturbed samples from the three test borings, the subsurface soils in the plant i area did not appear to have been adversely affected by water standing and frost penetration within the open excavations. Therefore, changes in design and/or construction procedures were unwarranted and earthwork operations were resumed normally. I i
- 2. 5. 5 STABILITY OF SLOPES L
This section deals with the static and dynamic stability of all soil slopes, both natural and manmade, at the plant site. The stability evaluation of embankment slopes associated with the i main power plant facilities is discussed in the following t paragraphs. The stability of embankments related to the cooling F pond is discussed in Subsection 2.5.6. %EP [ i' 2.5-70 i l r.
i MIDLAND 162-FSAR cont 1Nurtthg3qgM1kh EAdESEEChitundegtheAey -inegensezirOTaa4 Ultimate heave or settlement values were estimated by calculating the stress changes from elastic half-cpace theory and then computing the settlement or heave using Terzaghi's theory of one-dimensional consolidation. Parameters to establish the analytical model are discussed in the following subsections. 2.5.4.10.3.1 Plant Layout and Loads As shown in Figure 2.5-47, the two units and the contiguous structures occupy a total area measuring approximately 600 feet by 600 feet. Preconstruction grade at the site is approximately elevation 603. Finished grade at the plant site is 31 feet higher, at elevation 634. Compacted fill was used to raise the original ground surface to grade elevation. Each containment was founded on a circular mat having a diameter of 128 feet and located at a depth of 20 feet below original ground surface. Portions of the auxiliary building were established 40 feet belcw original ground surface on the layer of very stiff to hard cohesive soils. The mat foundation grades for the rest of the auxiliary building, the turbine building, and associated facilities were placed at various,, elevations on compacted fill. The bui-1 dine 1Wa. superimposed by..Ahe structur_Esr6tr'uiidistilibed soil or compacted fill are given in the soil pressure plan, Figure 2.5-47. 2.5.4.10.3.2 Subsurface conditions The plant site was essentially flat, and the ground surface was at about elevation 603. A detailed description of soil conditions together with generalized soil profiles through the plant site is given in Subsection 2.5.4.3.5. For the purpose of analysis, the soil profile is divided into the layering system shown in Table 2.5-164 2.5.4.10.3.3 Soil Parameters The soil compressibility parameters used in the settlement calculation are presented together with soil profile in Table 2.5-16. The normalized compression and swelling indexes l (Cc, r /1 +eo ) were evaluated by two methods. The first method used, presented by Dames & Moore, css) is based on laboratory consolidation tests with adjustments for the effects of sample disturbance as discussed in Subsection 2.5.4.2.9. 2.5-65 l l 1
MIDLAND 162-FSAR l The other method is based on mathematical relationships among l compression index, constrained modulus, and Young's Modulus as -l illustrated by Lambe and Whitman.(73) Young's Modulus l (E = 600 Su) ( 7 * ) is based on a statistical relationship with the unconfined compressive strength or undrained shear strength. The undrained shear strength used is interpreted conservatively from the summation plot of shear strength vs elevation given in Figure 2.5-33. The sampling of overcensolidated glacial clays is usually difficult due to the stiffness of the clays. Sample disturbance is inevitable. This evidence is clearly shown from all the l laboratory consolidation test curves. Furthermore, experience indicated that the estimated soil compressibilities from consolidation tests are influenced and increase by the specimen preparation of trimming and ring fitting. On the other hand, the empirical compressibilities are derived from shear strength test results, which are not affected by sample disturbance to the same degree as laboratory consolidaticn test results. The normalized compression and swelling indexes (Cc.,/1+e ) adopted in settlement o calculations are the weighted average values derived from both methods. 2.5.u.10.3.4 Groundwater Conditions C;ii-Tsett em#nFievatIWajifid ~' ttistatiCJ MNaUr7Iev'el'ds ~ ~ k ccaserfa ~Diely esEliiiigt
- r. near7theliiAtingy JIEbund* stir ac/
~~ b~dfore constructilon. LThe past'-construction 1cne-term water leveJL 4 ~in the 'plsWE area is' taken to be elevati on. 627. This elevationj y Wi&be..the maximum operationaf'levelmof-.the filled cooling pond. 2.5.4.10.3.5 Analysis structures _ was made from TN(e settlement evaluation for the plarit a consideration of the following cases: a. C - m g1E e-6Lrer mtoxgruouraner apeidenkpgggafrW'+=g:54&f ---p ;orhiloodingtof y ? J2_-- - n m n k u md. M eyekpt 4) elevation 603 (short-term condition) g d j / ~ be RMAing gaoMoades =Q"a* r _xg;g.%H );sugii;siig7 es.amton) se from pressure relief due to excavation of overburden soils wave the foundations is not analyzed because: _1 ) nressure reli_ef \\hdue+a ~ ="=*4nn un" h ~---a m'i c+'I v + n z e ro bv vna p v -=>shciemsant olacement of fill and buildino in=^=_- 2) the heave l associated with stress recum - As re.Latively small compared to l the settlement due to large area fill and building loads, and is i essentially elastic due to the highly overconsolidated nature of i 2.5-66 \\
MIDLAtjD 162-FSAR the in sd.tu glacial till, and 3) the ultimate settlement analyzed for the above Case a and b loading conditions was based on the application of appropriate building net loads. For sat *1 ament comen+=+4cns-a +n+=1 nf ui = = + + 1 e -e n
- nn4n+- eve established on a grid and 'at selected struc+ure location =~
an shown in Figure z.3-4b._ Loading criteria for Case a and b conditions plus the other pertinent parameters are presented in Figure 2.5-47. Based on the respective loading conditions, site soil conditions, and the relected soil compressibility characteristics, ultimate settlements at each of the 41 points are calculated for load conditions -- Cases a and b. Settlement values resulting from each loading condition are calculated by evaluating the stresses from elastic half-space theory (75) and then computing the settlement using Terzaghi's theory of one-dimensional consolidation. To account for possible time-dependent relationship, the estimated total settlements at each of the 41 points were obtained respec:ively by adding 25% of the calculated settlement values of loading case a to the calculated ultimate settlement values of loading case b. These values are presented in Figure 2.5-48. 2.5.4.10.4 Discussion at tha u1 nn4n+= n=1nnlated for Uni *n 1 and 9 eknu Se++1 aman +a_ avnantad-Aecausa nf the the best estimates of ma*+1 aman + n inaan-soi.1 cenditions, and soil possible varla;1ona moperties, deviations from the estimated values are possible. *Qg- ) It is kncwn that if clays have previously been consolidated by '1 pressures equal to or greater than those to be added by new construction, their settlement is relatively small and occurs so rtpidMiat it may be considered to be elastic. J?n the other hand,(i(sEhe added pressures exceed the oreconsolidation inad,- \\hr tha sectiements are laroer and occur wit ( acorec:.able time lac. With respect to the Midland site, the glacial till at the site is zgy t heavily preen -li'-'-' -- A the pressure added by new p constructio O ces not_ exceed] he estimated preconsolidation 11 erat' 'A-u.a.asco~ncludEd~thaY"the ~settissient~ofpurgbr.,th ~- pressures. n ily go -n dnF6ccurmLFs11t}e Efl is placed~an47 Ee 1 E t f 6 h " Fo l t / e_ ruEFu'rTii"Ts. adde /1.' It is estimated as"YTIEdesd:Wel ~ ~ tli$Fsettlem'ehtis on the order of 20% of the calculated ultimate settlements can be expected after the vital pipe connections are made. It is y ti.cipated_thatsmazimug.A Qferen_tial"se_ttlementy gn the erdeponjqqs;Gschma3toccur_intueAn_.a d j a c ent Atructu res4_T he ,di(ferentialosettlementaMibuymiably; smaller than the. ~ m l n= " m aettisments. / t 2.5-67 l l l
MIDLAND 162-FSAR f To ensure the integrity of the plant facilities and verify the s ettlimenti predicted; ten ~mest36eahDrovidhThi'storot}byganalyaisj settlement me moni g WacWs t4me-ment. The measurements reflect what the structures *will actually experience. The monitoring progran is discussed in Subsection 2.5.4.13. 2.5.4.11 Design Criteria The design criteria and methods of design related to the stability studies of all safety-related facilities have been discussed previously in Subsection 2.5.4.10. Settlements at various locations of Units 1 and 2 are calculated by the Terzaghi one-dimensional consolidation theory. It is estimated that the essentially elastic settlements in the power block will be between 2 and 3 inches. Maximum differential settlements among buildings are not expected to exceed 1 inch. Rafar en Ruh==e+4mn 95 'E * ^ _ ':. Gross bearing capacity of the soil of various mat foundations is '1 y determined,by conventional Terzaghi theory. The computed factors gv f safety (ratio values between gross ultimate bearing capacity versus the maximum contact stress beneath footing) for various lant facilities are greater than three for dead and live loads combined and greater than two for the combination of dead, live, and seismic loadings. See Table 2.5-14. V The design values for the principal earth pressure conditions are conservatively derived by neglecting the wall friction force. Furthermore, the design values for passive earth pressures have reduced by a factor of two from the calculated theoretical values. 2.5.4.12 Techniques to Improve Subsurface conditions Because of the competent nature of the subsurface soil conditions, measures (such as grouting, vibroflatation, dental work, rock bolting, and anchors) to improve foundations were not requirede Slurry cutoff trench treatments were placed to prevent seepage loss during construction of the cooling pond dikes and j plant area fill. This is discussed in Subsection 2.5.6.3. 2.5.4.13 Subsurfaca Instrumentation 2.5.4.13.1 Benchmark Locations Settlement measurements are to be taken at benchmark locations installed at the various plant structures to provide a history of settlement versus time. Thece measurements will provide a record i of movements experienced and they will be used to provide 2.5-68 o
w .-r'miaTIC;&%i9%%M'EC med JM,tdh.sY~$ bk[$N M db O5.d D.# .ct. MIDIAND 162-FSAR TABLE 2.5 FRE,QUENCY OF FILL TESTING Test Approximate Frequency l h51YIt;, ton Frequency to be based on[BechYeI~ Field I'nspecus Iraw a W ot, if not other-wise stated, upon manufacturer's Suggested frequency. N Field ~dehsities;~fmoisture _One per 570'yardsf~of~fifi ' content./ ~ ~ Compactioni~g' fain size, one peL 1,04000' cubic. yards of ~ Specific;grayityf._..; f11.1/ C 6 O
I l MIDLAND 162-FSAR h TABLE 2.5-9 MINIMUM COMPACTION CRITERIA Compaction Criteria Zone (13 Soil Function Designation Tm Degree ASTM Desionation i Adjacent to Structural Sand 80% ASTM D 20i49 structures backfill. 1 95% TM D 1557-66T Suppcr* k d ructures ] & (modified) c a 3 Plant area 1 or'1A Clay 95% fill Clay or sand 95% Sand 95% Cooling 1 or IA Clay' 95% pond embank-2 Clay or sand 95% ment 3 Sand 95% (13For zone designation see Table 2.5-10 h (23The method was modified to get 20,000 foot-pounds of ccmpactive energy per cubic foot of soil. ( o 9 l 1 l l 1 0
\\\\ l l l TJ I' 2.5-14
SUMMARY
OF CONTAC'. RESSES AND ULTIMt.TE BEARING CAPACITY rOR MAT FOUNDATIONS SUPPORTING SEISMIC CATEXIORY I AND II STRUCTURES Cor. tact Stress Beneath Footing (Ib/fte) Ultimate Factor of Safety Bearing Foundation Dead Plus Dead, Live, capacity Dead Plus Dead, L Unit Supportino Soils Elevation Live Load and Seismic Load _(Ib/ f
- 21
_Liva Loid and Seismt Reactor containment Very stiff to hard 582.5 8,000 17,500 45,000 5.6 2.6 buildings natural cohesive soils Auxiliary building A Very stiff to hard 562 7,000 14,000 50,000 7.1 3.6 natural cohesive soils Auxiliary building BSC Very stiff to hard 579 8,000 16,000 50,000
- o. 2 3.1 natural cohe,sive soils Auxiliary building D Controlled compacted 609 6,000 12,000 30,000 5.0 2.5 cohesive fill Auxiliary building EEP Controlled compacted 609 6,000 12,000 30,000
- 5. 0 2.5 cohesive fill Auxiliary building G Controlled compacted 630 4,000 8,000 15,000 3.8 1.9 cohesive fill Auxiliary building H Controlled compacted 609 3,000 6,000 30,000 10.0 5.0 cohesive fill Auxiliary building ISJ Very stiff to hard 569 6,500 13,000 50,000
- 7. 7
- 3. o natural cohesive soils Turbine mat controlled compacted 602 5,000 10,000 30,000 c.0 J.o cohesive fill Turbine building Controlled compacted 609 3,000 6,000 30,000 10.0 5.0 cohesive fill Solid radwaste building Controlled compacted 629.5 2,500 5,000 15,000 t0 J. u coheuive fill Diesel generator controlled compacted 629.5 4,000 6,000 15,000 3H building cohesive fill
l l l t l r N Midland 162-PSAR _ TABLE 2.5-14 fcon tin u e_dl 4 contact stress Beneath Footing (Ib/ftal Ultimate MU Bearing Factor of Foundation Dead Plus h,rtino het!. Dead, Live, capacity Dead Plus De ?luva+ ion _ Live T,oad and seismic Load.1_1b/ f t ag t g y,. Load and s. Condensate and primary storage tank controlled comiact.t e29.5 2,500 cohesive fill 5,000 15,000 6.0 Borated water storage Controlled compact.! tank 629.5 2,500 cohesive fill 5,000 15,000 6.0 NOTE: Factor of safety is definto as ther contact stress beneath footing. z.s*1c of ultimate bearing capacity to b
F Ei, P, P P n m WATIR IREAIMENI TANKS 634
- 2. 5
- 2. 5
- 2. 5 i
g 8 50tl0 WASTE BLDC. 634 &O &O 60 AUX 1LI ARY BtDC. A 562 F.0
- 1. 57
- 0.12 8&C 579
- 8. 0 t 83 3.15 S 4600 offe-D 409 60
&O A 88 k E&F 609 to &O ( 88 0 WATER TREAIMENT IAfES g6 g3 7 j H 609 60 &O ( 88 8&J 5M &5 1.82 0.13 SWD H G REACTOR BlDGS.1 & 2 582. 5
- 8. 0 1 29 3.40 8U D l
~ l IUR8tE BtDG. 409
- 3. 0
- 3. 0 1.88 AUXILIARY l
l TURBIE PEDESIALS (2) 602 10 4 87
- 3. 31 EUILOI" l DIESEL CEN. BLDG, 634 to (0
- 4. 0 l
s A j CONDENSATE STORAGE TANKS 634
- 2. 5
- 2. 5
- 2. 5 J
ARE/. Fitt LOAD 403 ( 09 4 09 2.60 S 4800 f REACIOR Il lf I REACIOR I e BullDING BullDING l NOTES : WII I 'I 2 [
- 1. Ei,is the elevation of the bottom of the foundation.
L__j
- 2. P, is the superimposed load intensity.
F,
- 3. P,,is ine sno,i ierm nei soad iniensiiy inefore tne cooiing.aier reservior fiiring E
D l p. p,. Excavahon load ADMIPL
- 4. P,is the long term net load intensity talter the cooling water reservior fillirup and P,aP - @rostak pressure ni SERVICE TURBIE BullDIE
- 5. All units for load intensity in klps per square foot Iksf), elevations in feet from
-80lLDING U. S. G. S. datum. & Reference Table 2.5-14 S 5000 1 TUR1LWQIAL_ l TURBlNE PEDESTAL l p,,,f ry z ge7 ~ DIESEL CEMRATIE e i/' p BUILDIE ,I pl 7tf
E A MIDIAND 152-FSAR TABLE 2.5-21
SUMMARY
OF COMPACTION REQUIREMEt a Minimum Maximum Lift Compaction Criteria Number of Thickness Before Zone Compactim "T h ment Pas ses Compaction (inchest Degree ASTM Designati 1 Impervious 5 ton rubber tired [ 12 95% roller, vibratory steel drum and sheepsfoot ASTM D 1557-66 moiified to ge 1A Impervious adjacent to Power tampers 4 4 95% 20,000 foot-concrete structures 4 pounds of comp tive energy [e r Random f 50 ton rubber tir 4 12 95% cubic foot roller, vibratory N I 2A Random fill adjacent to Pcater tampers 4 951 concrete structures 3 Sand 50 ton rubber tired 12 No requirement roller b 4 Gravel Construction equipment F-5 Ripra p Compaction not required \\ 6 Topsoil Compaction not required NOTE: In areas not accessible to rollers, particularly those adjacent to the outlet structure, it was necessary to control moisture and lif t thicknesses carefully to achieve the required density with hand operated power tampers. The power tamping was such that the same stamlard of compaction was achieved at required for the contiguous material in the embankment, compacted by the spacified rollers. Areas where hand tamping had to be carried out were apt to be most vulnerable to seepage, and thus great care was necessary to ensure that . w e.. - v. .4~...i.. ,.~.,.+.a .a
n ".I, [ s MIDLAND 162-F., F TABI.E 2.5-10 GBADATION BANGES FOR FILL MATERIAL r 4 W k zone Type Description Source Gradation n" L Impervious fill Sandy silty clays or Designated borrow area and Hot less thart 205 passing sandy silts with some all required excavation No. 200 sieve g F, clay U.S. Std Series Percent Steve Sizes Passinq { 1,A Impervious fill Native broadly graded Designated borrow area and No. 4 40-100 sandy glacial till all required excavation No. 30 30-100 No. 100 25-80 F No. 200 20-70
- l. '
O.01 (millimeters) 10-40 7 0.002 (millimeters) 0-20 J Bandom fill Any material f ree of Designated borrow area and Norestrictions) humus, organic or other all required excavation deleterious material I 3 Sand drain clean sand graded as Imported 3/8 inch 100 I j specified No. 8 55-100 l No. 30 20-55 i No. 100 0-10 No. 200 0-3 y [ / / mpdrted I in to Struc Sand 11 clea sand raded as ',- s itie / N 4 tura /' 10 00 /Vackfi 1
- o. 40 0
ho. 200 5 / s
~ II P P, P, (i " m g n WAi[R IREAIMENT IANKS 634
- 2. 5
- 2. 5
- 2. 5 d
8 O SOLID WASTE BLDG. 634 a0 60 60 AUXILIARY BLDC. A 562 F.0
- 1. 57
- 0.12 CA If 8&C 579 10 & 13 3.15 S 4600 g,ffe D 609 LO &0 4 88 ( k r E&F eU9
- 6. 0 LO A 88 WAIER TREAIMENT IANKS 0*
C 630 to (0 to y g3 j ) gag H e09 40 60 4.88 .g R&J 560 &5 1.82 4 13 H G h RAD STE REACIOR BLDGS.1 & 2 582.5
- 8. 0 1 29 3.60 BUILDING l
l IUR81NE BLDG. 609
- 3. 0
- 3. 0 1.88 l AUWAW l TURBINE PfDESIALS (2) 602 10 1 81
- 3. 11 fd BMN 8
l l DIE 5fL GEN. BLDC. 634 to 40 40 [ \\3, A l s _f L CMDENSATE SIORAGE IANKS 634
- 2. 5
- 2. 5
- 2. 5 h
Il/ \\' AREA flLL LOAD 603
- 4. 0.
4 09
- 2. e0 h.
f REACTOR )l I{ REACIOR ) BUILDING ll BullDitIG NOTES : i I
- I I.11,is me ebate W me em W me foundahon.
L__j
- 2. P, is the superimposed load intensity.
g> F, E O
- 3. P,,,s ine sno,iiere nei soad iniensii,ine,.,e ine cooiing.aier reservior filiingi P
a P,' bcavataan load ADMIR ns 4, p is the long term net load intensity (af ter the conting water reservier fillitup I and m p -P - Hydrostatic pressure l SERVICE na ne TURBINE BUILDING BUILDING
- 5. All units for load intensity in kips per square foot (ksf), elevations in feet from
/' U. S. G. S. datum. l - ~ _ _ _. _ & Reference lable 2.5-14 S 5000 - ! TUM M R l IUkBI }- l------' !_ _ _ _NE PEDLSIAL .-__l 4 ~ ~ ole 5EL GENf RATING p pl p [rf BUILDING 1 ji %o /
( ,g ( } h I ,L 0 F CN 3 I N I r E R 0 e A 0 v 2 e S / E U jj ni L AV e T 0 t N 0 a E 1 c M E s L 0-2 T 5 T E Op S E T L y O L N A 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 5, 7, 9 i. 4 4 4 s S S S S 7 7 7 0 0 0 E T E A G S S A K N R E N O D A T T N S O e. 2 0 C 2 2 2 O2 ^ 1 4 2 TN 2 EM N h 1 T 2 4 6 I I 2 N 2 A 2 U T 2 N A 3 O G E C N 8 R 0.O R 2 9 6 A Y l I O D 6 R G 1 3 2 T L 2 E N A o G 1 A I R I U I D 6 8 9 B 1, EG A L R L NN I 1 2 2 3 2 I EI O X E 6 T U GD S 7 U, B N C L 0 LI I / I B T2 K 1 EU l SB R N N U 1 0 f 8 E A %1 T E T I M 2 D 7 N 3 0 4 T 3 5 R 7 I E T 2 2 A 2 I 3 N T 2 A U N W O C 8 3 2 2 S 5 AG WN 2 DI AD E / RL O jI 'G N DU il M ll lIll ill f i
,t., -,r:.. 8 7,,. ~ x. o, f N WON 2 Q w S, d .?g o g ;. w
- u..-
i o 74"ad/ 3 =., 3
- l*
2 ..e F m m; o = o g g.>; '- O p -\\u o - u o 4Q z o, A [ f ris m no Av4313 m $3 8 R .S S. 2 3 2 3 2 n --~n ~ y e J l f f f I f f f f 1 1 1 f f I e c. 4 w w" 1%l. ^ 3* d* 2r \\ A,4% 32
- I E1 L
A.';y s'd A* 7;**J e Q .,we*g la*;,d* o r F. ai Ng"h i u '~ 3 5 a t? $~d 163,J" 's S d A s 3 I emk-3 5*: o;-t =d. ;.. =' TA"*J 253 S 5 o PE -.9
- a
=M oB 6 6-o, a 2.: o g g m u w o r-ttu .z ~~",*o n.w 2 3 94
- =8 7*
? G H+N E b. s
- g
- a 1
> =E 9 a BE u sgo g <, y [a g g q. 2 m g C d W ~ 2 z u w o =, J E 13 9ll:gg e 5' = ,j(' ~:,gg 0:- o iTi n i. E g .a gf 'nYW l l[ 5 7
- f N'%. p" de
= N g -a ? i = V 5 k b$ 1i4 X D \\y -;2J g i Nx a-3 \\ 32"2 dy '\\ g eg ('.
- 7..
AN s a o,. = 23 %;. :.h.. ' %' E d. "o,,9. d E g 9 5 g g CQ. ~,j[$ E ao as o. = 9 5 .3 w m.
- 24p<?!:5 I.
h. $5 a.. C ' eq i, I'DA: N,,.., o. e mg
- gN$
O ( O g \\ I f:5)!h E. %., g g g,$---wm mxmm. ..u. 1 ',,.:. au.t.m 3,1-Ny,.fgNxNNs.; h .~~t e. sN5 NE# 3 R B;; 6. _ _ E una = 13y ' #.. g-== ... W31b. = o,_, r. o o. ?- m l::: yeT,* g -' ?.V.: 4*aa a-~ gss 2 I E %.'!lf' E
- y
== s -
- t.s.:
z < ,i i i i i i i i e i e i e i e i i S. S. I. I. A 3 I I $ M 3 .I [ st .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n I
l1, l ll'll l' 11
- h y$'K {V[R
~".?
- I
,} L r 1 (;1,kk$ i l f t
- cA'
.>vI' 6 i M PR l F o 1 EP Cl F DP O AR 6 R EA 4 EE T TR EN MA NI
- 5. N o
O 2o a OS ZD s ZN E E eET EO I L E RC II PL C UE o PT A NGs A HT E I LC CS RFs S LO A N s E E A. L E, I FEo o TO E ER 1 2 RSC N 0 0 0 4 0 g 6 s N 8 s 8 s 5 s N 0_ s 8 s 5 s P I T 0 1 R 1 ET EM E 3' D N I I B E L I P E C N N&% N E R E F E R I \\N,O s s EK 8 s S s A 03 i y* i r + + [ il 0 4 % /. l I x,, l E g s G i O s D 3 s I s R B S S E C - C - A TN EM U R T O s N N O I F f GN o 7 to 2 v o s C ~ y 0 0 0 [. 4 i 2 1; .({ ,,l ll Il l L
IElEADIE I 9 z' 8 8 l! I 1 3 i f, : {( i >I e i 3 ,m I F* i I lI 4-i = f l i l..i I. i
- I,m l a,
x m J. 4;' s 'f' 000's 3 ,a ~ R R -e t /s s"
- .5 I
r. /. I'% t ?.~' jg A / ** xn s g r. 3 /g * !! v m)t.. n vi.. ' ol -s s 2.3
- +
s /..I !n \\ /(,).c >p 8 J s. a
- J N\\
i . :N ,e r 3 .u.-- + 009 8. 3 g -{ /
- +
? f.
- +
N
- + '+
5*. j! 8 .+ 4 % r.
- J.
.w i \\. Ie e $. (g N .. y o ,f* la N -s e g N v '*i: \\p-1,. +I !Y fa '+. 'i /! y,_): Ii K l. x+ s i-1,s j i ',/Ts, Igya'.! !.Yb k + m.- - r / f . ~, = 1 { ihj. 8 i / ( + d R ) + 7.I =!'t!
- I.
L i g 3; I E I' E I I. E l .3 .sr N N I e k I l.I . ~._
1 I f I I PR I F EP WI DP D AR R EA EE T T R EN EA MI ,o h 0 D 0S 2D I ZN EE e T EOI L F C II PL C PT A N S t A HT r i LCCS p S LO A N S l A. L r I E. I O o F Q E R i 1 2 l R a 0 a 0 0 4 0 8 6 s 5 4 0 N -s .s gxn 3 4 a s.s P E N I T 0 1 R 1 ET EM 0 N 3 2 I 8 E L I P E C N N g E R E F E l 4 2 R K '~ x N E ~ s I 0 D s 2 /, g I /l "0 4 l \\ N l 3 1 xi s E 0 G 0 s D s i I R s B S S E CCA T N E M U myy R T S N I looC i tIi !rl11lli
i l .s \\ e S 4,500 liq.If8 O ^L' SETTLEaENT VALUES ARE iN INC. 2.7 2.6 C W ATER TANK STORAGE AREA 2.8 2.4l 3.0 S 4,700 D RADWAS p 2.3 UI DING 1.7 1.6 2.4% AUXILIARY - 2.1 - NDUILDING UNIT 1 UNIT 2 23 2.3 20 1.6 19 2.2 21 g 7 CONTAINMEN CONTAINMENT 2.5 2.4 r 2.5 - l 2.8 l 2.2 0 7 S 4,900 2.9 TURBINE BUILDING r 2.8 3.1 3.1 2.6 ,_g 7 V 0 7 -G' -3.o 3.o O 50 10 0 200 30 r1 G2 00 d SCALE IN FEET 2.8 2.8 r.o DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING O2.4 CONDENSATE STORAGE TANKS
MIDIAND 162-FSAR i = settlements are essentially elastic and occur as the loads are applied. i l 3.8.5.6 Materials, cuality Control, and Srecial construction i Techniques The materials, quality control, and special construction techniques used for the foundations are the same as for the structures themselves and are presented in Subsection 3.8.1.6. 3.8.5.7 Testing and Inservice-Surveillance Requirements Settlements of the foundations are monitored during and after construction. The details of the program are presented in Subsection 2.5.4.13. 3.8.6 GENERAL DESIGN OF SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES 3.8.6.1 Design Criteria Used in All Seismic Category I Structures The following subsections summarize the bases which are common to the design and construction of all Seismic category I structures. Any bases which are pertinent to only one of the Seismic Category I structures will be discussed in the appropriate subsection related to that structure. 3.8.6.2 Applicable Codes, Standards, and Specifications codes, industry standards, specifications, design criteria, NRC Regulatory Guides, and Bechtel Topical Reports, which are referenced for the design and construction of all Seismic' Category I structures, are deshribed in the following subsections. Codes, standards, etc, which are applicable to a particular structure. or modifications made to meet specific requirements of the structure, are indicated in the subsections related to that particular structure. 3.8.6.2.1 Codes ACI American Concrete Institute ACI 318-63, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced ACI 318-71 Concrete AISC American Institute of Steel Construction \\ ~s 3.8. I
MIDLAND 162-FSAR 3.8.5.3 Loads and Load combinations (. containment foundation loads and loading combinations are discussed in Subsection 3.8.1.3. Foundation loads and loading combinations for other Siesmic category I structures are discussed in Section 3.8.6. 3.8.5.4 pesign and Analysis Procedures Design and analysis procedures used in the design of the foundations are discussed in Sabsc?tions 3.8.1.4 for the containment and in 3.8.4.4 for other cies.mic category I structures. Assumptions made on boundary conditions are discussed in detail in the computer program descriptico presented in Appendix 3C. Lateral forces and overturning moments are transmitted to the foundation without exceeding the allowable bearing capacity limits. Values of the factors of safety against overturning, sliding, and flotation for the containment are presented in Table 3.8-23. 3.8.5.5 Structural Acceptance criteria The foundations of all Seismic category I structures are designed to meet the same structural acceptance criteria as the structures. These criteria are discussed in Subsections 3.8.1.5 L for the containment, 3.8.3.5 for the internal structures, and 3.8.4.5 for other Seismic category I structures. Minimum allowable factors of safety against sliding, overturning, and flotation are presented in Table 3.8-23. Estimated maximum differential settlements which could occur between adjacent structures are presented in Table 3.8-24. It is estimated that one-tenth to one-half of the maximum settlement occurs as elastic compression immediately after load application. The remainder of the settlements occurs in accordance with the rates estimated from consolidation test data as presented below: Approximate Percent of Time in Consolidation Settlement Years 20 2 50 10 90 50 s,ettlements of shallow spread foetings founded on compacted fills' -w Q re estimated to be on j 3.8-59 e m___ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ - -
MIDLAND 162-FSAR 3.8.5.1.2 Auxiliary Building The auxiliary building is founded on reinforced concrete mat foundations at six different elevations as shcwn in Figure 3.8-61. The figure shows the bottom elevations and thicknesses of the mat foundations at different areas. The major portion of (between column lines A and E in the the auxiliary building north-south direction and between column lines 5.6 and 7.4 in the east-west direction) rests on a 6 foot thick reinforced concrete 158'-3" long and 79'-0" wide, founded on glacial till, with
- mat, the bottom elevation at 562 feet.
The southern portion of the auxiliary building, south of column line H, rests on a 5 foot thick reinforced concrete mat with the bottom elevation at 609 feet. It is founded on compacted fill. The elevations and the thicknesses of the mat foundations in the other areas are shown in Figure 3.8-61. All the mat foundations with their bottom elevations above 570 feet are founded on compacted fill. Figure 3.8-62 and 3.8-63 show the cross-sections of the foundations and typical reinforcement details. M.CM3 Diesel Generator Edil' ding h C The foundation tor the exterior and -interfor walls of the diesel generator building consists of continuous reinforced concrete -E" thick. with thair base _a_t '^' ^" footings. + he egrior waI17ootinej _6,a,nniglosalt.12M94WP.. elevation 628 faet. Adjacg t Ao as_e is local _lv lowez;ed._to pit; elevation _6.25--fh. me ciesel ~geraratcrs rest on'6N6*"-thick _ concrete pedestals. The overall arrangement of the foundation in- ', relation to the superstructure is shown in Figure 3.8-55. The footings are placed on compacted fill. ~ _ _ _ _ _ m ~~. ' +- m :- _. :- 1 -_ _ _ _ _... 3.8.5.1.4 Service Water Pump Structure The foundation for the service' water pump structure consists of two reinforced concrete mats at elevations 592 feet and 620 feet. I The lower mat is 90 feet long, 74 feet wide, and 5 feet thick, and is founded on glacial till. The upper mat is 86 feet long, 38 feet wide, and 3 feet thick, and is founded on compacted fill. The details of the foundation and reinforcement are shown in Figure 3.8-56. 3.8.5.2 Applicable codas, standards, and specifications- [ The applicable codes, standards, and specifications used in the structural design, fabrication, and construction of foundations are discussed in Subsection 3.8.1.2 for the containment, in Subsection 3.8.3.2 for the internal structures, and in Subsection 3.8.4.2 for other seismic category I structures. 3.8-58 i = w-- ,,-a w -+, - -
I MIDLAND 152-FSAR
- 3. 8. 4. 7 - Testing and Inservice surveillance Requirements
'( A system of leak chase channels is connected to the outside surface of the fuel pool liner plate. These channels connect to piping that terminates in the sampling room below the spent fuel pool. Liner plate leakage may be checked by opening valves on the leak chase piping. Other testing and inservice surveillance is not required and a formal program of testing and inservice I surveillance is not planned. l ,.---w.,.:==. -.. ~ -a x w3.,,8.,5.,.,,F., LUNDATIONS FOR SEISMIC CATEGORY I STRUCTURES ~ ~ -- - - ~ ~ - p+",., l 3.8.5.1 Description of the_Fonnda+4nn ___-2.m% (" Subsequent subsections include a description of the foundation of ( 8,ach Seism _ic cate g g_ structure. - % - =ums Each foundation is designed to act independently by means of physical separation from adjacent structures. This independence permits differential settlement without adverse consequences and simplifies the seismic analysis. The foundation design incorporates a waterproof membrane up to elevation 632 feet for the containment, the auxiliary building, and portions of the turbine building. Due to the multilevel configuration of the foundation, shear transfer will not be affected by the membrane. 3.8.5.1.1 containment Each containment foundation is a circular mat conventionally reinforced with bonded reinforcing steel. The diameter of the mat is 127'-10" and the thickness of the mat varies from 9 feet at the outer edge to 13 feet in the central portion. Figure 3.8-1 shows the containment foundation in relation to the rest of the structure. A continuous access gallery is provided beneath the mat foundation for installation and inspection of vertical tendons. A base liner is installed on the top of the mat and covered with concrete. Figure 3.8-4 shows a cross-section of the mat foundation with typical reinforcement details. The mat i foundation is founded upon glacial till at the site. The engineering properties and bearing capacity of the glacial till are discussed in Subsection 2.5.4. The internal structures that support large equipment, such as the' reactor vessel, steam generators, and the primary and secondary shield walls, are anchored to the mat in order to transfer the loads. Figures 3.8-30 and 3.8-31 show the typical details of anchorage of the reactor vessel and steam generator to the base. Figure 3.8-13 show: the typical reinforcement details at the ( junction of the base nat and the containment wall. 3.8-57 t
f' / l F l .9 i h f k-( ~r b. h y { b -~ - y _ -~ ] p- -4
Inter-office Memorandum ~ F.0BC-2047 (( To Dato January 13, 1978 4'dJ' / J. F. tievt.cn f Subject From Ptidiand Plant U:?its 16 2 R. L. Castleberry Job 7270 bi h Administration P.utiding Err.focerfog Founhtf oa Settlenent I y Invcatination Ann Arbor i File: 0274 W-.1700( C-2600 both w/a S. L. lilue w/n F. 1,. I'cycr w/o P. A. i'e rt.ines w/o I \\ I At tactied for your use to a copy of a report on the above subject uhich unn prepared by the Ccotechnical Services departncnt. .I It is Project Engineerings underntanding that thin completes our f participation in the subject invcotir.ation. ~ ?{ ~-, > t /. f R. L. Castleberry CAT /sg Attachment y 1 4 CL 1 ,I I b p',)c.,,,'; ' o.' Q a 3 m,p !/ CL p l 1 Y i 9e lP@y t e 9 8 e me, ys O-}}