Text

Discussion of Applicant Position on Need for Addl Borings for Midland Units 1 & 2. Handwritten Note States, Heller Dep 3. Related Info Re Soil Settlement/Qa Concern Encl
	ML20091L035
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	09/14/1980
From:	; NRC
To:	;
Shared Package
ML17198A223	List: IR 05000329/1981014; IR 05000329/1982013; IR 05000329/1983008; ML20090A052; ML20090A064; ML20090A067; ML20090A071; ML20090A076; ML20090A080; ML20090A090; ML20090A103; ML20090A106; ML20090A110; ML20090A367; ML20090A377; ML20090A397; ML20090A403; ML20090A447; ML20090A451; ML20090A456; ML20090A465; ML20090A481; ML20090A487; ML20090A491; ML20090A500; ML20090A504; ML20090A514; ML20090A517; ML20090A543; ML20090A547; ML20090A559; ML20090A590; ML20090A594; ML20090A600; ML20090A613; ML20090A614; ML20090A623; ML20090A626; ML20090A631; ML20090A637; ML20090A642; ML20090A656; ML20090A658; ML20090A673; ML20090A698; ML20090A703; ML20090A733; ML20090A741; ML20090A748; ML20090A751; ... further results
References
	CON-BOX-01, CON-BOX-1, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8406070300
	Download: ML20091L035 (47)
	v • d • e

.

YCAJ tist,(f> lC ssit /C

[^HIS'l "

b l

lh (kt cui ess m-(c/1/a l

/D

&a n

Q t

V DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICANT'S POSITION ON THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL EORINGS FOR MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 h

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY DOCKET NUMSERS 50-329 AND 50-330

(

r Report Date:

September 14, 1980 1

Q'Gyooesos,.,

L PDR 9

. y

.~

l l

DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICANT'S POSITION ON THE s

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL BORINGS I

Af ter the discovery in August 1978 of unexpected settlement of the diesel generator building, borings were made throughout the site to investigate the condition of the plant fill and to provide information for remedial actions.

This program resulted in a total of 265 borings.08 After the initial discovery of the settlement, 32 borings made in and around the diesel generator building indicated that the building could experience s,ignificant settlements that could not be estimated reliably based on laboratory test results.

The applicant retained the services of Dr. R.B. Peck and Dr. A.J. Hendron Jr.,

two of the most knowledgeable and respected authorities in the field of soils engineering.

The resumes of Doctors Peck and Hendron, who have consulted in numerous nuclear plant soils issues, are attached in Appendix A.

It was recommended by the consultants, and agreed to by the applicant and its architect-engineer, to surcharge the building.

This would consolidate the fill, accelerate the settlement, reduce the settlement that will occur after pipe connections are made, and permit a reliable upper limit estimate of settlement to be expected

(

during the life of the plant.23d'After removal of the surcharge,'

~

six additional borings were made to conduct in-situ shear N

wave velocity measurements.

These borings also included making standard penetration tests.

Logs of these borings are included in Revision 9 to the Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill.

Although the service water pump structure and the electrical penetration areas have exhibited negligible settlement, the borings nave indicated that remedial action should be taken for these structures.

The remedial action proposed is to underpin the cantilevered portion of the service water structure and the electrical penetration areas."'In connection with the design aspects of the underpinning, the services of Dr. M.T. Davisson were utilized.

His resume is attached in Appendix A.

The NRC staff has requested that additional borings be made in 18 areas as outlined in the NRC letter of June 30, 1980 on this subject.MI Discussions with the staff followed on July 31, 1980.

The applicant believes that additional borings to justify the adequacy of the remedial action program are unnecessary in that borings, laboratory tests,

(

- r

~

I J

A

(

data collected in connection with the surcharge program, and load testing provide sufficient information.

Further-more, it is estimated that two borings per area (which would be required in accordance with the staff's request) would cost a minimum of S400,000 not including applicant's overhead, project engineering cost, and possible damage to installed components and structures.

Accordingly, the applicant's position is:

1.

That the additional borings are not necessary, and 2.

That the postulated benefits do not justify the cost.

s Because of the disagreement with the NRC staff, a formal appeal for relief from the staff's request was made to NRC technical management.

This discussion documents the appli-cant's presentation at the appeals meeting of August 29, 1980, and includes additional information pertinent to the NRC staff concerns.

This document also is a partial summary of several discussions with the NRC staff and many formal submittals made during the last 2 years.

Applicable references to more detailed information are provided.

(

t e

f e

w a-sp - m

,e-

~

1 1

A.

DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING 1.

Se ttlement As a result of the detailed studies of the settlement problems, it was decided to surcharge the diesel generator building with sand in order to consolidate the fill under the structure.

The surcharge was applied in three increments to a maximum height of 20 feet (approximately 2.2 ksf).

The stresses prevailing during surcharging at all depths in the fill beneath the building exceeded those that will prevail while the structure is operational including those applied by future site dewatering j2mFigure 1 shows the surcharge history and Figure 2 shows the stress distribution below the building during and after the surcharge.

The cooling pond water level was raised to _ the maximum desig8n level before surcharge reached its maximum level.8 The groundwater table below the diesel building rose to approximately elevation 625, which is 3 feet below the base of the foundations as shown on Figures 27-5 through 27-49 in the response to NRC Question 27, Revision 6.

The primary reason for

(.

requiring the pond level to be raised while. the surcharge was being applied was to reduce capillary action and increase saturation levels closer to the planned ground-water elevation of 627.

Pond water level was maintained at the maximum level throughout the period of surcharging.

As can be seen from Figure 1, settlement occurred rapidly as the load was applied.

When the surcharge reached its maximum level, the rate of settlement decreased capidly.

As anticipated, excess pore water pressures developed when the load was applied and dissipated rapidly, indicating rapid consolidation of the fill.W Measurements made to date indicate that a small amount of rebound occurred during surcharge removal, and only small settlement took place since removal of the surcharge in August 1979.

In addition, as expected during rebound, piezometers showed a slight drop in water level, indicating a negative pore water ressure which later stabilized with groundwater level.tp3 Primary settlement occurred rapidly and settlement measurements indicated secondary consolidation was occurring as verified by the straight line on the semi-log" plot shown on Figure 3.

This figure is typical of l

all the se ttlement curves shown in Figures 27-6 and 27 i through 27-78 which exhibit a straight line settlement v !

=

l.

l j

1 f.

l r

.g i

during secondary consolidation.

This behavior has been recorded on many projects including the Chicago Auditorium j

where this straight.line secondary behavior has been observed for 60 years.

Settlement trends based on rates experienced while the surcharge was in place were extrapolated to predict maximum settlements expected to occur over the life of the plant.

This prediction is based on the conservative assumption that surcharge loading conditions remain for the life of the structure.

Settlement measurements made during the period between September 14, 1979, and June 12, 1980, show that, on the average, the building, experienced less than 0.1 inch of settlement as shown on Figure '4. mas Secondary consolidation was also assessed using data obtained from four deep Borros anchors to provide greater accuracy than from conventional survey techniques.*

The deep Borros anchors allowed movements to be measured by gages to an accuracy of 0.001 inch.'* A typical set of measurements is shown on Figure 5.

These secondary consolidation measurements, when extrapolated, indicate I

that settlements less than 1/2 inch would occur during the life of the plant under the design loading.

The technique of extrapolating from full scale test r

(

results is the most reliable method for predicting se ttleme nt.

Normally at the start of a job, sampling and testing are utilized to predict settlements.

In this particular situation, the surcharge program provided the opportunity for direct measurements and thereby eliminates the need for sampling and testing.

It eliminates shortcomings of theories, sampling, and testing.

Measurements in the laboratory are made.to an accuracy of 0.001 inch; however, the laboratory sample is only 3/4 of an inch thick.

The probable error in estimating the field settlement of a 28-foot layer over the 40-year plant life based on a single 3/4-inch laboratory test sample would be of the order of 1/2. inch due to measurement sensitivity alone, not including the ef fects of sampling disturbance and representativeness of the samples.

Measurements in the

-field are also made to a 0.001-inch accuracy but the field test sample being measured -is about 28 feet thick whereas the laboratory sample is only 3/4 of an inch i

thick.

Thus, the full. scale load test results involved far less error and will result in a more reliable

)

predict ion.R#

i It should also be noted that the approach which utilizes evidence other than the results of laboratory -tests for the prediction of settlements has been used on previous u

l. -

l-l.

l l

l 1

' 'h nuclear power plant applications.

At the Kewanee 1

~

plant, initial settlement estimates based on laboratory test results predicted that settlement should be of the order of 15 inches.

However, when the evidence of preconsolidation by glaciation was incorpo-rated into the evaluatioa, predicted settlement was reduced to 1-1/2 inches.

Measured settlement at the end of construction of the foundation was 1-1/2 inches.

Another example was at Quanicassee where laboratory tests indicated high settlements.

A preload program in conjunction with geological evidence resulted in a lower but more reliable prediction of settlement.

The preloading in that case was accomplished by pumping down the groundwater and measuring the drop in piezo-metric pressure as well as deformations.DJ' The limitations inherent in sampling and testing have been recognized for many years.

If sampling and testing are done, the predictions could, because of these limitations, be unrealistically large for certain soil conditions.

Sampling and testing are not necessary because of the ability to make a more reliable and conservative estimate of settlement with a full scale surcharge program.0J8 Although the surcharge resolves the uncertainties I

(

regarding settlement predictions, it does not eliminate the potential for liquefaction.

Various methods including chemical grouting to resolve this question were considered."

It was determined that the most reliable solution would be to permanently dewater the site fill.

The dewatering i

design details are being determined based on data obtained,,from the temporary dewatering required for future underpinning activities.

This will provide a direct measurement of the groundwater behavior in the fill.

Furthermore, the temporary dewatering has the additional' advantage of providing information on settle-ment due to dewatering which is much more accurate than predictions obtained from sampling and testing.

Recharge data will be obtained when the temporary dewatering system is shut down.*

The approach used to estimate settlement at the diesel generator building relies on full scale measurements of settlement from surcharging and settlement measurements as a result of fill dewatering.

These procedures provide a direct, reliable, and conservative means of predicting settlement; therefore, sampling and laboratory testing would not provide better data to refine predic-tions."1

.. y t

I v

,ev-,o e..+

e

.,r.-~

,w,,,,-,--,-,--4w--

.r-m.

, - ~,.

,c-,-,-~e-w,

,2,r,

,w

. ).

o The ability to directly measure over the plant lifetime the actual rate of settlement of any structure (a slow process) and compare the total differential settlement against the design basis for the building connections provides a positive and verifiable resolution of the safe ty question involved.

2.

Bearing Capacityul In addition to NRC concerns on settlement of the structure, there have been concerns raised on the bearing capacity safety factor.,

' The net ultimate bearing capacity is the soil pressure that can be supported at the base of the foundation in excess of that created at the same level by the weight of material above the base of the foundation.

The net ultimate bearing capacity is defined below, i

Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity = qdnet

= CN + Y D (N -1) + 1/2 Y BN c

g y

i

[

where l

/ [C

(

cohesion intercept i

N N

= bearing capacity fac' tors g y

\\- '

Y = ef fective soil unit weight Dg = foundation embedment depth B = founda tion width The factor of safety is equal to the net ultimate bearing capacity divided by the net applied pressure below the foundation.

The minimum bearing capacity safety factor for the diesel generator building is well above the factor of safety of 3 given in FSAR Sub-section 2.5.4.10.1.

Soil parameters selected for use in determining the' net ultimate bearing capacity depend on the rate of load application and the rato of pore water pressure dissipa-2 tion of the foundation soils.

For a load being applied instantaneously, it must be assumed that no dissipation i

of ' pore water pressure would have occurred.

Under the instantaneous loading condition, soil parameters should be selected based on undrained laboratory tests.

l

-s-a l -

=

l 4

l-L (3

Where loads are applied gradually and/or maintained for a period of time to allow pore water pressures to dissipate, soil parameters should be selected based on 1

drained laboratory strength tests or consolidated undrained laboratory strength tests with pore water pressure measurements.

The building loads for the diesel generator building structure were applied gradually and maintained over a period of more than 18 months; therefore, it is appropriate to evaluate bearing capacity based on drained conditions.

Consolidated undrained la'boratory strength tests with pore water pressure. measurements were conducted on samples of plant area fill having characteristics similar to those under the diesel generator building.

Tb provide a conservative analysis, five samples with i

low dry unit weights in the range of 114 to 119 pounds /

cubic foot were selected.

Based on the results obtained from these samples, the effective angle of shearing resistance (J) was found to be 29 degrees and the i

cohesion intercept (C) was found to be 114 pounds / square foo t.

The drained angle of shearing resistance is known to be primarily a function of the plasticity characteristics of the soil and as the plasticity of I

the samples tested is within the range found beneath the diesel generator building, these tests are repre-sentative and testing of samples from below the diesel building would not result in significantly dif ferent j

design values.

This laboratory test data is summarized l

on Table 1.

The strength data is presented on a modified i

effective stress Mohr-Coulomb diagram in Figures 6 and i

7.

Total and ef fective strength data at failure shown on Figure 7 are comparable and indicate the pore water pressures existing in the samples tested were close to 3

zero at failure.

As shown on Figure IB,. the net ultimate beariq capacity factor of safety is approximately 7 using 7 = 29 degrees and IT = 114 psf and approximately 6 if the C term is assumed to be zero, assuming the water table will be lowered to below the foundation-influence depth.

Under earthquake conditions, an additional loading i

equal to about 30 percent of the static loading will be applied.

This load will be instantaneous and would i

occur under undrained soil conditions.

Factors of safety for seismic conditions will be above acceptable limits.

7

, l

....., ~. - _. -. - = -, _ -,.

'/'

B.

SERVICE WATER STRUCTURE i

i Af ter the discovery of the unexpected se'ttlement at the diesel generator building, 13 borings were made within and around the portion of the service water -

structure nupported on fill.

These borings included standard penetration tests through the fill and terminated in the natural soils.

Although there has been no unexpected settlement of the service water structure, the information obtained from the borings indicated that it would be appropriate to underpin the cantilever portion of the service water structure.

This will be achieved by using piles ariven into the natural soil.

At a later date, nine borings were made to conduct shear wave velocity measurements.

These borings also included standard penetration tests in the fill and were ' extended into the natural soils."d" During the initial site investigation by Dames and Moore and constructior phases of the plant, there were borings a

u made into the natural soils in the vicinity of the ser-c vice water pump structure.

Based on information obtained in the initial site investigation, borings made during construction, and borings and laboratory tests made after the discovery of the unexpected settlements in.the diesel

[

generator building, preliminary estimates of pile capac-ity for support of the cantilever portion of the service 1

water structure were made.

Based upon an estimated caoac-ity on the order of 100 tons, it was determined that 16 piles would be required.

Calculations will be submitted in the response to Cuestion 41.

To verify the initial estimate, a preprode tion load test program will be conducted which will include loading a pile to yield in order to determine the pile working capacity.

The pile will be top driven in a predrilled hole and will penetrate into natural soil.

The load test will be conducted as close as possible to the location of the production 1

piles.

In production, the ' piles will be installed in j

the same manner as the test pile and will be tested by jacking against the building to 1.5 times the design load. mas l

Results of the various subsurface investigations conducted at the site also enabled an estimate to be made of the l

downdrag on the piles.

Downdrag has been estimated on the basis of standard penetration tests and results of labora-tory tests conducted on plant area fill soils throughout the site.

Downdrag values will be verified by pullout testing during the preproduction stages.

In this case, a pile will be driven in a predrilled hole in the same manner as the production piles.

The pile will only pene-trate through the fill and will not penetrate through the

(,,'j natural soil.

The pile will be load tested in tension and the downdrag will be estimated on the basis of this test.

~'

Based on the above, downdrag will be factored into. the final design."5 l:

e

1 j

6 l

[

['.' s There is no need for additional borings as borings to date, preproduction testing, and testing to be performed during production will provide sufficient information.

1 a

4 0

e i

l

~

Y l

i i

. 4

I

' ^'N C.

AUXILIARY BUILDING i

Af ter the discovery of the unexpected settlement of the diesel generator building,18 borings were made along the southern portion of the auxiliary building, both inside and outside of the electrical penetration and control 4

2 tower areas.

These borings penetrated the fill and were terminated in the natural soil.

The borings included e

1 making standard penetration tests.*

During the initial site investigation by Dames and Moore, borings were made in this general area.

Although there has been no unexpected settlement of the auxiliary building and electrical penetration areas, information obtained from the borings indicated that it would be appropriate to underpin the electrical penetration areas of this structure.

This will be achieved using j

caissons bearing on the. natural soils.

This has been addressed in the response to NRC Question 12.M "*

The bearing capacity of the caissons to be installed in the electrical penetration areas was determined on the basis of laboratory test results conducted during the initial site investigation by Dames and Moore and has i

been factored into the preliminary specification for caisson construction.

Bearing capacity calculations will

(

be transmitted in the response to Question 42.

During installation of caissons, each caisson will be load tested.

A minimum of two caissons will be load tested to twice the working load and the remaining caissons will be load tested to 1.5 times the working load.HJ" Downdrag may also occur on the caissons.

Estimates of downdrag were made on the basis of results of soils borings made beneath the electrical penetration area i

foundations.

These estimates will be incorporated in the design.

It should be noted, however, that downdrag around the caissons should ~ be minimal because these caissons will be installed with friction breakers and bentonite slurry which are necessary to facilitate penetration of the caissons through the soil.

There-fore, the friction around the caissons during service life will be mir.imal due to the presence of bentonite slurry.

At least the last 4 feet of penetration into the natural soils will be hand dug without the use of friction breakers or casing.""

1 There is no need for additional borings because borings to date and testing to be performed during construction t

willsprovide sufficient information.

k

...,. -. z

11 1

-(.

D.

COOLING POND DIKE i.

The staf f has requested that borings be taken in,certain

~

areas of the cooling pond dike.

4 The adequacy of the design and construction of the cooling j

pond dike is not a proper subject for consideration in the hearing on the NRC's December 6,1979, Order Modifying the Midland Construction Permit.

The scope of the hearing and i

the jurisdiction of the hearing board are limited and determined by the December 6,1979, order.

(See Public Service Company of Indiana, Incorporated, Marble Hill 4

i Nuclear Generating Station, Units I and II, ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167, 170, 1967.)

The' December 6, -1979 Order clearly sets forth the subject matter for a hearing in the event one was requested.

At Page 6, the Order provides:

In the event a hearing is requested, the issue to be considered will be:

.I (1)

Whe ther the facts set forth in part two of this Order are _ correct; and

(

(2)

Whether this order should be sustained.

The first issue identified clearly provides no basis for an open-ended review of the design or construction of the cooling pond dike.

No reference to the dike, a nonsafety-i related and non-Q-listed structure, is made in Part Two of l

i the Order.

Nor would the second. istue provide nuch a basis.

The basis l

upon which the order could be sustained is set 'forth in Part Four of the Order.

The text of Part Four clearly indicates that the order was rendered pursuant to _the Atomic Energy Act, not NEPA.

Further, the Order is limited in scope to "r emedial actions associated with the soil activities for safety related structures and systems founded in and ou plant fill."

Hence, the purview of the hearing is, by the direct terms of the Order, limited to a Safety Review of safety-related structures and systems.

As pointed out above, the dike is not Q-listed, is not safety-related, and hence is outside of the scope of the soils hearings.

4 Although this is an inappropriate subject for NRC consid-eretion in this hearing, the following information indi-cates why the dikes were adequately constructed.

-(

s s i s

l, 1

i

(^N Heavy equipment was used to construct the dike, whereas in the confined areas of the plant small hand-held equipment was utilized in many excavated areas.

Prior to dike construction, the area was stripped of all soil shich contained organics and deleterious materials.

The area j

was excavated to an acceptable. firm foundation for an inspection trench and an impervious cutoff.

The exca-

~

vation extended to a minimum of 8 feet below original ground level and a minimum of 2 feet into undisturbed materials of the impervious cutoff.*

1 Af ter completion of the excavation, the subcontractor was required to request an inspection by the contractor's

, field engineers.

The clay embankment fill material was then placed in lift thicknesses not to exceed 12 inches and compacted with '

four passes of a 50-ton rubber-tired roller or equivalent compactive ef fort.

Other equipment used was qualified on a

test pads using the proper materials and roller passes to the above specification.

Other material sections of the dike were also placed utilizing methods described above.

Care was employed to ensure material separation between zones of the embankment to prevent material contamina-tion.

If, for example, the sand zone was to be crossed by

(

equipment, the area would be marked and the contaminated i

(

material would be removed' and replaced with approved sand."J" i

Inspections were performed by the fulltime subcontractor's inspector for lif t thickness, proper material, roller passes, and moisture conditioning.* The inspector would call for field density tests after approximately every

?

500 cubic yards were placed to verify that proper place-ment was accomplished.'" Random over-inspections were I

conducted by a representative of the applicant during 3r normal placement.

i Af ter completion of the dikes, several methods of monitoring t

the dikes were implemented.

Twenty-four settlement monuments i

were placed around the dike.

All readings show little or t

no settlement except for three monuments, which are located i

at the southeast corner of the dikes.

These monuments show approximately 1-7/8 inches of initial settlement, which took place before pond fill.

Since June 6, 1978, l

only 0.010 inch of settlement has been recorded."JM Four holes were drilled in the dike to install power poles.

These holes extended approximately from elevation 632 toselevation 623 which was the approximate water elevation at that time.

Visual inspection of these holes revealed fina, well compacted material, which is documented in

(,

s inspection reports by the contractor's geotechnical l

- i

(' )

personnel and describes the material in these holes as firm clay free of any standing water.

In addition, penetrometer readings ranged from 1.8 to 2.7 tons /

square foot.

In a boring taken for this activity, blow counts were taken and show that the clay is stif f.

(Blow counts ranged from 11 to 41. )

Prior to cooling pond fill, piezometers were installed in two locations.

These were at the northeast dike and the east dike at depths to 67 feet.

At each location there are ten piezometers starting at the pond side of the dike and extending to the river flood plain on the outside of the dike.

Piezometers in the dike show the sand drain is performing as expected.

Standard pene-

[

tration tests in the fill at these locations show blow counts between 10 and 60, with two exceptions at approxi-mately 70, and two exceptions near the surface at 3 and 7.

Logs of these borings will be provided in the response to Question 46.

)

There are 19 groundwater monitoring wells around the dikes, extending to various depths from 32 feet to 234 feet.

These are used to monitor the elevation and quality of the groundwater.

As expected, water level

(

in the monitoring wells is fluctuating with groundwater level changes.

Since completion of the pond fill there have been two inspection walkdowns around the dike by the contractor's geotechnical personnel accompanied by the applicant. No significant areas of concern have been identified.

i This supports the conclusion that the dike is performing I

as intended.

t The soils consultants have advised against making addi-tional borings in the dike now that the pond has been filled, because of possible damage to the embankment due to the drilling operation.W (v.,

,]

E.

RETAINING WALL The retaining walls adjacent to the service water pump structure (Seismic Category I) and circulating water j

pump structure (non-Seicmic Category I) are both founded on natural soil and on backfill material.

A construction joint separates sections of the walls that are on natural soil (except for a short distance which was excavated and backfilled during the construction of the service water pump structure) from the sections on backfill.

Af ter discovery of the unexpected settlement of the diesel generator building,-four borings were made near the retaining walls.

The borings penetrated the fill and were terminated in the natural soil.

During con-struction phases of the plant, there were borings made into the natural soil in the vicinity of the walls.mi Borings made adjacent to the retaining walls show that:

1 (1) granular fill was placed and compacted behind the walls; (2) the outer walls are founded on stiff to very stiff clay fill; (3) the inner walls are founded on l

natural dense sands, and hard clays and silts that also underlie the fill supporting the outer walls.

{

The soil parameters used in the original design are compared in the following table with the values derived from the boring records and laboratory tests of the soil samples taken to date throughout the site.

Allowable Values from Boring j

Design Values and Laboratory Tests j

A.

Natural soil l

Cohesion 2.0 ksf 4.0 ksf j

Bearing for i

static condition 7.25 ksf 12.9 ksf Bearing for seismic condition 9.63 ksf 19.35 ksf B.

Backfill soil Angle of internal friction 20' 35' Bearing for static condition 3.34 ksf 3.3 ksf Eearing for sdismic condition 4.25 ksf 5.0 ksf k

t l

r h

The design values are within the parameters derived

-i from the borings and laboratory tests and, therefore,

?

the design is conservative.

i The factors of safety of the retaining wall against

~

sliding and overturning, using the design parameters, I

are within the requirements given in FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3.4.

Slope stability evaluation based on borings to date show an adequate factor of safety.

The measured total settlement and differential settle-ment are each less than 1/4 inch from September 1978 to July 1980."

Therefore, additional borings are not required in this area because available borings and settlement data provide information sufficient for evaluation of the adequacy of the walls.

h

(

t 9

4 8

s,

(

l t

l' I

[ T, REFERENCES I

i 1.

NRC Meeting, 8/29/80, Midland, Michigan 2.

Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Volume 3, Tab 7, letter from A.J. Hendron to S.S. Afifi, 10/23/78 3.

Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Volume 3, Tab 12, Bechtel Meeting Notes No. 882, 11/7/78 j

4.

Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Volume 4, Tab 75, letter from R.B. Peck to S.S. Afifi, 7/23/79 5.

Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Question 9 i

6.

NRC letter to Consumers Power Company, Docket No. 50-329/330, 7/30/80; Table 37-1, Item 3 7.

Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Question 27 8.

NRC Meeting, 7/31/80, Washington, D.C.

j 9.

Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Volume 3, l

Tab 70, letter from Mssrs. Peck, Hendron, Davisson, Loughney, and Could to S.S. Afifi, 7/2/79

(_

10.

Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Volume 3, Tab 57, letter from S.S. Afifi to Mssrs. Davisson and j

Hendron, 5/22/79 l1.

FSAR Subsection 2.5.4.3.2 s

~

j 12.

NRC Meeting, 2/28/80 and 2/29/80, Midland, Michigan i

13.

Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Volume 3, 4

Tab 55, Meeting Notes, 5/10/79 14.

Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Volume 4,

{

Tab 79, letter from C.H. Gould to S.S. Afifi, 8/3/79 15.

Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Question 12 16.

FSAR Subsection 2.5.6.4 17.

NRC Midland Site Meeting, Dike Tour, 8/28/80 i

18.

Consumers Power Company letter to NRC, Serial 9697, 9/12/80, Settlement Update r

l

(

C

~

s.

TABLE 1 LABORATORY TEST DATA a

SUMMARY

OF SOIL PROPERTIES 1

TO DETERMINE p' - q' RELATIONSHIP 4

F1 + 33 3133 Boring - Sample w

p' =

2 p' =

2

- Test Series d (pcf)

(t)

(psf)

T i

T9 213 117.9 14.4 2,000 1,100 T15 222 118.6 14.2 7,200 3,850 T16 225 114.4 16.9 2,100 1,225 TR2 - U2 - 140 114.6 14.6 3,600 1,800 i

TRS 14 7 117.9 14.1 6,000 3,100 1

i i

' NOTES:

1 Y d = dry unit weight w = water content F1 = effective major principal stress 33 = effective minor principal stress i

l l

e i

i 4

)

~

6 n.

p+,

~

Figure 1 (See Reference 1) ii i jf

>g n

A ;.,

som us sium rw maa.. sis rw muv.m z

sI

,, ;.y;i 3

g g - :g l2I

y \\;

. Og*?

yy:

I I I I__ I I !

g i

(

w i

=

I l

og o j

.[

a i!

sil

!,,t a j'!

o

+

a-t Ij!

j::

j

. [

II _

g i

Ifti 5

c<1444. !

r i*

g

. 3 3

. 3 g

. I g

. 3 g

. I

,1 g

. 3

~

. g

==*

3

. g N.:

(

1[

dl 3

g g

. 3 I

I a

g

. l

. l, a

g P

a g

==4-

. 3 g

. g 3

. 3 3

3.

Os.

y.

.E g

- O$

yo t'

g

. 3 J'

g

. 3 y M'

=

I g.

i e

I a -u-u l!

~=

3 1

11

.a

. 3 I

1 g...-:

mm 1

I l

.]

I 8

Ed l

,3 (I

E k-v,,---

3 5 I g g I g u

,u.

rw u.

rw i..m

=

,,,h

Figura 2 (See Reference 1)

[

LOAD (KSF) 0 1

2 3

4 5

8 7

628 Y

l STRESS INCREMENT DUE TO T

/

STRUCTURAL LOADS (DEAD) 7/,

823

\\

//

(1)

(2)(4)

)

3)

/

p

/

e sis f

E STRESS INCREMENT Z

DUE TO UVE LOAD & [

l 9

LOWERING GWT FRO 2

827 TO 800 7

I b

I d

l 613 a

l STRESS INCREMENT DUE TO l

LIVE LO ADS -e 4

(

108 I-i STMESS IN-SITU EFFECTIVE I INCREMENT DUE STRESS (GWT 627) j TO SURCHARGE g/

W I

J l

~

i m

1. (1) h-dtu eNeedw esortsween prosaure j

GWT et 827.

2. (2) Totd eNeeWw presswo due to in-dw effeedw oeurtmaden pressun and seusmael deed loads.

3. (3) Total eNectw presswo et the end of sweary due to la-altu eNecta oeurtmaden pressure, swuctwat deed leeds, & sweerge nemen.

4. (4) Totd eHocta presswo ese to in-deu eWocWw ourtmaden presses, serusnael deed loedi, & Rw loads.

i l

E. 15) Totd effeedw presswo dwing the Efe of plant operadon due to in-das effecWw esortmaden preewe, svucturaldeed loeds, dowearing loeds, & Ew leads.

((. _,

COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVE STRESS AT

1) END OF SURCHARGE AND 2) DURING LIFE OF PLANT OPERATION SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING r

i J

s')

i,s e-g-

r

-~

4 o

.a n.

Q I

s e

g *>* I w:

W w

a I b B

.I 3

[3 p1 2 I

o I on a.

s wt e

-i-o E::j o m

x P.g] g o.

n d

I a

3 I w s N 8iWal M Ben A W 1dt

.w.ac. N4 I

f l

t

~

/

t r

23

/

- t.2 a

/

E 3:::

/

'tLi*

/

.j4 i

8o8138*@ DNi.sd wind so alvo ca2vatisal /.

!II 1 W 6N o - --=f 3J:ylj 3

I4

/

. 4.3 a' s

.I 2,

l:g, 5

E fasetov3u1N3n31113s assaqi

/

..ij2 3

a

/

/-

3 g 3j'IE

~

'N e-4 /

3g

~

Eis

4g1:[t

/}

. 1

' >/

I

- 9 a '7 i2 nvas. no.v.a.ns o am o

em :::

e5 3433"l w

-e j

, N,

., '... 2.~..g i

i

(

gl4::2 * : I G

4 n

8 8

e, s

s I

r E

3

' g' Eg Ia el

=a P.

li la s

8 sneaeva meseasourw 5

Sm i

/evo1 ro v ownsi see.

2

-g g

- t$

i A

g a sE d

g!

1 l

($3EstI) ZK3XIu135 f

{,

b

.I (I cousse;eg ses)

{

g esnSTJ i

4 9

6

. ~ _ _ _ _ _ _. _,

_ _ _ _ _ ~ -.. -. _

l l

/***-

m f-

./

l'.

t 3 DIESEL CENERATOR BUILDING l; ;

l o

a.27s O N Og

@ O noes l

aw2 ace 0 W

% 0 23e Q O 0.30s 0

V N.'T.'9 F-]

l l

a024 IM 09

&Oct E03s 28 M

L DJ00 0 -

j DM 0.272 0.330

?

K29s 0.323 0.298 0.358 0.337 0.259 j

l 0

O

, _O_ _ - O

, - __,O O,- O O

f O

O l

7----- i

-- - i 3

l 8

I t

8

[

l l

I I

4.024 I

l 0g E

l WO I

8 i

i l

8 g

j 1

i i

m l

(

l l

}

L k

l 1

e E

~

J n1' 1

r 1

t 1

I I

l 8

I I

l gy g

I e

8 8

e i

"'o*---Y _j] N

~ g a.

ua gati toet ILei A04s 'a03s 0

0 g

~D _ i o[]

O - E$ [ ]

~~

e i

i o

i Eiig O

O [,v 50eg aJ E-J L-.s L

o tMe f

0 0.O n o0 o E012 gO a

i 0.400 0.421 0.423 0.400 i

i f

l lI LEGEND:

O - sUlt. DING / PEDESTALSETTLEMENT MARKER 0.012 - MEASURED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN S 15-79 end 81280 IN INCHES 0.421 PREDICTED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN 815 79 end 812 80 IN INCHES gggg-'Tc8 i

k

'8 w L=

i l

ASSUMING SURCHARGE REMAINS DURING PLANT LIFE i

ASIBI ARSOR NOTE:

MIDLAND POWER PLANT l

?

The mesewed seedement de not include the heese obserweil epproximately betwowi815-79 & 914 79.

i j

MEASURED VS PREDICTED SECONDARY COMPP.SSION SETTLEMENT (815 79 /

i 812-80) ASSUMING SURCHARGE REMAINS d

alDSpo.

nftAlgjge_ sea.

.. [i.h _7220 FIGURE 2715 1

1

- - - - - - ~ ~ * ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - * ~ ' ~ '

" ' ' ' ' * " ~ ~

" ~ ~ ~ ~ '

f t

s-

)

i rQ

.s l

-u 2

i 4

- 41 i

e C

1* E N O

q 40 w

b e

w i

N

=

4 Iw 41 y

n in C. = L E

w 'r 1

a ga i

vs a e.2 en Me m

D sn n

SETTLEMENT VS TIME m

BA44 H

i 6

44 B

l TWE g)AYS) a

'o a

4 l

t 2

~

f.-

- m.

'\\..

.s s

9 50GO P' - q' c-f_

~

a = 100 PSF c = 115 PSF 4000-a = 26*

$ = 29.2*

O

/

w E

/

3000-

/

n

~

C

/

N s <<

/

m

/

5m

~S

/ % 26*

Ra$

f w

n b

/

a*

2000' p

ge

/

N 0

/

e

/

~

/

A 12 0F INTEIDEAL FRICTION $ = SIg-1 (TAN a)

Of g

COMESIGN INTERCEPT = s/cos f 1000

/

I = 100 PSF 0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 700n FSF STRENCIII PARAMETERS BASED ON

,,, ol ' - c 3'

~

2 EFFECTIVE STRESS PARMIETF1tS

~_-

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

.._.._m_

. _ _ _. ~ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _.. _ _... _ _ -.. _ _. -.. -... -.... _ _..._. - m

_m.-__

_ _ _ euween N-

- ~ ~ ~ * " "

r.

(_.

/'

~

e 9

t

..LECEND 9 SOLID STMBOLS REPRESENT TOTAL STRESS l

s000 O OPEu StuBOLs mEPRESENT EFFECTIVE STRESS P

e goon.

26*

?

l e

t W e'l h

44 m c:

b SN Me n

7 4000-D4

)

O 2

o g

r4 t

g o

5 Y

2000 - -

eO t

O O

l 3

3 B

R R

y w

w w

i y

W 0

2000 4000 6000 0000 10,000 12,000 l

og' - e3' PSF CDtrARTSON OF TOTAL AND EFFECTIVE F, "

2 STRF.SS STRENGTH FARAMETERS j

l t

j t

y-

.~

Figure 8 (Sh 1 of 2)

(See Reference 1) i t

?

l k

BEARING CAPACITY (D/G BLDG)

A.

BASED ON ALI., C7 TESTS I=29' e = 260 psf I

a).

Use T s P N = 27 N = 16 N = 15 i

C 4

y s

t qd = (260) (27) + (125) (6) (16) + 1/2 (125) (10) (15) t

= 7,020 + 12,000 + 9,375

= 28395 psf k

i (q I

27,H5 d net F.S.

= 8.13 4

b).

Use vesic N,= 27.9 N = 16.4 N = 19 y

qd = (260) (27.9) + (125) (6) (16.4) + 1/2 (125) -(10) (19)

= 7,254 + 12,300 + 11,875 = 31,425 psf (qd) net = 30,679 psf F... = ';;;;; = 9.02

.J

~

j

i i

o o

r

~~

s 8

[ ~

~~

Figure 8 (Sh 2 of 2) 6

}

l f

i 1

3.

BASED ON FIVE SA9.LES WIT}! LOhT.R DENSITIES 0

I=29 s

e = 114 psf I

AN N = 27 N = 16

.N

= 15 c

q Y

\\

l l,

i q

(114) (27) + (125) (6) (16) + 1/2 (125) (10) (15)

=

d 3,078 + 12,000 + 9,375 j

s-

=

h 6

24,453 psf

=

i (qd net Psf l

t F.S. =

= 6.97 t'

IT WE NEG'ECT e, ASSUME = 0 t

- f qd (125) (6) (16) + 1/2 (125) (10) (15)

=

12,000 + 9,375

=

i 21,375 psf

=

f (q

,625 psf

=

s d not 20,625

,F.S. = -3,400 "

(.

i l

s

/

i w

k e

, +,..,

.-,,y

,---e

tt, l

1

+

,m

$I 6

. l.

f I

l

.I I

t i

APPENDIX A RESUMES FOR CONSULTANTS M.T. DAVISSON, j

A.J. HENDRON, AND R.B. PECK f

i 1

(

d l

l

}

W t

l Personal Data Summary of M. T. Davisson l

(3 j

Full Na.me_j, Melvin Thomas Day 1wson Birth _Date: 23 December 1931 i

Present Po11tions:

t Professor of Civil Engineering University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois Consulting Foundation Engineer

Background:

i Native of Ohio.,BCE from University of Akron, M.S. and Ph.D. from University of Illinois. Earlier work experience was in con-struction and structural gagineering.

Consulting:

l Difficult -foundations in waterfront construction including bulkheads, l

cofferdams and piers; braced cuts, underpir.ning, grain storage structures; protective construction to resist nuclear blast; f

deep ocean soil mechanics; foundation vibrations; deep foundations; g

dynamics of pile driving. Exa=ples are: Hudson River Pier ho for j

the Holland-America Lines; Bulkhead supporting McCormick Place in Chicago; Grain Terminal at Sorel, P. Q.; Pile foundations for i

Iceks and Dams in the Arkansas River Project; Ifinuteman-type construction for U.S. Air Force; Shelter construction for U. S.

Army and Navy; Research problems at Nevada Test Site end

[

Suffield Experimental Station; Reco=sendations for R and D pro-I grams in deep-ocean engineering for U. S. Navy; Pile supported I

runway extensions at LaGuardia Field for Port of New York I

Authority; R and D ::: vibratory pile driving for Shell Oil Co.;

Fmmdation vibration-prohla.rm..inyrtlying Jtleetri2_Rm 6 ants l

and structures such,as the No. lia Newsprint Machine for 7tice Bros. at Alma P. Q. Foreign projects in Europe, Asia South i

I America, Central America Canada and Puerto Rico.

Research:

Behavior of deep foundations (piles, drilled piers, etc.) Settlement of foundations. Soil dynamics. Foundation vibrations. Dynamics of pile driving. Wave equation analysis of impact and vibratory pile driving' TeaIhinat Several courses in soil mechanics and four.dation engineering for seniors and graduate students. Special cou2se in deep foundations for ad-vanced graduate students.

Techniesl and Professional Societies:

American Society of Civil Engineers A=erican' Concrete Institute American Railway Engineering Asso' iation c

{-

Ameriesa Society for Testing and !!aterials National Society of Professional Engineers

,%.)

. ~.

1 l

l l

g l

.m 3

f~

i Personal Data Sum =ary of M. T. Davisson, continued Coe=ittee Membershf ea r

~

l 1

American Railway Engineering Association, Coe=ittee 8. Concrete Structures j

and Foundations.

I

(

American Concrete Institute, Committee Sk3. Concrete Piles.

American Society of Civil Engineers, Con:mittee on Deep Foundations.

American Society -for Testing and Materials, Committee D-18. Sub.11 Tests on Deep Foundations and Comittee D-7, Bub. 7. Timber Piles Highway Research Board, Committee on Soils,6ther StructureGeology and Chairman, Subcommittee on'3 ridges and s.

I Professional Registration:

et l

Professional Engineer - Chio and Illinois Structural Engineer - Illinois

}

Renors and_Avards:

(

l Recipient of the Second Annual Alfred A. Raynond Award,1959, for the t

paper " Lateral Stability of a Flexible Pier." First place award in inter =ational competition for original papers on foundation engineering.

!((

Recipient of the Collingwood Prise,196k, presented by the American Society of Civil Engineers rcr the paper " Laterally Loaded p

Piles in a Layered Soil System."

Publications:

See attached list.

f

...,y_,

c

]

A. T. Uavisson

n

' t l

Publications:

s 1.

R. 5. Peck, M. T. Davisson and V. Hansen, discussion of:' " Soil Hodilus for laterally Lisded Piles," by S. ficClelland and J. A.

Fact. Jr., Transactions. ASCE, Vol. 123, 1958, pp. 1065-1069.

l 2.

M. T. Davisson, discussion of:

" Experimental St d Elastic Foundations," by R. L. Thoms Proceedings y of Beams on u

i No. EM1, February 1961, pp.171-172.

ASCE, Vol. 87, f

j 3.

D. 3. Deere and M. T. Davisson, " Behavior of Grain Elevator Founda-t tioss Subjected to Cyclic Loading," Proceedings Fifth International l

. Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris..

' Vol.1,1961, pp. 629-633.

.t

! 4.

4 R. 5. Peck and M. T. Davisson, discussion of: " Design and Stability Transactions, ASCE, Vol.127, Part IV,1962, pp. 414-424.

5.

R. I. Peck and M. T. Davisson, discussion of:

)

w "Fri ti No. 5M1, February 1963, pp. 279-285.in Cohesive Soil." by R..

c i

6.

M. T. Davisson and H.

L.' Gill, " Laterally Loaded Piles in a LayeredSof t System i

(

7.

A. J. Hendron and M. T. Davisson, " Static and Dynamic Behavior of a Playa Silt in One-Dimensional compression," Technical Documentary Report No. RTO TOR-63-3078 1963.

AFML, Kirtland Air Force Base September 8.

H. Xane, M. T. Davisson, R. E. Olson and G. 'C. Sinnar.on, "A Study of the Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction Characteristics of Soil,"

Technical Documentary Report No. RTD TOR-63-3116, Air Force Base, December 1963.

AFWL, Kirtland 9.

M. T. Davisson and S. Prakash, "A Review of Soil-Sole Behavior,"

Highway Research Record No. 39, NAS-NRC Publication 1159, Was 1963, pp. 25-48.

10.

M. T. Davisson, " Estimating Buckling Loads for Piles," Proceedings, Engineering, Brazil Vol" 1,1963, pp. 351-371.Second Pan A

{

11.

Moduli of Frenchman Flat Soils," Proceedings, Symp Structure interaction. Tucson, June 1964, pp. 73-97.

l

12. M. T. Davisson and T. R.: Maynard, " Static and Dynamic Compressib of Suffield Experimental Station Soils " Technical Report Nc.

{U WL TR-64-118, AFWL, Kirtland Air Force.Base April 1965.

f f

1

.*g.

e

-,-.,,-.e.---.,-~-

--,---vw

-- - n n-w,

.e e-w,~

n,,

m,.--

w-,.-,w,n

-e.-..

,ev

~.-, a e, e n...-

a n

[..*

f

+

1 i

i, 13.

M. T. Davisson discussion of:

"Bucklin Pfles." by E. J. Klohn and G. T. Hughes.g of Long, Unsupported Timber No. SM4 July 1965, p. 224.

Proceedings. ASCE, Vol. 91 14.

M. T. Davisson. T. R. naynsrd and V. G. Kofle i

No. AFWL-TR-65-29, AFWL.' Kirtland Air Force Base. Ifecember 1 I

l 15.

M. T. Davisson and K. E. Robinson. " Bending and Buckling Embedded Piles." Proceedings, Sixth International Conference o l

g Mechanics and Foundation; Engineering. Montreal, Vol.1.1965, pp. 243-46.

i l

l 16.

M. T. Davisson. " Design of Deep Foundations for Tall Buildi'ngs

)

Lateial Load." Proceedings, Structural Engineering In Mod Design. Illinois Structural Engineering Conference, Chicago I

pp. 157-174.

1966 i

17.

5 ASTM Special Technical Publication. No. 444 2 !.

{-

Foundations. San Francisco, 1968, pp. 106-117.

18.

M.1. D'avisson and J. R. Salley, " Lateral Load Tests on Drilled

^

Piers," ASTM Special Technical Publications No. 444. Symposium 7 (

Deep Foundations. San Francisco, 1968, pp. 68-83.

on f

19.

M. T. Davisson and V. J. Mcdonald " Energy Measurements for Hamer," ASTM Specia1' Technical Publication, No. 444, Sympos Deep Foundations. San Francisco. 1968. pp. 295-337.

i 20.

M. T. Davisson, discussion of: " Skin F i ti Vol. 95, No. SM1. January.1969, pp. 373-374. Sand." by H rc 21.

A. H. Hendron, Jr., M. T. Davisson and J. F. Pa i

- Research Establishment Suffield." Report S-69-3. Waterways Ex Station, Vicksburg. Mississippi. April 1969.

i 22.

M. T. Davisson, " Static Measurements of Pile Behavior," Procee Conference on Design and Iristallation of Pile Fcundations and Cellular Structures, Lehigh University Bethlehem, April 1970 pp. 159-164, 23 M. T. Davisson. " Design Pfle Capacity," Proce Lehigh University. Dethlehem. April 1970. pp. 75-85

24. M. T. Davisson and J. R. Salley, "Model Study of Laterally loaded P11es." Proceedinps. ASCE. Vol. 95, No. SMS. September 1970

[J]

pp. 1605-1627. -

e e

f h'

.m.

,....,__-...._._,.-- -- -,..-., ~.m._

i

+

.4 t

l.

f 25.

M. Alizadeh and M. T. Davisson, " Lateral Load Tests on Piles -

Arkansas River Project," Prdceedings, ASCE, Yol. 96 No. SMS, j

September 1970, pp.1583-1604 26 M. T. Davisson, " Lateral Load Capacity of Piles," Highway Research Record No. 333,. Washington,1970, pp,104-12.

i 27.

M. T. Davisson, "BRD Vibratory Driving Formula," Foundation Facts, Vol. VI. No.1,1970, pp. 9-11.

4 28.

M. T. Davisson and J. R.; Salley, " Settlement Histories of Four Large Tanks on Sand " Proceedings, Peiformance of Earth and Earth-1 Supported Structures, Purdue University, Lafayette, June 1972, I

pp. 981-996.

I l

29.

M. T. Davisson, " Settlement Histories of Two Pile Supported Grain Silos," Proceedings, Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported

/

Structures Purdue University, Lafayette, June 1972, pp.1155-67.

i i

30.

M. T. Davisson, " Inspection of Pil: Driving Operations " Technical l

Report M-22. Department of the Army, Construction Engineering t

Research Laboratory, Champaign, July 1972.

31.

M. T. Davisson, "High Capacity Piles " Proceedings Lecture Series,

{

Innovations in Foundation Construction Sit &FD. Illinois Section ASCE, Chicago, 1973.

32.

M. T. Davisson and D. M. Rempe " Wave Theory Simplified," Piletalk

{

Seminar. New Jersey, 1974.

l 33.

M. T. Davisson, " Pile Foundations and the Computer," Use of Computers in Foundation Design and Construction, Metropolitan Section ASCE, New York, April 1974.

I l

l

l l

L v

l

. -. _ ~..

~

i g

Professional Background and Experience Name: Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.

i

}

Address: 2230c Civil Engineering Building J

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

-Urbana, IL 61801 i

Date of Birth: October 4, 1937

\\

Marital Status: Married with 2 children 6..,

Citizenship: Natural Born - U.S.

h-

{.

4 Education F-Ph.D.

1963 University of Illinois Major:

Soil Mechanics Urbana, Illinois Foundations lf g

Minors: Geology i

p Theoretical and p(

Applied Mechanics p

i..N M.S.

1960 University of Illinois Civil Engineering Urbanat Illinois.

B.S.

1959 University of Illinois Civil Engineering

!~

Urbana, Illinois Positions Held

/

September' 1970 - Present Professor of Civil Engineering University of Illinois September 1968 - September 1970 Associate Professor of Civil Engineering University of Illinois September 1965 - September 1968 Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering University of Illinois i

i september 1963 - September 1965 1/t.t. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Research Engineer U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station June 1961 - september 1963

.Research Associate University of Illinois

(

June 1960 - September 1960 Engineer, Shannen & Hilson Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers Seattle, Washington

s 7.~~

- - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~

1 D

t Alfred J. Hendron, Jr. ',

1 i f Offices held and othei services to orofessional societies

[

1 (1)

Member of the Research Committee of I;he Soil Mechanics and Foundations 4

)M Division of the American Society cf Civil Engineers (1967-69).

*b5 I5 (2)

Member of Subcommittee 12 of Committee D-18, ASTM, Properties of j j g...

Soil and Rock, 1965-1970.

}M (3)

Co-chairman of Panel on " Stress Wave Propagation in Soils,"

l?j International Symposium on Soil Dynamics,' Albuquerque, New Mexico,

Q,-

SUBJECT:

j COMMENTS ON RIII ENFORCEMENT PACKAGE ON MIOLAND SETTLEMENT PROBLEMS DATED APRIL 3, 1979 li

'I We have reviewed the above referenced package which uncer J. Davis's memorandum of March 21, 1979 coordinating group within IE.was forwarded to X005 as the responsible These comments are provided to be con-i j

sistent with this memorandum and the follow-up memorandum you provided i

to your enforcement personnel also on March 21, 1979.

I I

i In sumary, it is our opinion that four of the five false statements l

identified by the Region will probably be substantiated to be material false statements and that they were made in careless disregara of the N

facts.

Therefore, it would follow that there weald probably be four instances of a material false statement each of which would have a i

civil penalty of $5,000 imposed for it.

j opinion, a material false statement.

The fifth item is not, in our

.t

. The enclosure presents our detailed reconenendatios.s on this matter.

you have questions please contact us.

17

/t AL N

Harold D. Thornburg, Directer y

j Division of Reactor Construction y

!s Inspection IE EnclosuTe:"

Coments on Midland Enforcement Packaget CONTACT:

R. E. Shewmaker. IE A9-27551 i

J N T) [ O l 0 0 l i.

I

,n

.. ~

..n.-,--

,,-,.,------4-.

-.. w,---,-,,-,, - -.,.. _. -

en

.s

u.

-- - e.

.:.:. v

^

COMMENTS ON MIOLAND ENFORCEMENT PACKAGE TRANSMIT

(

FROM KEPPLER, DATED 4/3/79 i

{

s s

1.

Appendix A entitled, " Notice of Violation," and will be t a civil penalty.

of Civil Penalties" should be prepared.An Appendix B entitled, " Notice of i

should be addressed in an Appendix C, " Notice of Violation." *~The other p

2.

identified by amendment number and/or revision number 3.

is apparently from the original version of the FSAR.A check o

,pS Revision 1,11/22/77 hp-4 # statements referenced have been revised now after th has a different statement and is the current version.

5 a

Some of the other q

must be reexamined.

This I

If the statements quoted in the RIII draft can be utilized in an enforcement action then we judge the statement to be a material false statement.

In reaching this conclusion we note that there C-45 stating that Zone 2 material is to be used as Cla; citation is to be properly supported.

A Y'h4.

Statement #2 can probably be classed as a material false statement if

k the results of the interview with the cognizant engineer and/or th MM 1ation sheet prove that 3.0 ksf was used in the settlement calculations.

)

5.

Statement #3 is viewed to be a ' material false statement, but there is a need to full w4 4 calculations. y document what was actually done in the execution of the

p Again a copy of the calculation sheet and/or a statement 4f the cognizant engineer is needed to properly support the finding.

6.

Statement #4 can probably be classed as a material false statement H

'** $ n if the results of the interview and/or the calculations are provided to support the finding.

7.

Statement #5 is judged to not be a material false statement.

is due to the fact that the statement quoted is written as a predicted This future value for settlement.

l 8.

For those statements which will become material false statements w I'

a civil penalty, remove them from the draft Appendix A and move the remainder to the new Appendix C.

,'v.-

9.

All statements judged to be material false statements must be examined k

to see in what " state of mind" or in what circumstances the licensee mad 7

the statement.

This is. relevant to the question of " civil penalty" vs.

"second chance."

.t In our judgment these instances appear to be situations of " careless disregard" of the facts which would warrant civil penalty.

i

{

E J

F

~

a u.

sf '*

/.8

...v.

.S.4 -

1

~

... /.

,v ev.,

,/.

e.,.

u 2

JUN 13 IS79

.I.

i n

f i..

+

cc w/ enclosure:

Va.

m J. G. Keppler RI F3 D. W. Hayes, RIII-

[Ej T. W. Brockett. X005

'/' r G. W. Reinmuth. RCI.

F.i R2 E. Shewmaker RCI E

-+.

ee 4.'*

s

W.

'?t$.

l'. '

4 On

'1%9" s

8.?*R

'*I%

i't...

t:L nesev.

.p n-

'A

.w..,

.'t W he.*.

' " f. '.

m.g...I

[.

.p

' i'.

..e f

/-

e 4

2

.l

=

,')..

#" M g 3

w 6...

J,.

p..e 8Is O il lb ^

Y,'

.s.

..1.

.d.43 P*

s.

A.

? *

(

e e

s. :

O

.r

E *.T a

ms.

a s

tirsa.

ers -

. W.,'t, t

e e NAY 8

2.: 1 l

. i.s..

'g 8197g ja

, f ' * *.

m.

u

g.....

W

..E, )

,e p

t 3

e N

~}

~sy$

s u.

's.

'h

't k.

l

.c,

4. >

e*

u,>p*

.- t o. tr o

- 4 g F3

.....M.- -

, N.*

s.

9'"

> hm.wr,c,%+f.g.=r.,m.m:.:;.. d y...

'e M.*

.s. ',

t' (',.

l

.., a

~.

s+

gw.w 7N de Ifl

}

f,

>$,N M b gM 2,

MIDLAND SOIL SETTLEMENT /0A CONCERN q

(>

e A

l

]

l 1.

50.54(f) sent to Consumers Power Company in March 1979.

At that time IE recommended to NRR that a>show cause be issued to stop construction, j

Itwasagreed(NRR/IE)that50.54(f)would,besufficient.

j 4

2.

General question of QA adequacy of Utility /AE was discussed internally by IE/NRR on August.16.

IE was to ask region to make a finding as to i

adequacy of QA implementation. Special consideration was to be given 1

i-. -

soils settlement matter in relation to the reports of QA deficiencies l

.jp in other areas, i

i

.j,. 7' ~

' ' 3.

Latest response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) follow-on questions regarding QA of plant fill received on g.,.

11/13/79.

(TentativeQABranchposition

^

j{ c.

suggests response still unsati.sfactory.)

7.0.

3,,

M " < ' 4.

Review of Midland Soils Settlement submittals given' to Corps of Engineers '

at and of October..' (Tour of site made by Corps of Engineers & NRR staff 3,

C.M..,. *./...,, November 14. )

/w c.

,.f..

L.'.,Q 5.

To date,Lifst1Titiesireplies to 50.54(f) have not described acceptance t

{%

criteria Tor remedial action, prior to such action. Applicant views 3

1

. M,.

i

'.D. -

the remedial actions as " proof tests" which preclude need for such criteria.i Staff decision as to acceptability of remedial action must j

t.ff.'l await completion of the program, and applicant must proceed entirely at his' risk.

.s j

4.. e I

'.., 5. '

6.

In a meeting on November 28, IE developed a new position:

9;/o.-

't '.. : ' <. '-

a.

Overall QA performance acceptable because it identifi,es QA j

t. ) j

;. deficiencies; a

yi'i b.' #

i 6'.P.

L IE now raises question as to the acceptabilfly of the design fix

'i i

and draws the conclusion that the modification constitutes a

( departure from the principal architectural and engineering criteria; i

IE suggests Stello/Denton meeting ASAP to develop a decision for c.,J enforcement actions relative to applicant's failure to c j

C.,y [- ',

l' Jesign approved by CP.

i d ".

ns.1y:

y;..

g g,,.

-24. >

. y\\.

. a.

M.;hi(.:

a.n..,..:. :: %.::e..-

+

1 1

......t,,

..s..

...~..:,.

,j a

M,y. y M. h P. M f f..

. ' y y S Q k # :

,l

~

i s

.,;Mi~n...s,.. ; m...,'.Vm. :.3:.::,WN.o..'

.t.

.s.

% /* f

...... w., I. -"b

..

{

..:.Q: y

.:a ::.~

a n.u. n wl:i.f C:: e l*r. p~M.,.

.. s

. M.9 C w

? v...

b

bMLt.T, G LS h'-J fT l b d6

(

I

/g (k$ 9 CHCb) 1 AUG 241979 MEMO TO FILE

'j FROM:

D. Hood, Project Manager, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, DPM

SUBJECT:

INTERNAL MEETING ON STATUS OF MIDLAND S0ILS SETTLEMENT i

On August 16, 1979, members of NRR, I&E Headquarters and OELD met to discuss the status of the staff's review of the soils settlement matter at the Midland 1

site. The purpose was to determine the status of the staff's decision pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54f (which is applicable to constructior permits by 10 CFR 50.55(c).)

.The principal background documents to date are listed in Enclosure 1.

Meeting attendees are listed in Enclosure 2.

j d

Mr. Knight rep.orted that the principal technical solutions proposed by the applicant for the major structures appears to be basically sound such that, properly implemented, they can be expected to provide for adequate structural

.s foundation support. He noted, however, that certain details of the applicant's reply were not sufficient and further information will be required from the applicar For example, the details of the applicant's load combination calculations and

' stress limits applicable to differential settlement, NRR's need for a more quantitative assessment to determine that nozzle loads transmitted from settled pipes to the attached valves, pumps, tanks, etc will remain within ASME Code al'lowa'bles, and a more thorough monitoring program to follow actual performance during operation. These findings and further requests are being documented and will be completed in late August.

i Messrs Haass and Gilray of QA8 noted that some instances of poor performance in QA areas revealed in the I&E investigation report indicates that additional QA measures beyond those typically imposed by the NRC may be warranted. QAS's 4

review is in its final stages of documentation and should be completed before e

the end of August.

, AUG 241979 l

Mr Thornburg noted I&E is continuing its review of the performance aspects of

^

the QA program and considering the soils settlement matter in relation to the i

[

reports of QA deficiencies in other areas. Mr. Thornburg anticipates that I&E will reach its conclusions by mid-September 1979.

OELD referenced a Memorandum and Order from ASLB dated August 2,1979 which asks for clarification of the staff's position regarding consideration of the diesel generator building settlement issue. The board cannot determine from the staff's response whether the staff simply prefers not to issue a partial 3

SER or whether there are other considerations making early consideration of j

this issue impossible or impractical. Mr. Omstead will prepare a reply clarifying e

the staff's DES schedule and explaining why isolation of the DG building issue

.is not practical.

/

J Mr. Rubenstein described the approach which DPM will take in arriving at an NRC position on the technical qualification findings for the SER. The approach f

1 79 is that defined in a W. Haass memo dated 12/15/78, which calls for inputs from QAB, IAE, D0R and DPM.

Mr. Yassallo emphasized the need for timely decisions to be reached by the staff and for similar status meetings in the near. future.

pA. Mg:>

D. Hood 9

y O

e

~ ~

/

ENCLOSURE 1 g'

BACXGROUND DO:UMENTATION Background Documentation relevant to NRR's 10 CFR 50.54(f) requests dated March 21, 1979 include the following: The applicant's reply dated April 24, 1979, was revised May 31,1979 (revision 1), and July 9,1979 (revision 2).

Further infonnation was supplied by the applicant during meetings attended by 1

both I&E and NRR on March 5 and July 18,1979.

In addition, certain infor-mation was requested by NRR technical branches as part of the FSAR review prior to issuance of the 10 CFR 50.54(f) requests and are replied to through FSAR amendirents. Site visits by NRR staff to observe settlement were made March 6 and June 7,1979, and December 3,1978. NRR participation with I&E h

results from a' Transfer of Lead Responsibility which was distributed to technical review branches as part of a technical assistance request dated j

November 27, 1978.

Background documentation directed to I&E includes a 50.55(e) notification by the, applicant dated September 29,1978, for which six interim reports have been issued to date (November 7,1978; December 21, 1978; January 5,1979; February 23,1979; April 30,1979; and June 25,1979).

I&E has conducted a prelieinar,y investigation and has documented its sumary findings, along with the applicant's discussion of these findings, in a letter to the applicant dated March 15,1979. Enforcement actions due to potential material false statements in the FSAR as may be applicable to some of these !&E findings are presently under internal review, assisted by NRR staff as appropriate.

i e

e e

.a

/

t L

lr.

/

R '.. /

ENCLOSURE 2 5/

ATTENDEES s

l.

l J. Knight D. Skovholt l

W. Haass D. Vassallo S. Yarga L. Rubenstein D. Hood l

H. Thornburg R. Shewmaker R. Backman l

W. Omstead l

R. Lieberman

?

J. Gilray

~ ~

7 l

J. Spraul 1

)

t e.

s e

ea t

6

'4.

e i

P e

4 O

6 S

9 k

0 l

l l

l

."t

t l

'?-

[

S s.

h h

y-

'l,.*

6 6

i p

\\**a;

s.

s s

I l

.(

la

~. '

j j

.s :

f, 6...-

1 g

4 *.

< 4,,g

'.4....

t.*,.

P

.m

i e i usi..a u ser.v+,

cem

-- Oc}- l, i fgo r^ b.rs$ 494,vtek s

/dte-i k%

Hethe 36-Skg A%e SW STFda

~

643 4ax bf

.9 1,

5 G al h 4 Dic e ba y

&-i-,

hky 14lls (2<.y.4 t0%

S k@k&L.9 caw / eg/ardBoS % gh to/6~' n W fn$s 4

su (o

s

( f rJe + F 6 6 y e, $. L s n k o d,,

e3Y bsk2 km., t 4 a,e t4

, an N

&#1Gt-basr

)h l

' (h j

9tM pA~

.)

9/Y

y gv s

,34 h

g' g

g

g g

g

- {%w~rA. to

%l\\ ~1 t'c$

g gt pa"% to g(S0 CRccc)

,,i y -1 UNITED STATES l

yf ' s. [,}

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{y JWC

"^. )

i 7

a WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 W

mg

./

SEP 0 21d0 J

3

' ' %, * * * * *,a EOUt.iSEN..$i August 27, 1980 UkNSON$bN Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330 CC: SHH File OliB5.1(

JWC.

JARutgers GSK Mr. J. W. Cook TRT Vice President Tcc Consumers Power Company JEB 1945 West Parnall Road KWeidner Jackson, Michigan 49201 DMB HJSaari

Dear Mr. Cook:

MEGibbs (IIAB)

Serial

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING DEWATERING OF MIDLAND SITE Amendment No. 74 to your application dated February 28, 1980, provided information regarding a permanent dewatering system proposed for the Midland site in response to Request No. 24 from Mr. L. Rubenstein's letter of November 19, 1979. The review by the hydrologic section of our Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch indicates the need

-I for further information-regarding that response as identified in

. Enclosure 1.

TMs information is in addition to related requests ~-N -

contained in our letter of August 4, 1980. _ __

We would appreciate your reply to Enclosure 1 at your earliest opportunity.

Should you need clarification of these requests for additional information, please contact us.

Sincerely, M

.d"c 40.,0 Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl:

See next page

(

n A nd r m t? Q.

~

na

( U LJ t i ~ LJ /

! l

August 27, 1980

.,s Mr. J. W. Coor Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 4200

\\

1 First National Plaza

'A, Chicago, Illinois 60603 Judd L. Bacon, Esq.

Managing Attorney Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary l

Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.

1 IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Frank J. Kelley, Esq.

Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental Protection Division 720 Law Butiding Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Wendell Marshall Route 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 Grant J. Merritt, Esq.

Thompson, Nielsen, Klaverkamp 8 James 4444 105 Center 80 South Eighth Street 2

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

l

._~

i I

i

\\

l

'N Mr. J. W. Ccck August 27, 1980 l

cc: Mr. Steve.Gaaler 2120 Carter Avenue l

lSt. Paul, Minnesota 55100

~

Mr. Don van Farewe, Chief l.

Division of Radiological Health l

Department of Puolic Health t

i P. O. Box 33035 Lansing, Michigan 43909 William J. Scanlon, Esq.

2034 Pauline Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j

P.esident Inspectors Office i

l Rcute 7 Midland, Michigan 43640

(

i l

I t

6 o

?

i i

I

. (%~"'.

I 1

r

/

August 27, 1980 1

~

1

r, *. '. a l * :. :.~t c e t ',.,. Et sit cr t.

P. C. i-

.g

...t,.

.i 10

,. i.

'.!s *.ii n C..$in.: f c s..,.r.. c ' ne.

.er

... u... o.,,: c-

...,A

.s

,i. T',:.'t., C 111l'c cr.i a. l.: N

'. :. i l l t,' ',. ' i d,.

e.

e..,s........ i. s is.

.n T

. d l.

s.

it.

.1

..e

.s.

is

.J

..)

l 41 O

t

...us

}

'}.

...t1 l

"<. f. ira ?.

"..'st l

'. 'l.".. rib '(.

t e

l

. e4

. 1. }.

9,.n s.

s.6 l

t,.. i.. =. #

,.1) 1.,6st.8t

'.." ' ' :..n 4'.240 M

,J

.. ?

.n

,'. l ',4

',.n

.' '. 0 4'.

e.

l

.t.

,3,

.f.

I:

..10 o.n a.

.'O

. e.. I.. < t ', t

' '.. 'i ti s '. i itt

.s.

.,1,1,an

.... U 1

u

> +

4

,-n 4-

, August 27, 1980 cc:

F.r. William A. Thibodeau 3245 Weigl Road Saginaw, Michigan 4'603 Mr. Yerry R. Miller 3229 Glendora Drive Say ' City, Michigan 43705 s.

e t

k v

k k

e w

ENCLOSURE 1 f

SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL

49. Your response to our Request 24 states that if the dewatering system should fail, more than 90 days would occur before groundwater levels would rise to elevation 610 feet, the groundwater elevation at which liquefaction would become a problem. We are concerned that this water level rise might occur over a period considerably less than 90 days in view of the following apparent discrepancies in equations and input parameters:

The error function solution to the partial differential equation a.

describing unsteady groundwater flow which you used to detemine permeability, appears to be incorrect; the correct fom should have a 4 in the denominator, instead of a 2 as you have shown. The correct equation is:

d4KRt/n e

where:

h = water level rise at X=0 H = water head at X=0 5 = average depth of water erf error function

=

K=

permeability X=

distance

'Q t=

time.

. +t.' '

j

~

ne= effective pc M ity f

i

.jpi,

\\;

i b.

In the above equation since h is the average depth', its valua should lie between h and H.

In applying this equation to compute a permeability K of 11 feet per second and a corresponding rebound r

time of 90 days, you used 0.1 foot for h,1.6 feet for H, but 20 feet for h.

Use of a smaller value of h (somewhere between 0.1 and 1.6 feet) would result in a higher pemeability and a rebound time censiderably shorter than 90 days.

c.

Your value for x in the above equation is 325 feet, which you say is the shortest distance between the critical area and the recharge source, i.e., the distance between the southeast corner of the diesel generator building and the southwest corner of the circulating water intake structure. However, Figure 24-1 shows this distance to be about 240 feet. Use of this smaller value for x will also result in a rebound time shorter than the 90 days i

which you have computed.

(1) Please justify or c rrect the above apparent discrepancies and, if appropriate, provide revised analyses to better define the rebound time to be expected following a prolonged dewatering system failure. A more conservative analysis might involve utilizing the recovery data from the appropriate pump tests,

~

i 1.e., K = 31 fps.

(2) In determining rebound time, it is our position that you should also postulate failure of non-Seismic Category I piping at critical locations. This should include the circulating water d

conduits.

j

~

. )

(3) Demonstrate that there remains adequate time to install and l

implement a back-up dewatering system to prevent groundwater

~

^

from rising above elevation 610 feet.

50. Your Response to Request 24 concludes that there is groundwater recharge from the cooling pond in the area of the intake and pump structures because pumping tests at well PD-15A resulted in very lettle drawdown at observation wells SW-1 SW-4 and RR-1. However, for several indicated reasons, you also concluded that there is very little recharge in the area of the discharge structure and one of these j

reasons is that there is very little drawdown at observation wells PD-3 and PD-20B as shown by Figure 24-14. These appear to be contradictory conclusions (i.e., how can very little drawdown indicate I

recharge at one location and no recharge at another nearby location?).

Provide additional information to support and clarify your conclusion

~

that there is negligible recharge in the area of the circulating water discharge structure.

(AlsoseerelatedRequest47(2)).

51. Your response to Request 24 regarding the area well dewatering system concludes that 22 wells pumping at an average rate of 5 gpm would be needed to remove groundwater stored within the backfill and natural sands. Two more wells are provided for infiltration and pipe leakage.

You have not demonstrated whether 24 wells would also be a sufficient number to maintain the area groundwater at the desired elevation following removal of the groundwater already in storage. Provide 1

l I

l

~ -...

4

~

additional information to demonstrate that 24 wells will maintain groundwater levels below elevation 610 feet and provide the design basis used for this detennination. Additionally, justify your use of 14 percent for an average Significant Yield Coefficient,

52. Your response to Request 24 discusses the source of groundwater which you have detennined from pumping tests in the vicinity of the Service Water Pump Structure and the Circulating Water Intake and Discharge Structures. However, no tests appear to'have been conducted to determine if Dow Chemical's Tertiary Water Treatment Pond, shown on

)

FSAR Figure 2.1-1A and located just west of the nuclear plant, i

represents a potential source of groundwater. We are aware of your

< ~

conclusion that inflow of groundwater from outside the plant area is precluded by the cooling pond dike which enco;npasses the nuclear plant site; however, you have provided no infonnation to support this conclusion with respect to the Dow pond. Also lacking is information on the details of your West Plant Dike shown on FSAR Figure 2.5-46.

Provide information to demonstrate whether the Dow pond'is or will be a source of groundwater at your plant site. As i.

a minimum, include the following:

l (1) Provide a general description of the Dow pond (size, depth, capacity, purpose, contents,sealingmethod,etc.). Specify maximem elevation of the water in the Dow pond with relationship to the groundwater levels below the plant.

Include a sketch showing distances and elevations of the Dow pond relative to the West Plant I

Dike.

9

I I

r

ils on your West Plant Dike. Compare the West Plant cooling pond dike, including any similarity in their anstruction and their source of construction materials.

hat plant excavation extended to the area where the ike is located; discuss whether and how excavation for

{ectedconstructionoftheWestPlantDike.

lilt drawings of the West Plant Dike.

(esults of any tests conducted to reach a conclusion 7

1 of the Dow pond on the groundwater beneath the jd is a potential source of groundwater, provide e chemistry of this water (both present and future) ts effects on the dewatering system and other under-lits (piping, tanks, etc.). Identify any agreements tve to monitor and control the contents or influence VI during plant operation.

ater elevations in the warehouse area which is e the Dow pond and the West Plant Dike.

3 i

, the interceptor well system design in response to i that seepage would flow into a 400 foot slot located noling pond. You assumed that part of this slot a because the intake and pump structures would cut off from the cooling pond. To account for this cut off, slo't would be located 450 feet from the cooling I

feet. This assumption reduced the quantity of inflow L

I l

l l

-. [

Figures 24-9 and 24-10 indicate that 5 to 10 feet of natural sand exists below the intake and pump structures (See Request 47(3))..

Consequently, these structures may not cut off or reduce the seepage from the cooling pond. You should therefore recompute total ground-water inflow without any reduction for the structures and recompute the number of interceptor wells required. Reposition and space wells acco'rdingly. Alternately, provide additional infomation to support your conclusion that the structures serve as positive cut offs.

)

1 4

S l

i e

4 g

e.

4 i

w..

e 8 9

m.s g u S-x.et i2

d alc,

l o

'o, UNITED STATES 8 '"

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4

n 5-

.E WASHINGTON D. C. 20555

.O'g

)

nd i

JAN 3 ESO Docket Nos. 50-329/330 MEMORANDUM FOR: Roger Fortuna, Assistant Director for Investigation, 0IA FROM:

Harold D. Thornburg, Director, Division of Reactor Construction Inspection, IE

SUBJECT:

INFORMATION PERTINENT TO THE MIDLAND ORDER TO MODIFY THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT INCLUDING THE MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT CONSIDERATIONS We are enclosing several documents which present the facts and issues involved in the Midland soils and foundation problems that were identified when excessive settlement was observed in the diesel generator building.

The resolution of these problems and actions taken have been a joint IE and NRR effort which culminated in the Order to Modify the license on December 6,1979.

/ '

Part of the efforts involved in these problems was the consideration given to several items which were being reviewed as possible material false statements. is a listing of the pertinent documents' that relate to this matter.

Those noted with an asterisk reflect what we consider to be the key documents you may want to focus on first to define what the issues were. If you need additional information on this matter..please contact us.

lHaroldD.Thornburg. j f. '

' ^ 4 ;.

i uAd 6

}

Director Division of Reactor Construction Inspection Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosures:

1.

Documentation List on the Midland Soil / Foundation Problems 2.

Attachments listed on Enclosure 1 CONTACT:

R. E. Shewmaker, IE 49-?J551 i

ii fv

/

4

.P*-

,,-r.,

.__.,r

.y

2-JAN 3 1930 R. Fortuna

, D l

cc/w enclosure 1:

H 'Denton, NRR E. Case, NRR R. Mattson, NRR D. Vassallo, NRR S. Varga, NRR J. Knight, NRR L. Rubenstein, NRR W. Haass, NRR/

D. Hood, NRRV J. Murray, ELD W. Olmstead, ELD J. Keppler, RIII G. Fiorelli, RIII G. Reinmuth, IE c

i 1

O e

-w y'

y N

)

f e

.. l DOCUMENTATION LIST MIDLAND SOIL / FOUNDATION PROBLEMS 1.

10CFR50.55(e) reports.

(Note: Large drawings are not included here due to reproduction problems. They are on file in IE.)

a.

Initial Report with letter dated 9/29/78

~

b.

Interim Report #2 with letter dated 11/7/78 c.

Letter dated 12/21/78

d.

Interim Report #3 with letter dated 1/5/79

e.

Interim Report #4 with letter dated 2/23/79

f.

Interim Report #5 with letter dated 4/30/79

g.

Interim Report #6 with letter dated 6/25/79 h.

Letter dated 8/10/79 with enclosure

i.

Interim Report #7 with letter dated 9/5/79

j.

Interim Report #8 with letter dated 11/2/79 2.

Transfer of Lead Responsibility to NRR dated 11/17/78 l

3.. Board Notifications a.

Memo Olmstead to Vassallo,11/3/78 b.

Memo Thornburg to Gower, 11/9/78 c.

Memo Bryan to Vassallo, 11/13/78 d.

Memo Vassallo to Engelhardt, 11/13/78 e.

Memo Keppler to Thornburg, ' /20/79 4

f.

Memo Thornburg to Thompson, 5/14/79 g.

Memo Thompson to Vassallo, 5/17/79 h.

Memo Vassallo to Christenbury, 5/29/79

i. Memo Thornburg to Keppler, 6/5/79 4.

IE Inspection Reports

a.

78-12, 11/17/78 b.

78-13,11/3/78 c.

78-14,11/9/78

d.

78-20, 3/22/79 e.

78-22,3/2/79 f.

78-23, 3/36/79

g.

79-06,4/9/79

~

h.

79-08, 4/27/79 1.

79-09,5/8/79

j. 79-10,6/6/79 k.

79-13,S/30/79

1.,79-15, 8/22/79 m.

79-16,7/9/79

n 79-19, 10/1/79.

~

5.

Enforcement Actions

a.

Memo Keppler to Thornburg, 2/15/79

b.

RIII Position Paper, 2/23/79

c.

Memo Keppler to Thornburg, 3/12/79

.,-r

-m

- _ ~ ~

\\

2-m Keppler to Howell of Consumers Power Company, 3/15/79 er to Thornburg, 4/3/79

~

burg to Thompson, 6/13/79

'Lto File, 8/9/79 burg to Gower. 9/27/79 to Keppler,10/4/79

er to Thornburg, 10/29/79

equest and Responses (Note: Large drawings are not included duction problems. They are on file in IE.)

-ton tc Howell of Consumers Power Company, 3/21/79

ell to Denton, 4/24/79

ell to Denton, 5/31/79 iall to Denton, 7/9/79 enstein to Howell, 8/29/79

enstein to Howell, 9/11/79 lell to Denton, 9/13/79

)

pil to Denton, 11/13/79 enstein to Howell, 11/19/79 1

spondence

'stein to Knight, 9/27/79 jr from 7/18/79, dated 10/16/79

/from9/5/79, dated 10/16/79 y from 11/14/79, dated 12/3/79 4

Jodify the Construction Permit,12/6/79 hf Anandment #72,12/19/79 per the Order i

Hearing by Consumers Power, 12/26/79 j

o e

l O

I l

~

i ea 4

e

j Ccva w a w % + '9.'.f 9-nur 10( s ['sc Caerd) c_

gA 4

UNITED STATES

(

' / gf NUCLEAR REGULATORY dOMMISSION h4..' [I 3 i a

.. t Qg.L;)p j i.

y 3 p=

nEason sts

}

-f 7semoossvstrnoAo fe i

4

.gy GLEN ELLYN. ILUNotS 60137 k

April 3, 1979 MDIORANDUM FOR: Harold D. Thornburg, Director, Division of Reactor Construction Inspection, II FROM:

James G. Keppler, Director

SUBJECT:

ENFORCDIENT ACTION RE: MIDLAND DIESEL GENERATOR i

BUILDING AND PIANT FILL AREA As you are aware, we have sent to Consu=ers Power Co:pany a report on our two meetings held with thsm and a report of the investigation into

)

the causes of the diesel generator building settle =ent.

In my memor-andum to you dated March 12, 1979, I summarized our findings and our concerns resulting from this investigation.

In view of NRR's involve =ent in the technical issues in this case, and f

the need for a deter =ination as to the materiality of FSAR statements we consider to be false, we are not in a position at this time to

'recoc=end specific enforcement action which should be taken.

/

Attached to this memorandum are the specific FSAR state =ents and the l

basis for our conclusion that they are false. Also attached are copies j

l of our letter dated March 22, 1979, which transmitted.the Investigation

]

[

report to the licensee and a draft Notice of Violation setting forth j

the items of noncompliance based on the investigation

findings. The draft Notice of Violation includes all of the FSAR discrepancies described in Attachment 1 as examples of noncompliance iiith Criterion i

III of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.

If it is deter =ined that any of these j

matters constitute =aterial false statements, we assume they would then be treated separately, and removed as examples of noncompliance with this criteria.

i j

4

(>l 3,/ 6 /,, / P_r A ' C J m

D

/

u-O

l,,. q

~

Harold D. Thornburg April 3, 1979 We request that the ite=s of noncompliance be given technical and legal review and that a deter =ination be cade of the =a:eriality of FSAR dis-crepancies so that upon resolution of the technical issues, we will be in a position to move more pro =ptly toward taking enforce:ent action.

'WJ.: 5 lTkb~

'/ James G. Keppler Director Attachments:

1.

FSAR False Statements 2.

Draft Notice of Violation 3.

Ler dtd 3/22/79, with Investigation Report j

1 cc w/actachments:

.D. Thompson, II l

l l

\\

,A 1

l s

o a

m.**

f

/

O

7 1

n.

u Midland FSAR Statenents 1.

Statement Section 2.5.4.5.3, Fill, states: "All fill and backfill vere placed according to Table 2.5-9."

Table 2.5-9, Mini =um Conpac' tion Criteria, contains the following:

)

Co=paction Criteria

" Function Designation Type Degree ASTM Desirnation Support of Clay 95%

ASIMD155{gf6T structures (codified)

(1)For zone designation see Table 2.5-10.

(2)The method was modified to get 20,000 foot-pounds of compactive energy per cubic foot of soil."

Section 2.5.4.10.1, Bearing Capacity, states: " Table 2.5-14 shows

'the contact stress beneath footings subject to static and scacic plus dynanic loadings, the foundation elevation, and the type of supp,orting medium for various plant structures."

Table 2.5-14, Su==ary of Contact Stresses and Ulti= ate Bearing Capacity for Mat Foundations Supporting Seismic Category I and

/

II Structures, contains, in part; the following:

" Unit Suoporting Soils Diesel Generator Controlled c'ocpacted Building cohesive fill.

Finding

?

Construction Drawing C-45, Class I fill material areas, specifies the foundation caterial for Class I structures to be Zone 2 =aterial

__. which is identified in FSAR Table 2.5-10, Gradat' ion Rang'es for Till Material, as Random Fill and is described as "Any material f:ee of humus, organic or other deleterious =aterial." It was ascertained that materials other than " clay" or " controlled compacted cohesive fill" were'used for support of structures.

Attach =ent 1

}

O I

g 1

)

\\

l

s l

Midland TSAR Statements -

s 2.

Statement Se*ction 2.5.4.10.3.1, Plant Layout and Loads, states: "The building loads superimposed by the structures on undisturbed soil or e.ompacted fill are given in the soil pressure plan, Figure 2.5-47."

Figure 2.5-47, Soil Pressure Diagram Category I and II Structures,.

shows the superi= posed load density for the Diesel Generator Building to be 4.0 KSF (4000 lbs. per sq. ~ f t.).

Finding It ces ascertained through a. review of the settle:ent calculations and an interview of the individual who performed those calculations that 3.0 KSF was used.

h 3.

' Statement Section 2.5.4.10.3.3, Soil Para eters, states: "The soil com-pressibility para =eters used in the settle =ent calculation are presented together with soil profile in Table 2.5-16."

Table 2.5-16, Idealized Soil Profile and Parameters for Elastic Half-space Settlement and Heave Analysis, contains the following:

Averggy Elevation c'#

. Idealized Interval Thickness 1+e Layer Soil Type (ft)

(ft)

A Fill (CL) 634-609 25 0.003 3

Fill (CL) 609-603 6

0.003 NOTE: Final groundwater table is taken at elevation 627.

-- *(l) Values were estimated from the mathematical relationship b t e ween Young's Modulus and Co=pression and rebound indexes and averaged with those obtained from consolidation tests. Young's Modulus was estimated from empirical relationship with shear strength.

t W

m

-g Midland FSAR Statement,

Finding It was ascertained through a review of the stata=ent calculations for the Diesel Generator Building and an interview with the indi-vidual who perfor=ed these calculations that an index of co: press-ibility of 0.001 not 0.003, was used for the elevation interval 603-634.

4.

Statement Section 2.5.4.10.3.5, Analysis, states:

"For settle:ent cc=pu-tations, a total of 41 settlement points are established on a grid and at selected structure locations as shown in Figute 2.5-48.

.. To account for possible time-dependent relationship, the estimated total settlements at each of the 41 points vera obtained respectively b,y adding 25% of the calculated settlement values of j

loading Case A to the calculated ultimate settlenent values of loading Case B.

These values are presented in Figure 2.5-48."

Section 3.8.4.1.2, Diesel Generator Building, states:

"The walls are supported by continuous footings with bases at elevation a

628'-0".

Each diesel generator rests on a 6'-6" chick reinforged concrete pedestal which is not structurally connected to the building foundation for purposes of vibration isolation."

/

Finding It was ascertained through a review of the settlement calculations for the Diesel Generator Building and an interview with the indi '

vidual who performed these calculitions that the data in Figure 2.5-48 regarding the Dies'el Generator Building are based on calculations performed on the erroneous assumption that.the Diesel Generator Building was constructed on a mat foundation.

5.

Statement t

,,,,,,Section 3.8.5.5, Structural Acceptance Criteria, states: " Settle-ments of shallow spread footings founded on compacted fills are.

estimated to be on the order of 1/2 inch or less.

These settle-ments. are essentially elastic and occur as the loads are applied."

4 t

e e

9

)

e

\\

Midland FSAR State =ent 4-1 Finding It was ascertained through an interview with the individual who wrote this section of the FSAR that the above state =ent was taken from the Danes and Moore report submitted as part of the PSAR.

He assumed the stata=ent was valid for inclusion in the FSAR. He said there was no other basis to support the stata=ent.

(NOTE: In this regard the licensee has subsequently stated this statacent is not applicable to the as-built configurations and conditions of the diesel generator building and has been elin-inated from the FSAR in Revision 18.")

1 I

/ ~

9 m.

l l

~'s t

.V i

O O

~

- ~,,,

,_e

...._.._,m.-

-m

_,,,

ML20091L035

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

27,H5 d net F.S.

Background:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Cook:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

ML20091L035

Text

SUMMARY

27,H5 d net F.S.

Background:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. Cook:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

Search