ML20091L048
| ML20091L048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1980 |
| From: | Mccallister P ARMY, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Rolonda Jackson NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A223 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BOX-01, CON-BOX-1, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8406070306 | |
| Download: ML20091L048 (14) | |
Text
.
9 8
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY N
DETRolf DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENG8MEeRS SOX ls37 DETROIT. MICHIGAN esaal 27 M 380 NCEED-T
SUBJECT:
NRC Midland Project, Request for Additional Borings and Existing Soil Data U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Robert E. Jackson Division of Systems Safety Mail Stop P-314 Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Dr. Jackson:
1.
The Detroit District Corps of Engineers in providing geotechnical assistance to the Nuclear Regulatory Connaission concerning the Midland Nuclear
(
Plant requires additional soil borings and related soil test data as described
\\
in Inclosure 1.
2.
The requested borings and related soil test data should be provided as soon as possible. Delays in receipt of this information would delay completion of the interagency agreement subcasks.
FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER
(
1 Inc1 As stated P. McCALLISTER Chief., Engineering D^ vision Tod Ic.u Soye.fwdd k RdMd kd.Cr %. %d Mo hom 9. %ide,-
l 1
(.N 0406070306 840517 PDR FDIA RICEB4 96 PDR
_~
r
~:
f
~.
,. m
{
}
INCLOSURE 1 1.
It is requested that the applicant furnish the boring logs listed below indicating when and how these were taken, the type of sampling, and samples taken:
Pull down holes PD-1 thru PD-27* (35 holes) i LOW-1 thru LOW-13 & W-1 thru W-4 (18 Holes) 1 TW-1 thru TW-5 & PZ-1 thru PZ-48 (53 holes)
OW-1 thru OW-3 & OL-1 thru OL-6 (9 holes)
TEW-1 thru TEW-7 & Q-1 thru Q-12 (19 holes)
.
- Includes 8A, 20A, 205, 20C, 15A, 158,15C, & 27A.
- 2. Locations, boring logs and test data from any other drill holes taken in 1979 and 1980 are also requested.
3.
Dutch cone penetrometer data from holes P-1 thru P-13 must also be provided.
i i
4.
Information is requested on all piezoesters that were installed to monitor j
problems related to plant fill. The information should include the number and location, the time of installation, the type of filter around the piezoaster, j
the installed depth, and the type of piezometer.
l S.
All piezoester readings for each installation with dates and times are i
required.
6.
The data and information requested in paragraphs 1 thru 5 above is needed to verify the applicant's computations and conclusions and to make any needed computations for the dewatering analysis, the seismic analysis and the settlement analysis.
7.
A need exists for additional borings, since random exploratory borings throughout the plant site have revealed pockets of soft clay subject to settlement and or consolidation and loose sands subject to liquefaction. A i
need also exists to check the results of the proposed remedial measures of surcharge loading at the Diesel Generator Building and the dewatering plan.
a.
In the case of the Diesel Generator Building, check borings aust be made in the vicinity of borings which identified low "N" values in the clay i
and sand fill. The proposed borings shall be carried into the glacial till and all samples including those in the glacial till tested as indicated below.
3 j
1.
l 1
\\ s,,
s
..~
-,_ ~
-[..-...~
)
The boring locations are as indicated on the attached esp. All soil for the i
. ~
- full depths of the borings shall be classified according to the Unified Soil j
Classification System. Any tests necessary to classify the soil shall be accomplished. Unit weight and moisture content of all semples should also be determined. The samples obtained from any cohesive strata shall be tested.
The tests for cohesive material shall be an uncons$ tion triaxial shear test j
and a consolidation test with restraining load equal to the load in place at l
the strata depth the saaple represents end. The saada shall be tested in direct shear for a loose and dense condition and the relative density of the 1
sand in situ determined.
i b.
Where piling or caissons are proposed to underpin the Service Water Building and Auxiliary Building - feed water valve pits which are located on fill, the load bearing capacity of the bearing strata must be determined. The capability to resist lateral shearing stresses that could be induced in low "N" value soil subjected to seismic action must also be determined. The same tests required for soil semples obtained from the new borings at the Diesel Generator Building shall also be made on soil samples from new borings for these buildings.
The questionable site area fill any have a counterpart in the cooling h
c.
pond embankaan. which was constructed contemporaneously with the site fill.
It is requested that exploratory continuous drive borings be taken at a number of points along the north and east embankments, omitting the slurry trench cutoff areas which are positively sealed. The approximate boring locations
(
are as indicated on the attached map of the cooling pond. The tests on the soil samples obtained from the borings in the embankments shall include the following tests, unconsolidated, undrained triaxial shear tests, Atterberg limits and all soils classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The borings shall be sampled every 2-1/2 feet using a standard split spoon sampler. The hole shall be held open using a hollow stem auger or casing. Particular attention shall be paid to ground water conditions during and after completion of drilling. In the case of Hole 5, the boring should be drilled to the depth of the cooling pond bottom while the remaining borings need penetrate only 5 feet into underlying residual soils unless sof t ground indicates a need for further hole penetration.
8.
Summary of Requested Drilling a.
Diesel Generatar Building 6 holes around the perimeter of the building. Samples of all stratas from ground surface into the glacial till (Holes 8-13).
t
4 m
b.
Auxiliary Building - Take two borings around the proposed support T
piling or caisson for remedial grouting of loose sands and soft clays adjacent to prie or caisson to stiffen piles and adjoining ground against lateral loading. Borings need to penetrate to glacial till. (see attached map for boring locations - Holes 4 & 5.)
c.
Service Water Building - A boring (Hole 16) shall be made as indicated on the attached map to and into the glacial till. All samples obtained shall be classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System also unconfined, undrained triaxial compression tests made on cohesive soil samples and direct shears for a loose and dense condition shall be made on all granular soil samples.
d.
Plant Area Borings - Some borings must be taken under the Radweste and Turbine Buildings to determine if unwatered pockets exist or persist.
Suggested boring locations would be as indicated on the attached map. Further investigation could be needed after the results of these borings are obtained.
No borin&s presently exist in these areas. The borings should be cased or hollow stem auger borings with drive samples every 2-1/2 feet through the fill should be taken and converted to deustering holes or used for piesometers (Holes 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7).
e.
The site visit of 27 or 28 February 1980 turned up two differential settlement points on the retaining wall adjacent to the Service Water Pep Structure. Two borings, Holes 14 and 15 as indicated on the attached asp shall be taken to investigate this problem. Tests required are de consolidation tests, triasial compression tests, Atterberg limits and gradation tests made on cohesive soils, and direct shear for loose and dense conditions and gradation tests made on granular soils.
f.
In all new borings made, the water table shall be determined.
t j
Aaw >r14, 3 A I Q Wr,
- % (,
LL a......e.6.. s.... a 24 s. : s...
...., i. n. 4 di.
. c.-.r. o....
aseta2PsC2 04 GMsC2 Svanact g,gacy NCEED-T Ceotechnical Engineering Assistance to NRC Orientation Meeting at the Bethesda, Maryland 7-8 November 1979 3RCFile
" Kubinski 1 Feb 80 KUBINSKI/vw/6786 1.
The purpose of this trip was orientation in nature.
It was made to acquaint R. Erickson and J. Kubinski with the NRC Organization, staff, project requirements, and facilities available at their main of fice in Bethesda, Maryland.
2.
The meetings took place on the 7-8 November 1979.
I will refer to the meeting that took place on the 7th as Meeting I, and the meeting that took place on the 8th as Meeting II.
3.
The folicwing are significant items discussed at the respective meetings:
a.
Meeting I:
This meeting was primarily orientation in nature. NCE personnel were introduced to the NRC staff, their organizational elements and in general their function as a review agency. Dave Lynch of NRC gave a concise
)
presentation on the general mission, and referencing specifically Bailly Nuclear Generating Station near Cary, Indiana. He also covered elements in the normal review process giving an indication as to general requirements. Later, he hovered the more technical aspects and problems in existence at the site.
b.
Meeting II:
This meeting was also of orientation nature, with the emphasis placed on the Midland Nuclear Facilities. This meeting was very similar in nature to the one on Bailly, but was conducted with emphasis on the Midland site.
4.
The following people were involved in these ceetings:
a.
Meeting I:
Bob Jackson (NRC)
Lyman Heller (NRC)
Dave Lynch (NRC)
J. Kubinski (NCE)
R. Erickson (NCE) b.
Meeting II:
Lyman Hdler (NRC)
Darl Hood (NRC)
Dan Gillen (NRC)
J. Kubinski (NCE)
R. Erickson (NCE) l
(
DA s'ree as 2490 com n.cacesos ro== e.exiari==suaauesor.wiew. 66 es i e.use amo usso var 6 e rse as untens eoe=== ennaueren.
-s t-s
a.
SUBJECT:
Ceotechnical Engineering Assistance to NRC Orientation Meeting at the s,
Bethesda, Maryland 7-8 November 1979 5.
The items discussed are listed below:
a.
Meeting I:
1.
This meeting was of orientation nature and a good introduction to the entire program was given by Dave Lynch, Project Manager, NRC, Bailly Nuclear Generating Station.
II.
The purpose of NRC's mission with respect to review is to insure radiological safety and containment of all possible danger.
It is not NRC's concern to see that OASHA standards or safety in general go observed.
III. The issue at Bailly is concerned with piles supporting d primary containment facilities. It is a rigid structure and, therefore, 'no displacement can be tolerated. Dynamic operations result in displacement and this displacement must be monitored so that the entire structure is adjusted accordingly.,jgt,is a very defined load / deflection analysis for the entire facility.
weu.
IV.
The containment facility cannot fail.
It may have to be politically safe which implies a greater than necessary safety factor to be technically safe.
V.
The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) has not yet been written for the Bailly plant.
/
VI.
It is necessary to defend any technical judgments before the Advisory
_ Committee for Reactor Safety (ACRS). At the Bailly site it will be necessary to defend as built conditions.
VII. The term " Intervener" is defined as follows: An intervener must live within 50 miles of the proposed facility (the State in which the facility exist can act as an intervener); the interveners may hire firms or individuals to represent them in obtaining information concerning the construction or operation of nuclear facilities.
VIII. The normal review process consists of the following items:
- Applicant submits PSAR (Preliminary Safety Analysis Report)
- NRC writes Safety Evaluation Report (SER). This SER is a concise picture of NRC staff's review.
- NRC submits SER to Advisory Committee on Reactor Saftey (ACRS). The ACRS can form subcomittees 'in which their members and/or their consultants ein e' valuate the specific issues.
- ACRS evaluates SER/PSAR and letter on the safety of the plant is written.
~
2 t
e l
,jr
- - ~.
i NCEED-T
{
SUBJECT:
Ceotechnical Engineering Assistance to NRC Orientation Meeting at the
]
Bethesda, Maryland 7-8 November 1979 l
Public hearings are generated only if the Itcense is thought to be able 1
to be granted. His is a construction license.
The Construction Permit, issued by NRC, but license is granted by the 1
Chairman of the Commission.
I The review of deviations from the PSAk, SER and CP must be reported by the applicant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and
}
Enforcement (I&E). The I&E Office sends this information to the review office for l
review, and y new license or amended license is usually issued.
l NOTE: he following is a list of items concerning the Bailly plant.
IX.
The construction permit for Bailly Plant consist of non-displacement j
high capacity piles which go to bedrock or glacial till and support y concrete i
mat foundation. Theyareembeddegconcreteapproximatelythreefeet.
i
{
X.
A brief driving history for the piles is as follows. In driving the
(
piles, stiffening occurred at 55 feet. Blow counts from 200 to 300 blows per inch 4
l were experienced. The till material is at about 110 feet and bedrock is at 120 i
feet,kbove a very stif f clay deposit which is %,4b shaped in profile, intermittent sands and clays are the overJ urden d material. his stiffening occurs in a very
)
dense sand above this larger clay deposit.
[
XI.
In May 1974 the construction permit called for a test pile progree
)
which indicated significant problems in driving. Shortly after that, NIPSCo came j
in with a short pile proposal.
In September 1977 an alternate proposal to jet long piles was submitted. A test program was initiated and in February 1978, the l
NRC issued an order to jetting the piles.
In jetting the piles, the soil reacted similar to a giant wash boring (1,000 gallons per minutes at 300 PSI). The' area j
of disturoance was much too large and the pile was actually 1Ae near the surface.
The nature of the structure which was to be supported by these piles demanded that
]
the piles have uplift capacity. Because of the disturbance and lack of uplift i
capacity, the short pile concept is once against an issue as of March 1978. These i
piles would develope end bearing and friction. The applicant was allowed to drive j
100 piles as indicators to determine capacities and applicability of using the short pile concept. A cluster was driven to observe heave within the piles. This j
brings us to the current state of the issue.
i XII. It is now the task of the NRC review to look at all of the above submittals and reconsider the entire issue. Ihey must also determine if
}
construction restrictions are required or further load test are required. The jetting procedures have made sof t spots which encompress almost five percent of i
the area of the foundation. Theselojsed*areasmustbedensifiedandatechnique l
developed to insure that they develop all lateral capacMities as well as uplift capacities.
i
)
i l
i i
,7
l I
l NCEED-T
SUBJECT:
Geotechnical Engineering Assistance to NRC Orientation !!aeting at the f
(N Bethesda, Maryland 7-4 November 1979 l
l XIII. The Advisory Coesittee on Reactor Safety (ACRS) has already l
indicated that nothing was substantially wrong with use of short' piles to provide substantial foundation. That is, that there is no deflection in the piles and that all the distur$ress due to the jetting procedures are densified.
XIV. It is apparent that now it is necessary to look at the PSAR and become fully familiar with it as well as considering the groundwater affect on the foundation.
XV.
NCE will have to prepare the entire Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and not just assist in its preparation. A sample Saftey Evaluation Report is available from NRC and will be transmitted.
NOTE: The last itee is of general nature.
. 64
/.3 3.eM XVI. The hearin rocess can be described as follows. Administrative law judge act as the Chairman. Engineer Scientists ar.d some technical people drawn from university staff act as part of the committee. The consission delegates
. authority to the Board, the Board inturn can dictate policy. The Feard can question any ites and the interveners' setorney can question around items brought up by the Soard.
It is, therefore, necessary to minimize any questions the feard may have by clear concise presentations.
XVII. NCE will meet with Newmark, Hall and Davison at Champagne (University of Illinois) concerning the piling issue sometime in January or February.
b.
Meetina II This meeting was of a briefer nature than Meetina I.
At this meeting Joet Kane (NRC) and Darl Hood (NRC Project !!anager) presented an introduction concerning issues at the Midland Nuclear Facility.
I.
As a preliminary to the meeting, the following items were discussed.
A brief discussion on what safe shutdown earthquake ($$E) or an operating base earthquake (OBE) were head. Appropriate volumes of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) were to be sent to NCE as soon as possible. The applicant, de.u m he (w.a. *,
( CPC )
, must still respond to original I&E questions on the interia report and on 10CTR 50.54(f). There is apparently a report or a paper on the dewstering system.
II. The I&E Office (Inspection and Enforcement) is investigative in nature and generally Roes to the NRR (Nuclear Regulatory Review) for support. The I&E of fice considered the overall performance of the applicant as well as the technical adequacy of any field changes. The viability of the Quality Assurance Program is also investigated by this group.
4 1 _)
o.
NCEED-T
SUBJECT:
Geotechnical Engineering Assistance to NRC-Oriencation Meeting at the g ,
Bethesda, !!aryland 7-8 November 1979 III. The current state of the review is one in which the construction permit should be suspended, modified or revoked by the Commission. One of these actions is necessary to take concerning the quality assurance breakdown at the Midland site as well as the inadequate fill in support of Category I structures.
IV. Questions of a non policy nature can go directly to the applicant. No commitment is considered to be binding between NCE and the applicant. Once these questions are established and they are addressed to the applicant, they should be documented especially when they are relatively significant.
V.
Construction inspections or visits to the site are necessary in performing the mission. NCE must be able to reply (we saw) in reference to a specific issue if possible.
VI. More than one visit is in most cases necessary, since sequential events will be occurring in the fixing of unstable conditions at the site.
VII. The NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement has a fulltims man at 4
the site, and he can be contacted concerning observing any action at the site.
/
VIII. Meeting concluded with two immediate items of major concernt a.
Should the existing license be modified, suspended or revoked.
b.
A list of visits and times sequentially established in the future.
6.
These meetings were of orientation in nature and it is difficult to establish any conclusions. The actions to be taken in the future are ones concerning scheduling field trips and site visits, carrying out orientation procedures with all documents transmitted, assuring that all documents have been transnitted and then beginning the review process and making either recommendations, concents, or conclusions regarding the situations at both facilities.
W J. KUBINSKI Technical Branch CONCURRENCE:
R. Erickson L. Heller CIRC) 5 k
,s 9
7
'A
,P e ne m.e
.es, m e. -
.,-s,
'7l 2.sjw c.0:nac,Egs E%RtB(T % -(DNE).
l gS e.sukskL.p~,3:
-k p9bkms uAch Lue< cluk d s A. M Al sJt un. mf p
euesed k LK., uchens.
3 As pb6s nc.c.3p,t cc mcre. inLe sc<v /,n-b. 4.cc s%}-htn u oc%dl toegsd in ca nvieuva.76 meaujd / eve /
3 A pcpd scichs a.,a h,pmf L skg-4, su 4 4 uum q nuda 4 k in a w.m o A,2 w e co m 3
, cA cb.d co.<yfam 4 % sdJM ce tuma td%
x S J k ~ 3 e d ir< m cl i rack d.
b ou tencems j
. uk xyst cRcc e41 L. swkmt J.w pb c,nd epd tu inhunx.tn.3 ecessorTp % we.wh6 bem3 L
3p 4 i4.% ham -tLa cG cc.,selknts er f%&ekd is %t 4r % e.< q n d d m \\ sv & &
va,e.,
m en chyc3 cc may,d} suj4,h, h is ne r%<.sw c
bpe w L% m ebae r, h shg's cqase p L, ug<m ico N
t
~
G%.mer s EM,y 2 T $4n< )
. l}
Pseparation of a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) input which describes the evaluation of the design of the applicants' safety related (and sc.::e ncn-safety related) systems.
Attend meetings with the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and public hearings to assist the staff in explaining bases for con-clusions and positions reached in the SER.
Preparation of input to SER Supplements which further clarify and dec:r :nt sys-ttms evaluations in the SER based upon review by the ACRS.
The geotechnical engineering aspects of proposed nuclear plant facilities to Le evaluated generally ioclude the stability and settlement of safety related structures, c...arge:ncy cooling water rescrvoirs, appurtinent, safety-related structures such as earth embankmants and rock fill dams, canals, eteirs, intake and discharge structures, and pipelines, under both static and dynamic ccnditions, including the subjection of dams, etc., to the Safe Shutdown and Operating Basis t
l'arthquakes. The evaluation typically consists of:
A review of the site investigation program, both field and laboratory, 1.
to.usure that an adequate determination of all subsurface c'onditions This has L.a.n achieved including consideration of borrow sources.
my.cquire c.-con.nendations for additional investigations to obtain
(',,
the required data; Evaluations sind recor:gr.cndations partaining to the proposed design critoria; 2.
A ccview of the stability and settlement analysis performed by the opplicant 3.
and, in any cases, the perfomance of independent stability analysis.
A datcraination ti,at the applicant has presented adequate bases to support the esign paranaters used in his analysis; An cvalntion of stabili7ation techniques proposed by applicants to 4.
solve site f:.ndation prob 1 cms..In t=any cases, the contractor will be asked to prcvide recc:rc.cndations for stabilization; In reprd to. nst cases, field trips by contractor perscnnel will be 5.
necesc.ary to inspect the site, to observe sampling and testing of soil 1
and rock,..nd to ovaluate the adequacy of techniques and equip;r.ent.
S;ccific "ork Requirements, i
T.3sk 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 T0.hnical Monitor:
J. Kane 1
Titi...A d Man;c:cor:
3 Man-years
..:A ictor shall review the FSAR (with an.2ndicants and documents related to i T*
(
/ t'.c 10 CrR S0.54 (f) rgquest regarding plant fill which have been sthiihd to
. C. n the :,bject plant for the purpose of obtaining an OL.
.+
6 m
. e
3
. !!.is u.!:w <Sall include en evaluation of all the inruration included in
- c. t tion 2.5, 3.7 and 3.8 of the FSAR and 10 CFR 50.54 (f) docG.:ents v.hich
- ! e<s the adequacy of sail. rut rock.. chanics, carthquake engineering
.1 T..ndation engi..m.risig & si.,n and ccustruction aspects in order to.
%ure the safe siting and c,. oration of all sof tmic category safety-related
.tructures and conituits. The review should be cunducted in accordance with
' C Standard Review Plans Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.4 Specific guidance on !c: sign methods v.hich are acceptable to the flRC staff that have been made licants in their designs include Regulatory Guides 1.132, availab,le to.jp(%:ction 2.5).
1.138 and'l.70 Estimated Comoletion Date D*'atts 1.
Ecvicw and evaluate the information contained in the above 12/79 INC 10 CFR 50.54 (f) documents regarding plant fill in accordance with accep,tance critoria outlined in the re-lated Standard Review Plans. Meet with the NRC staff and 4plicant as required. Make site visits to observe c...r.edial n.-thods and procedures. Prepare a letter re-j port identifying cny unresolved issues with recouendations
.in a cc.m.e of action to be taken during construction to asolve '.hese issues.
[
2.
Raviaw and evaluate the information contained in the above 1/80 fi.1R Sections in accordance with acceptance criteria out-1ii.ad in t'ie related Standard Review Plans. Meet with the MC staff as ccquired, prepare a draft SER identifying any uc.cesolvad i.5.ues.
Participate in approxirrately ten it.eet-f..gs with the applicant and the f!RC staff to resolve the issues idcnLiitad in the above Braft SER.
3.
I,epare a Tinal SER.
This SER ray contain open issues or 3/80 decriba ascas in.hich the c;ntractor and staff continue to differ with an applicant.
4 Tarticipate at a.;2xic sm of six ACRS meetings, prepare 6/30 testimony for and appear at Licensing Foard !!aarings as required.
5.
Icview and evaluate any unresolved or open issues identified 8/80 in the SER, or issues raised at ACRS meetings and in hearings.
F.irticipate iri a maximum of five meetings with the applicant
- d the !!RC staff to resolve any outstanding issues. Pre-
- ,aie inputs to SER supplements and Technical Specifications j
i to cc. piele the resolution of all outstanding issues, as l
. (,ui r.2d.
- pg s.,,
( ')
g D
4
. e,.
4 S, c i fic 'L,k,phjuf, c..ents Task 2 - P,ailly Generating Station - !!uclear 1 Technical Monitor:
L. Heller Es t L. 3tcd Required Manpower:
1 Man-year Ti.e contractor shall review the FSAR with amendments and documents related to the pile foundations which have been submitted to the f!RC on the subject ple.nt for the purpose of obtaining an OL.
This review shall include an cvaluation of all the inforcation included in Section 2.5, 2.7 and 3.8 of the FSAR which address the adequacy of soil and i
rock machanics, earthquake engineering and foundation engineering design and ecnstruction aspects in order to assure the safe siting and operation of all seismic Categoiy I safety-related structures and conduits. The revicw should be conducted in accordance with !!RC Standard Review Plans Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.4 Specific guidance on design methods which are acceptable to the f.RC staff that have bcon made available to applicants in.their designs i
inc19d3.70;ulatory Guides 1.132,1.138 and 1.70 (Section 2.5).
Esticated St.uks Compl ett o,n, l'a te_
(
l.
Rcview and cvaluate the information contained in the documents 12/79 re Irding plant pile foundation in accordance with acceptance critoria rutlined in the related Standard Review Plans. Mcet with the NRC staff, iGC consultants and applicant as required.
h opare a letter report identifying any unresolved issues with t
recca.;cndations un a course of action to be takan during con-struction to resolve these issues.
2.
' view and cvaluate the information contained in the abcve 3/80
.FS.S.R Sections in accordance with acceptance criteria outlir.ed in the related Standard Review Plans. Meet with the f!RC staff s r.' quired, prcrare a draft SCR identifying any unresolved t cues. Participate in appioxiii.ately six v.eetings with the arpliant arid tha !;RC staff to resolve the issues identified in the above draft SER.
3 Irepare a final SER.
This SER may contain open issues or 5/80 describe areas in which the contractor and staff continue L
to diffar with an applicant.
4.
Facticipate at a maximum of five ACRS meetings, prepare 6/80 testic.ony for and appear at Licensing Coard Hearings as c: qui r..d.
3 9/M I j 5. ;Ravi..w and. valuate any unresolved or open issued identified in the SP, ar itsuas raisad at SCRS :.'etings and in hear-i i::cs.
Ian ticipate in a rav.iJ's.a of (!ve teetings with the
. -,., ~ - -, -,,.,,,,,,.
-S-O
.,piter.nt i.od the :RC staff to resolve any outstandingPrepare J
d 2,'cifications to complete the resolution of all outstan -
imes.
ing issues, as required.
T. orting Requirements d
thn a cc:npletion of each subtask of each task the contractor will piev the,cer,ni ant I;RC branch chief with a letter report.;hich inclu.!cs, as 1.
.,prcpriate, safety evaluation report input testkony and sr.;pic.:..ntal
.*afety report input.
A bi-uonthly business. letter report shall be subt.-itted by the 20th of branch chief with a copy to the Director, 2.
the inonth to the cognizant B.l..Grenier). These reports will Division of Systc-ms Safety (Attn:
contain:
A listing of any efforts cc. pleted during the period; milestones m
reached, or if missed, an explanation provided; The amount of funds expended during the period and cumulative to date; Any problems or delays enauntered or anticipated;
(
A sur.T.ary of the progress to date; Plans for the.: ext reporting period; The first bi-..onthly letter report should contain the pl d
!!o'te: These re;,rts are not to be technical in nature.
4 Fa tir.gs_, a_nd Travel De <.cntiac'or will attend app.oximately 10 meetings with the staff and app in Bethesda or Washington, D.C. and sr with ACRS over the period of perforcance These ppror. mately 10 at each of the plant sites, A/E, or utility offices.
ite review
.at:ngs will usually be of one or two days duration, however, on-slonger period.
.:t' js :.nd observation of practices csy extend over a sC f :. a!,shgd Materials We'. 2nts.cidad for review will be forwarded to the contra
..;..: r.
".t *.e i...pt in confidencs by the contractor.
f liIII"9.200_u,i fgnts
<.'c!.ars cd:;.itted for payr.ent should list expen.if tur l
t l
f" Cen w,,a,, E.Jh. bit % (Kc.,c) 1 DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICANT'S POSITION ON THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL BORINGS FOR MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 4
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY DOCKET NUMBERS 50-329 AND 50- 330
~
I I
i Report Date:
September 14, 1980 l
k, /
l
[LI ^ ? r u n
\\
s v i n
.,s
-v
1 l
f '%\\
DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICANT'S POSITION ON THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL BORINGS 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.H8 After the initial discovery of the settlement, 32 borings made in and around the diesel generator building indicated i
that the building could experience significant settlements s
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 reliab'.e upper limit estimate of settlement to be expected during the life of the plant.23*' Af ter removal of the surcharge, six additional borings were made to conduct in-situ shear
($*g wave velocity measurements.
These borings also included
'\\'
making standard penetration tests.
Logs of these borings N
are included in Revision 9 to the Responses to NRC Requests e
[/,,".;
Regarding Plant Fill.
Af u
Although the service water pump structure and the electrical tW penetration areas have exhibited negligible settlement, A borings have indicated that remedial action should be taken
/
((
ror enese structures.
The remedial action proposed is to underpin the cantilevered portion of the service water structure and the electrical penetration areas.* In connection j__ with the design aspects of the underpinning, A
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.* 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, b
3 l..
t h.i
,t s/
data collected in connection with the surcharge program, and load testing provide sufficient information.
Fur ther-more, it is estimated that two borings per area (which would be required in accordance with the staff's request) would l
cost a minimum of $400,000 not including applicant's overhead,
)
project engineering cost, and possible damage to installed components and structures.
Accordingly, the applicant's position is:
l.
That the additional borings are not necessary, and-2.
That the postulated benefits do not justify the cost.
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.
W 4
s i
\\' l
/ h A.
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING 1.
Se ttlement As a result of the detailtd 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 l
prevail while the structure is operational including
([
)
those applied by future site dewatering %33 Figure 1 j
shows the surcharge history and Figure 2 shows the stress distribution below the building during and af ter the surcharge.
The cooling pond water level was raised to the maximum design level before surcharge reached its maximum level.W 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 rapidly.
As Onticipated, excess pore water pressures developed when the load was applied and dissipated rapidly, indicating rapid consolidation of the fill.W i
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 pressure which later stabilized with groundwater level.m Primary se ttlement occurred rapidly and se ttlement 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 all the settlement curves shown in Figures 27-6 and 27-51 l
through 27-78 which exhibit a straight line settlement 4
i i
~
5
/ 'N 1
~ ~ '
during secondary consolidation.
This behavior has been recorded on many projects including the Chicago Auditorium where this straight line secondary behavior has been observed for 60 years.
Se ttlement 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 i
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.t42m l
Secondary consolidation was also assessed using data i
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 j
of measurements is shown on Figure 5.
These secondary consolidation measurements, when extrapolated, indicate that settlements less than 1/2 inch would occur during the life of the plant under the design loading.
"9 The technique of extrapolating from full scale test results is the most reliable method for predicting r'
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 inchs 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 i
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
+
thick.
Thus, the full scale load test results involved far less error and will result in a more reliable l
predict ion." si It should also be noted that the approach which utilizes i
evidence other than the results of laboratory tests for i
-the prediction of settlements has been used on previous
)
_J
+
t j
?
i
.s f '%
~
nuclear power plant applications.
At the Kewanee 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-I rated into the evaluation, predicted settlement was reduced to.1-1/2 inches.
Measured settlement at the end of construction of the foundation was 1-1/2 inches.
4 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.n.s>
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.o.si Although the surcharge resolves the uncertainties t
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 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.0)
's
{
c,,m
+
-,----,--e
--*-,+wn-
. 6
( ~~)
's
/
3 l
The ability to directly measure over the plant lifetime i
the actual rate of settlement of any structure (a slow t
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 Capacity 01 In aodition 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.
Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity = qdnet
= CN
+ Y D (N -1) + 1/2 Y BNy c
f q
where C = cohesion intercept N, N, N
= bearing capacity factors 7
Y = ef fective soil unit weight g = foundation embedment depth D
B = foundation width The factor of safety is equal to the net ultimate bearing capacity divided by the net applied pressure i
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.
t Soil parameters selected for use in determining the not t
ultimate bearing capacity depend on the rate of load application and the rate of pore water pressure dissipa-tion of the foundation soils.
For a load being applied instantaneously, it must be assumed that no dissipation of pore water pressure would have occurred.
Under the instantaneous loading condition, soil parameters should f
be selected based on undrained laboratory tests.
'e '
/'}
Q. '
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 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 laboratory strength tests with pore water pressure measurements were conducted on M sanples of plant area fill having characteristicssimilar to those under the diesel ge fra Tb provide a conservative analysis, five samples with low dry unit weights in the range of 114 to 119 pounds /
4 cubic foot were selected.
Based on the results obtained d
from these samples, the ef fective angle of shearing resistance (J) was found to be 29 degrees and the cohesion intercept (C) was found to be 114 pounds / square fo ot.
The drained angle of shearing resistance is known to be primarily a function of the plasticity I
characteristics of the soil and as the plasticity of 4
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 different design values.
This laboratory test data is summarized on Table 1.
The strength data is presented on a modified ef fective stress Mohr-Coulomb diagram in Figures 6 and 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 aero at failure.
As shown on Figure 8, the net ultimate bearinq capacity factor of safety is approximately 7 using 7 =U term is assumed to be zero, assuming the29 degrees and IT =
6 if the water table will be lowered to below the foundation 6
influence depth.
t Under earthquake conditions, an additional loading equal to about 30 percent of the static loading will he applied.
This load will be instantaneous and.would occur under undrained soil conditions.
Factors of safety for seismic conditions will be above acceptable limits.
L
r-
~w
~-
-, + -,
l m
)W
\\
N
/ 3
.d B.
SERVICE WATER STRUCTURE 1
I Af ter the discovery of the unexpected settlement at the diesel generator building,13 borings were made within and around the portion of the service water structure supported 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 borines indicated
~
cnat it would be appcupciate to underpin the cantilever t3 portion of the service water structure.
This will be achieved by using piles driven 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.**
During the initial site investigation by Dames and Moore and construction phases of the plant, there were borings
)
made into the natural soils in the vicinity of the ser-vice water pump structure. _ Based en information ahtained 3)N fk ~
l 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 j
generator building, preliminary estimates of pile capac-ity for support of the canttA=vec porcion of the service water structure were made.
Based upon an estimated capac-
,,_ity nn the order of 100 tons, it was accermined that _16
,_ piles would be requirea._ calculations wilt h. ="h-i**=a s
s_ tn 2n.
resonn==
to ouestion 41._ _To verify the initial ekrimate, a precroduction '^ed tert prog--- wtil be g
conducted which will include loading a pile to yield in g
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 r
piles.
In production, the piles will be installed in the same manner as the test pile and will be tested by jacking against the building to 1.5 times the design load."2,m Results of the various subsurface investigations conducted at the site also enabled an estimate to be made of the 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 f
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.n2) *
.s i
N
/
g 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 4
1
/e (v
\\
g
~.
i 4
,b
[
h C.
AUXILIARY BUILDING 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 tower areas.
These borings penetrated the fill and were terminated in the natural soil.
The borings included making standard penetration tests.53 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 obemined frn=
- h=
harinas indicated that it would oe li appropriate to underpin
- h.
siectrical nenetration areas or unis structure.
This will be achieved using caissons bearing on the natural soils.
This has been addressed in the response to NRC Question 12.88J* 88 l
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
~
been factored into the preliminary specification for caisson construction.
Bearing capacity calculations wi'll be transmitted in the eesponse to Question ez.
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." *'
Downdrag may also occur on the caissons.
Estimates of downdrag were made on the basis of results of soils borings made beneath ehe electrical penetration area 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 minimal 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 j
friction breakers or casing.U*'
There is no need for additional borings because borings to date and testing to be performed during construction will provide sufficient information.
i i
i x'
-lo-
S e
j D.
COOLING POND DIKE The staf f has requested that borings be taken in certain areas of the cooling pond dike.
The adequacy of the design and construction of the cooling pond dike is not a proper subject for consideration in the hearing on the NRC's December 6,1979, Order Modifying the Midicnd Construction Permit.
The scope of the hearing and the jurisdiction of the hearing board are limited and i
determined by the December 6: 1979, order.
(See Public Service Company of Indiana, Incorporated, Marble Hill 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:
i In the event a hearing is requested, the issue to be considered will be:
(1)
Whether the facts set forth in part two of this p-Order are correct; and.
i (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-related and non-Q-listed structure, is made in Part Two of the Order.
Nor would the second issue provide such a basis.
The basis upon which the order could be sustained is set forth in Part Four of the Order.
The text of Part Four clearly 7 -
indicates that the order was rendered pursuant to the (
Atomic Energy Act, not NEPA.
Further, the Order is limited in scope to " remedial actions associated with the soil activities for safety related structures and systems founded in and on plant fill."
Hence, the purview of the hearing is, by the direct terms of the Order, limited to a Safe ty 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.
Although this is an inappropriate subject for NRC consid-eration in this hearing, the following information indi-cates why the dikes were adequately constructed.
(
4,
.i
)
/
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 which I
contained organics and deleterious materials.
The area i
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 cutof f.*
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 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-l tio n.
If, for example, the sand zone was to be crossed by equipme nt, the area would be marked and the contaminated material would be removed and replaced with approved sand.< san Inspections were performed by the fulltime subcontractor's inspector for lif t thickness, proper material, roller i
passes, and moisture conditioning.* The inspector would call for field density tests af ter approximately every 500 cubic yards were placed to verify that proper place-ment was accomplished." Random over-inspections were conducted by a representative of the applicant during normal placement.
Af ter completion of the dikes, several methods of monitoring the dikes were implemented.
Twenty-four settlement monuments 1
were placed around the dike.
All readings show-little or j
no settlement except for three monuments, which are located at the southeast corner of the dikes.
These monuments i
show approximately 1-7/8 inches of initial settlement, which took place before pond fill.
Since June 6, 1978, only 0.010 inch of settlement has been recorded."JM Four holes were drilled in the dike to install power po le s.
These holes extended approximately from elevation 632 to elevation 623 which was the approximate water elevation at that time.
Visual inspection of these holes revealed firm, well compacted material, which is documented in t,
7
(
)
inspection reports by the contractor's geotechnical -.
3 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 piesometers 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 4
dikes, extending to various depths from 32 feet to 234 feet.
These are used to monitor the ele ration 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.
This supports the conclusion that the dike is performing _
as intended.
i 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.m 1
N i
't l
~N V,) t
s E.
RETAINING WALL The retaining walls adjacent to the service water pump structure (Seismic Category I) and circulating water pump structure (non-Seismic 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.
After 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 soi'l in the vicinity of the walls.nu Borings made adjacent to the retaining walls show that:
j i
(1) granular fill was placed and compacted behind the i
walls; (2) the outer walls are founded on stiff to very stiff clay fill; (3) the inner walls are founded on natural dense sands, and hard clays and silts that also underlie the fill supporting the outer walls.
/
The soil parameters use'd 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 Design Values and Laboratory Tests A.
Natural soil Cohesion 2.0 ksf 4.0 ksf Bearing for 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 Bearing for seismic condition 4.25 ksf 5.0 ksf i
i i
%. /
i
- 4 -
,.,. - ~,,. -
e-..
The design values are within the parameters derived from the borings and laboratory tests and, therefore, the design is conservative.
The factors of safety of the retaining wall against sliding and overturning, using the design parameters, are within the raquirements given in FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3.4.
Slope stability evaluation based on borings j
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 1980.0ml 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
.e-i 9
\\
\\,
\\
l N
REFERENCES 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 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 6.
NRC letter to Consumers Power Company, Docket No. E0-329/330, 7/30/80; Table 37-1, Item 3 7.
Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Question 27 h
8.
NRC Meeting, 7/31/80, Washington, D.C.
9.
Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Volume 3, Tab 70, letter from Mssrs. Peck, Hendron, Davisson, Loughney, and Gould 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 Masts. Davisson and Hendron, 5/22/79 11.
FSAR Subsection 2.5.4.3.2 12.
NRC Meeting, 2/28/80 and 2/29/80, Midland, Michigan 13.
Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, Volume 3, Tab 55, Meeting Notes, S/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 Micland Site Meeting, Dike Tour, 8/28/80 18.
Consumers Pcwer Company letter to NRC, Serial 9697, 9/12/80, Settlement Update
, l I
i
)
TABLE 1 j
LABORATORY TEST DATA
SUMMARY
OF SOIL PROPERTIES TO DETERMINE p' - q' RELATIONSHIP Il + 33 7133 Boring - Sample w
p' =
2 p' =
2 7
- Test Series d (eef)
(%)
(psf)
(psf)
T9 213 117.9 14.4 2,000 1,100 TIS 222 118.6 14.2 7,200 3,850 T16 225 114.4 16.9 2,100 1,22'S TR2 - U2 - 140 114.6 14.6 3,600 1,800 TR5 147 117.9' 14.1 6,000 3,100
/
NOTES:
i Y d = dry unit weight r
w = water content j
F1 = effective major principal stress 33 = effective minor principal stress i
i i
J t
s 1
\\
l I
\\
Figure 1
~
(See Reference 1) iim I gl <
. can
... +
=
i I
g enum amminomas rw meusaste rw.auv e e
Dali g!j g
s : :: : :
asa as!
2,
- l 21
?
a w
g e
. I J
- 1
'i -2.
3 i
ei a: ' :
. 3 g l:
g i
' sit
<3QQ<Fe s il
/
a.
r, 3
. 3
/W 3
. 3 i
g
. 3
/
\\
9
. a
/
/
n
. n
. a
- l i
y aI 1
. 3l
==.-,
. ]
3 g
gg i
=
3e dj
]
-4 3
. s-a y
g i
E I
e,
_ ]
3 g
E E
E a
g
. g D
s 3
. 3 t
-.I
.ND
. M.
3 O$
O g
(
pp a
s
. a j
t i
l g
. n g
y c
- =
s A
ci i
. a n
a in
'(
3 a
l
.p j
~
a,
. /'
.j h.
s a
[,.
i t
~
sas asas i :
~
- me em -.-
r m.m. -
1 m
l Figure 2 (See Reference 1)
D LOAD (KSF) 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
828 i
7 i
i Y
STRESS INCREMENT OUE TO STRUCTURAL LOADS (DEAD)
/
a23
/
(1)
(2)(4)
)
)
/
/
P
=
sis
/
E STRESS INCREMENT s
DUE TO UVE LOAD & I LOWERING GWT F g
WMM I
g I
d f
613 l
srREss lMCREMENT LIV LOADS -e I
SOS TRiss IN-SITU EFFECTIVE g MREMENTDUE
/
STRESS (GWT 827) d TO SURCHARGE ff T
\\i M
1, (1) in-dme efhedue eiertween seemswo G W T se a27.
- 2. (2) Tseul eMeedse puusswo das to in-das enseihe suertween premswo and seusanal deed leeds 3.(3) Tsed eMeedse presswo se the and of swehargedueto M enmodue esortween presswa, seusewel deed leads, & swahergs need6 4 14) Teemi eMesdw suusswo em se hi-eina eMeedw euertween psuure, serusewat deed leads, & gw M E 15) Total enesihe psumuro dwingihe IHe of piant ausreden ese se in-des enseihe esurturden preamwe, seuseweldmed leads, i - _.., leads,& Beeleedt COMPARISON OF EFFECT!vE STRESS AT tl END OF SURCHARGE AND 21 DURING LIFE OF PLANT OPERATION SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DOESEL GENERATOR BUILDING
s
)
i r,,
e-g-
=
l e
.J y
1
.l e
- S w
c uJ w
e I H g E.
D ll.i' l 2 I
o I Og 6
a.
0 2 sl g eg i
I E
lI sinus.uusveen Awww suest tut 9 i
/
[
/
. /
- 3 9
I T..
/
5 3 t:t
/
- D 12 *
/
- j~
- f.f T sesousesessco sened wins so uvo envssiassi /
6e 6M6 -
=y 1.:;g j
/
l 5 :'4.e
'O j
y 2,'T
- I 5
E 35i3:
tospovsw assestautes assary
/
- g a
anis -
/
, ; n,;
/
1-5
- i. 2
- > /
8E E2
'l 0
~
3 b 3
1weissi s._.
'/
i i
e.' : :
v eemows do save 7
i' d '"
e er***
34:: a g
-e.
5 I4gJf2 dv.
l n:I.
9
.t 1
4'
.- '.A. ;.34 x
w s~
t w
8:
8:
a m
' N"" i*. 4 e
lU Y
t-f.
5 m e%
gu sa bEC
- I i!
D g
g
-,e.
_s.
(
AW- _*R
=
m w
senasvJs,e 1
g a 2R s
M m (evoisove,sevne seeri
. A f
R 2
k E.
d SC l 23 s
-M_
=
1 n
=
t T'
(f1I3EI) 3J3XI"..113 l
3 D
7
% %O
( y sousse;su aos) t esn6T.it e
l l
~
l i
)
e
~
i
}
l I
{
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING I.
i o
e o note m
EOso 3
s.27s O O ras q
a2eo t
@ o 0.23e Q O 0.30s l
i
- L__f--]
9 Of
' '- L_1
' '- L_l-]
=
E324 11 g
_Galt jaN L BJM 0
0 I
i i
N a272 0.323 0.298 0.364 0.337 0.260 i
Oc _O_ _ _ _O O
O O
_____7 O
O O
O I
g y
p_____3 r---
7 I
I 3
8 l
0 8
8 8
8 E024 i
^
0 H5 r
l l
i i
l j
r.w O i
i i
i i
(J t
(
t i
(
w-i g
)
)
r g
g as 8
8 3
I 8
l 3
oN 4
1 l
i I
3 l
8 Ne s
g
~
I 1
.a e
g, R&1l R804 gM 194g 'E038 0
,0__
n 0.324
- ge X ~ ~0.311 -
L E,.Q,496 -
0.485 o J O -- -.AJ86 -o_l g
l O ~~~~D
_ l P
D _ lR i
u 4
e L-J LJ L_.
L e,4ss O _J O@
o 0.024 O 8 E012 9a89 O m
o O
0.466 0.400 0.400 0.421 0.421 i
e LEGEND:
l 0- suit. DING / PEDESTALSETTLEMENT MARKER g,03-MEASURED SETTLEMENT SETWEEN 3-15 79 and 8-1240 IN INCHES 0.421 - PREDICTED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN 816 79 and 8-12-80 IN INCHES ggygg W
i ASSUMING SURCHARGE REMAINS DURING PLANT LIFE A8Si AllSOR NOTE:
MIDLAND POWER PLANT The meeswed seestemenes do not include the hoeve observed I
appro=Imately between 815-79 & 9-14 79.
MEASURED VSPREDICTED SECONDARY I
l COMPRESSION SETTLEMENT (816 79 /
6-12-80) ASSUMING SURCHARGE REMAINS
.aos m naantata en 7220 FIGURE 271s
a.,
,g-@.-
~&
en m
0 t
Figure 5 (See Reference 1)
\\o s
)
)
E
_m
-/
4 0
i e
E W
E=
"i A
s h58" i
R e
a d
6 Y
i i
tEBMONI) IMENT11135
s o
"s Figure 6 E=
(
(See Reference 1)
O\\
gh h
'N 3"
a e
\\
l
k s
s j
\\.
a=
ls
=
\\
=
=
O M
M g
5=
- g*
O s.8 b
=
b I
e.
g2
\\.
g.
i-i w a
.g
\\.
_m su<=
=
\\L ta s-
\\
sE
<E a-.
\\
m
\\
_g-8" b l 0
V q
\\o o
a i n -
\\
i
\\
- I.'.
)
?
\\
(
+,.
y
-s
,, s N
N
~
\\
1
.i
\\
g
\\
+
s xe R-j'.
\\s
~
\\~
G O
.i O
8 Q
a a
e n
4 I
h m
wa - u>,
.:.s
,s
.s...
u C
Figure 7
(; m (See Reference 1) g5 m.
Il U5 E
- C E
=
g
=
a 4
y IN*
Be d !E E
B sN 2m I*
BBG N
8ls 3
.I i
s O
E
$8 eo
.g m
O
,o i N g
9 e.g Y
O e
0 f
l i
l 3
3 3
3 i
I dSd (4 0 - '8)
,b
- - - ~'~' '
e
'D Figure 8 (Sh 1 of 2)
(See Reference 1)
\\
BEARING CAPACITY (D/G BLDG)
A.
BASED ON AIL CIU TESTS 9 = 29" c = 260 psf a).
Use T & P N = 27 N = 16 N
= 15 C
9 y
)
4 = (260) (27) + (125) (6) (16) + 1/2 (125) (10) (15) d
= 7,020 + 12,000 + 9,375
= 28395 psf (q I d nst F.s. = 2 4
,,,13 b).
Use vesic 9
N = 27.9 N = 16.4 N = 19 g
7 qd = (260) (27.9) + (125) (6) (16.4) + 1/2 (125) (10) (19)
= 7,254 + 12,300 + 11,875 = 31,425 psf (q ) net = 30,679 psf d
F.S. =
= 9.02 OO i
s
'7 Figure C (Sh 2 of 2)
B.
EASED CN FIVE SAMPIES WITN LOWER DENSITIES f=29' I
e = 114 psf N,= 27 N = 16 N = 15 qd = (114) (27) + (125) (6) (16) + 1/2 (125) (10) (15)
= 3,078 + 12,000 + 9,375
= 24,453 psf (qd m = 23,703 psf I
F.S. =
= 6.97 3 0 IF WE NEG:.ECT e, ASSCHE = 0 qd = (125) (6) (16) + 1/2 (125) (10) (15)
= 12,000.+ 9,375
= 21,375 psf (q }m = 20,625 psf d
I 0,62 F.S. =
= 6.07 00 i
I
'N APPENDIX A RESUMES FOR CONSULTANTS M.T. DAVISSON, A.J.
HENDRON, AND R.B. PECK
~
?
9 s
e l
[
,a' i
q Personal Data Susunary of M. T. Davisson 1
Full Name2 Melvin Thomas Davisson Birth Date: 23 December 1931 j
Present Positions:
Professor of Civil Engineering. University of Illinois, Urbana, n11mois consulting Foundation Engineer 3aelutround:
l Native of Ohio.,BCE from University of Akron, M.*. and Ph.D. from i
University of I111acis. Earlier work exper ace vna in com-struction and structural engineering.
Consultina:
Difficult foundations in waterfront constructica including bulkheads, cofferdams and piers; braced outs, underpinning, grain storage structures; protective construstica to resist nuclear blast; deep ocean soil mechanicsg foundation vibrations; deep foundations; dynantes of pile driving. Examples are: Hudson River Pier ko for the Holland-America Linesg Bulkhead supporting McCormick Fisce in Chicago; Crain Terninal at Sorel, F. Q.; Pile foundations for I4cks and Dans in the Arkansas River Project; Minutenan-type construction for U.S. Air: Force; Shelter construction for U. S.
Army and Navy; Research problems at Ofevada Test Site and i
Suffield Experimental Station; Recommendations for R and D pro-l 7
j grams in deep-ocean engineering for U. S. Navy; Pile supported runway extensions at LaGuardia Field for Fort of New York Authority; R and D on vibratory pile driving for Shell 011 Co.)
Tnundation vibratiemph.bwm..i.D3m1Fing.AlpeftFie Dover Qants and structures such,as the No. Ils Newsprint Machine for Price aros. at Alas F. Q. Foreign projects in Europe. Asia, South America, Central Aasrica, Cuada and Puerto Rico.
Research:
Behavior of deep foundations (piles, drilled piers, etc.) Settlement of foundations. Soil dynamics. Foundation vibrations. Dynamies of pile driving. Wave eguation analysis of impact and vibratory pile driving Teachinar Several courses in soil anchanics and foundation engineering for seniors and graduate students. Special course in deep foundations for ad-vanced graduate students.
Techniesl and Professional Societie_s:
American Society of Civil Engineers l
American Concrete Institute i
American Railway Engineering Association American Society for Testing and l'.aterials i
National Society of Professional Engineers I
(
~
3 1-t Personal Data Summanry of M. T. Davisson. continued i
Committee Membershies:
t American Railway Engineering Association, Comunittee 8, Concrete Structures and Foundations.
American Concrete Institute, Committee 5k3. Concrete Files.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Committee on Deep Foundations.
American Society -for Testing and Materials, Committee D-18, Sub.11, Tests on Deep Foundations and Committee D-7, Sub. 7, Timber Piles Highway Research Board, Committee on Soils, Geology and Foundations, Chairman, Subcommittee co'3 ridges and Other Structures.
, Professional Resistration:
Professional Engineer - Ohio and Illinois Structural Engineer - Illinois Honors and_Avards_:
Rocipient of the Second Annual Alfred A. Raynood Award,1959. for the paper " Lateral Stability of a Flexible Pier." First place award in international competition for original papers on foundation engineering.
I Recipient of the Collingwood PPise,196k, presented by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the paper " Laterally Imaded Piles in a Layered Soil System."
Publications See attached list.
l i
L
'(.
d
.o M. T. Davisson
\\f Publications:
1.
R. B. Peck, M. T. Davisson and V. Hansen, discussion of:
" Soil Modulus for laterally Loaded Piles." by S. McClelland and J. A.
Facht Jr., Transactions. ASCE. Vol. 123, 1958. pp. 1065-1069.
2.
M. T. Davisson, discussion of: " Experimental Study of Beams on Elastic Foundations." by R. L. Thoms. Proceedings ASCE Vol. 87 No. EM1. February 1961, pp.171-172.
3.
D. U. Deere and M. T. Davisson. " Behavior of Grain Elevator Founda-tions Subjected to Cyclic Loading." Proceedings. Fifth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Paris,.
Vol. 1, 1961. pp. 629-633.
4.
R. B. Peck and M. T. Davisson, discussion of: " Design and Stability Considerations for Unique Pier." by J. Michalos and D. P. Sillington, Transactions ASCE. Vol.127, Part IV.1962. pp. 4T4-424.
f 5.
R. B. Peck and M. T. Davisson. discussion of: " Friction Pile Grou s p
w in Cohesive Soil," by R.. L. Kondner. Proceedings. ASCE. Vol. 89 No..SM1, February 1963. pp. 279-285.
M. T. davisson and H. L.' Gill. " Laterally L'onded Piles in a Layered 6.
/
Soil System. " Proceedings, ASCE, Vol. 89. No. SM3, May 1963 pp. 63-94.
7.
A. J. Hendron and M. T. Davisson. " Static and Dynamic Behavior of a Playa Silt in One-Dimensional Comoression." Technical Documentary Report No. RTO TOR-63-3078 AFWL. Kirtland Air Force Base September 1963.
8.
H. Kane M. T. Davisson. R. E. Olson and G. 'C. Sinnamon, "A Study of the Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction Characteristics of Soil,"
Technical Documentary
- Report No. RTD TOR-63-3116 AFWL, Kirtland Air Force Base. December 1963.
9.
M. T. Davisson and S. Prakash. "A Review of Soil-Sole Behavior."
Htqhway Research Record No. 39, NAS-NRC Publication 1159, Washington, 1963, pp. 25-48.
10.
M. T. Davisson. " Estimating Buckling Loads for Piles." Proceedings.
Second Pan American Confe' rence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Brazil. Vol'.1.1963, pp. 351-371, 11.
A. J. Hendron. Jr. and M. T. Davisson. " Static and Dynamic Constrained Moduli of Frenchman Flat' Soils." Proceedings. Symposium on Soil-i structure Interaction. Tucson, June 1964, pp. 73-97.
12.
M. T. Davisson and T. R. Maynard. " Static and Dynamic Compressibility of Suffield Experimental Station Soils." Technical Report No.
i WL TR-64-118. AFWL, Kirtland Air Force Base, April 1965.
'wl
-,,n,,-
,.--,----n-w- - -.., - - -, -n-
-,,- -,, -.,-..-w---~w,,--v,-.
-m,
,n,-,---na-,-.
an.--,. ~, - - - ~.
..v,---
-.m.,n~,
)
\\
131. Davisson, discussion of:
"Bucklin l
s," by E. J. Klohn and G. T. Hughes.g of Long, Unsupported Timber SM4, July 1965, p. 224.
Proceedings. ASCE, Vol. 91, 14.'. Davisson, T. R. naynard and V. G. Kolle, " s AFWL-TR-65-29 AFWL. Kirtised Air Force Base. December 1 15.. Davisson and K. E. Robinson, " Sending and Buckling of Pa dded Pfles " Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Soil inics and Foundation Engineering, Montreal Vol.1,1965,
!43-46.
- 16.. Davisson, " Design of Deep Foundations for Tall Buildi~ gs Unde al Load," Proceedings. 4tructural Engineering In Modern n
Jn, Illinois Structural Engineering Conference Chicago, Building i57-174.
- 1966, f
17.
Special Technical Publication, No. 444, Shunter and M. T. D ations. San Francisco, 1968, pp. 106-117.ymposium on Deep 18.
D'avisson and J: R. Salley, " Lateral Load Tests
(
Foundations, San-Francisco,1968, pp. 68-83.
'-'/
~
19.
Davissen and V. J. Mcdonald, " Energy Measurements for a Diesel
," ASTM Special* Technical Publication, No. 444, Symposium on
, oundations, San Francisco,1968, pp. 295-337.
20.
~
Davisson, discussion of:
! by Harry M. Coyle and I. H. Sulaiman, Proceedings, ASCE,"
15 No. SM1, January 1969, pp. 373-374.
t 21.
.Hendron, Jr., M. T. Davisson and J. F. Parola, "Effect of I of Saturation on Compressibility of Soils from the Defense ich Establishment Suffield," Report 5-69-3, Waterways Experiment h, Vicksburg, Mississippi. April 1969.
1
- 22.
Pavisson, " Static Measurements of Pile Behavior," Proceedings J
fence on Design and Idsta11ation of Pile Foundations and for Structures. Lehigh University, Bethlehem. April 1970 10-164.
i 23.
Mlavisson, " Design Pile Capacity," Proceedings L niversity. Oathlehem, April 1970, pp. 75-85.
U 24 Havisson and J. R. Salley, "Model Study of Laterally Loaded P' Proceedings, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. SMS, September 197D Pl5-1627. -
\\..-
t
l
.c.
Q x
25.
M. Alizadeh and M. T. Davisson, " Lateral load Tests on Piles -
Arkansas River Project," Prdceedings. ASCE, Vol. 96 No. SMS, September 1970, pp. 1583-1604 26.
M. T. Davisson, " Lateral Load Capacity of Piles " Highway Research Record No. 333,. Washington, 1970, pp. 104-12.
27.
M. T. Davisson, "BRD Vibratory Driving Formula." Foundation Facts, Vol. VI, No.1,1970, pp. 9-11.
~
28.
M. T. Davisson and J. R.i Salley, " Settlement Histories of Four Large Tanks on Sand," Proceedings, Performance of Earth and Earth-Supported Structures, Purdue University, Lafayette, June 1972, pp. 981-996.
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.
)
l 30.
M. T. Davisson, " Inspection of Pile Driving Operations " Technical Report M-22, Department of the Army, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, July 1972, f
i 31.
M. T. Davisson, "High Capacity Piles," Proceedings Lecture Series, Innovations in Foundation Construction, Sl1&FD, Illinois Section ASCE, 1
i Chicago, 1973.
32.
M. T. Davisson and D. M. Rempe, " Wave Theory Simplified," Piletalk Seminar, New Jersey,1974.
33.
M. T. Davisson, " Pile Foundations and the Computer " Use of Computers in Foundation Design and Construction Metropolitan Section ASCE, j
New York, April 1974.
6
\\
s x.. s '
O O
~ -. -
-e-
.O
' we t
Professional Background and Experience
-s s
{
Name: Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.
Address: 2230c Civil Engineering Building University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, IL 61801 Date of Birth: October 4, 1937 Marital Status: Married with 2 children Citizenship:
Na'. ural Born - U.S.
Education Ph.D.
1963 University of Illinois Major:
Soil Mechanics Urbana, Illinois Foundations Minors: Geology Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 1
M.S.
1960 University of Illinois Civil Engineering Urbanai 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/Lt. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Research Engineer U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station June 1961 - September 1963
,Research Associate University of Illinois I
)
June 1960 - September 1960 Engineer, Shannon & Wilson t
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineers Seattle, Washington l
l l
..-.. ~
m i
Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.
~
- q q
g.:
Offices helj and other services to orofessional societies
)
(1)
Member of the Research Comittee of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations y
Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers (1967-69).
=4 (2)
Member of Subcomittee 12 of Comittee D-18, ASTM, Properties of y
Soil and Rock, 1965-1970.
Si (3)
Co-chairman of Panel on " Stress Wave Propagation in Soils,"
3 International Symposium on Soil Dynamics, Albuquerque, New Mexico, sponsored by ASCE & NSF, August 1967.
(4)
Panel member for " Dynamic Loading," Session of a national Specialty 5
Conference on Placement and Improvement of Soil to Support Structures."
M sponsored by the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, M.I.T., August 1968.
.yy g
di (5)
April 1968 - Gave lectures on rock mechanics to Metropolitan Section d
)
+
b*
li (6)
April 1969 - Gcve lectures on rock mechanics to Metropolitan Section llj ASCE. Washington, D.C.
(7)
Selected to give a lecture on " Field Instrumentation in the Design of Underground Structures in Rock," Metropolitan Section, ASCE, 4
New York City, May 1970.
- m (8)
Panel member on " Dynamic Loadings and Deformations," Sessiori for ASCE, Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division Specialty Conference i
I; on' " Lateral Stresses in the Ground and the Design of Earth Re-l s
taining Structures," Cornell University, June 1970.
l w
i
=i (9)
Member of Panel on " Deformation Modulus of Rock Foundations " ASTM
' h._
Symposium on Deformation Properties of Rock, Denver February 1969.
5 (10)
Selected by NSF as one of the U. S. Members to exchange meeting with 2
Japanese Engineers on the Topic of Ground Motions produced by
]
earthquakes, U. of. California at Berkeley, August 1969.
s l
.s (11)
Member of Comittee on soil Dynamics, Soil Mechanics Division, q
ASCE, 1970 - present.
D (12)
Member of Publications Comittee for Journal of the Soil Mechanics y
and Foundations Division, ASCE,1970 - present,
t
/
l
-.L.
s c
?
.: e Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.
O 1
R Examples of Foundation Engineering and Earthquake Engineerino Experience 1.
Consultant to Williams Brothers construction Company on slope stability. problems encountered in construction of the Transandean 5
Pipeline in southern Colombia, S.A.
b 2.
Consultant to Woodward-Clyde and Associates on the Foundation Design of Davir-Besse Nuclear Reactor for earthquake loadings.
4 3.
Consultant, as an associate of Dr. N. M. Newark, on.the foundations for a 40 story building in Vancouver, B.C., designed for earthquake loading.
~
4.
Consultant to Waterways Experiment Station on the Earthquake Stability of Dam Slopes.
5.
Consultant to H. G. Acres Ltd. on Seismic considerations for Nuclear Reactor Foundations as a part of a study for 6 New England States on Projected Power Needs.
6.
Consultant, as an associate of Dr. N. M. Newmark, to the Divisions of Reactor Licensing and Reactor Safety of the Atomic Energy Comis-sion, on the adequacy of nuclear reactor foundations to resist earthquake loading, September 1967 - present. The following is a
..1 list of the Nuclear Power Station Foundations. reviewed during this time:
Ft. Calhoun Arnold Cooper Pilgrim Surry Crystal River Shoreham Prairie Island E
Salem Farley Rancho Seco Calvert Cliffs Diablo Canyon Oconee i
Sequoyah Indian Point Hatch Bailey Brunswick D. C. Cook 4
Xewaunee Zimer E
Fitzpatrick 3 Mile Island Permi-Russellville i
Turkey Point Easton 9
, Bell 3
7.
Dynamic stability assessment of 3 TVA dams subjected to design earthquakes.
h I
j L
l
)
i
^
1 c
4 Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.
m
(
Experience on Desion of protective Structures and Nuclear Effects i
1.
Consultant to TRW Systems, Redondo Beach, California on Dynamic Soil Properties pertinent to the hardness of the Minuteman System.
2.
Presently member of a panel in Oept. of Defense to review design of all Safeguard Structures for Vulnerability and hardness.
3.
Consultant to Omaha District Corps of Engineers on the con-
.T struction of underground protective structures in rock.
4.
Consultant to Air Force Space and Missile Systems Organization on Hardness of Minuteman Structures as an associate of Dr. N.
M. Newmark.
1
.i 5.
Consultant on problems in soil dynamics and rock mechanics to the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI.
)
6.
A member of the "Decoupling Advisory Group" formed by the Defense Atomic Support Agency.
Responsibility is to comment on stability
]
problems which might be encountered in building underground cavities 100-360 ft in diameter and to give the shear strength properties of rock masses which are important in determining the decoupling charac,
teristics of cavities over-driven by the detonation of a nucioar device.
7.
Received Army Comendation Medal in 1965 for representing the Chief of the Coprs of Engineers as a consultant to the Norwegian Government I
and NATO on the engineering of large underground facilities.
1 Recent Publications "The Behavior of Sand in One-Dimensional Compression," Ph.D. Thesis, U of I, Dept. of Civil Engr., July 1963; "The Dynamic Stress-Strain Relations for a Sand as Deduced by Studying its Shock Wave Propagation Characteristics in a 1.aboratory Device," w/T. E. Kennedy, Proceedings of the 1964 Army Science Symposium, Vol. II, West Point, N.Y., June 1964; "Statte and Dynamic Con-strained Moduli of Frenchman Flat Sotis," with M. T. Davisson, Proceedings Sept. 1964; " Damage to Model Tunnels Resulting from an Exp Impulse," with G. B. Clark and J. N. Strange. U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Vicksburg, Mississippi, Research Report No.1-6, Report
- 1. May 1965; "The Occign of Surface Construction in Rock," w/0. U. Deere. F.
D. Patton, and E. J. Cording, Ch. !! in Failure and Breakage of Rock, American Inst, of Mining Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineer,1967.
"The Effect of Soil Properties on the Attenuation of Air Blast-Induced Ground ttotions," with H. E. Auld, pp. 29-47. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wave I
Propagation and Dynamic Properties of Earth Materials University of New Mexico Press, 1968.
" Mechanical Properties of Rock," Chapter 2, pp. 21-53, of the book " Rock Mechan'ics in Engineering Practice," edited by K. G. Stagg I
and O. C. Zienkiewicz, published by John Wiley & Sons, London, 1968, 442 pg.
j l
3 O.
Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.
\\
" Dynamic Behavior of Rock Masses," with N. N. Ambraseys, Chapter 7, pp. 203-236 of the book " Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice" edited by K. G.
Stagg and O. C. Itenkiewicz, published by John Wiley and Sons, London,1968,
" Foundation Exploration for Interstate 230 Bridge over Mississippi 442 pages.
River near Rock Island Illinois " with J. C. Gamble and G. Way, Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Highway Geology Symposium, University of Illinois.
Engineering Experiment Station Urbana, 126 pp. " Compressibility Characteristics of Shales Measured by Laboratory and In Situ Tests " with G. Mesri, J. C.
137-153, ASTM Special Technical Publication 477, Gamble and G. Way, pp.
" Rock
" Determination of the In Situ Modulus of Deformation of Rock," June 1970.
Engineering for Underground Caverns," with E. J. Cording and D. U. Deere (In Publication ASCE Proceedings of a Symposium on the Design of Large-Dynamic Stability r
Underground Openings, Phoenix, Arizona, February,1971).
of Rock Slopes." with E. J. Cording, (In Publication. Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Univ, of Illinois,1971). " State of the Art of Soft-Ground Tunneling " with R. B. Peck and B. Mohraz, Proceedings of the 1st i
North American Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference Chicago, Illinois.
June 5-7,1972 AIME,1972, pp. 259-286. " Specifications for Contro. led Blasting in Civil Engineering Projects," with L. L. Oriard, Proceedings of the 1st North American Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, Chicago, Illinois, i
June 5-7, 1972, AIME, pp.. 1585-1610.
Consultine Exoerience Directly Aeolicable for the Desian of Larce Underoround Cnsecers for Storace 1.
1971-present: Consultant to Gulf 011 on 4 large undergrcund chambers for storage o_f gas Fannett Dome Texas.
2.
1972-present: Consultant to Dome Petroleum on the use of salt caverns i
in Windsor Canada for gas storage. Caverns in service now, status reviewed 3 or 4 times a year.
i 3.
Consultant to Morton Salt on control of solution mining in the following brinefields Port Huron, Michigan l
Rittman, Ohio Hutchinson, Kansas l
4.
Consultant to the Solution Mining Research Institute on subsidence and cavity stability Report on a study of sinkhole development above cavities in two brinefields and discussion of means for detecting this behavior sufficiently in advanco to prevent such behavior.
j 5.
Consultant to dASF-Wyandotte Wyandotte, Michigan on control of subsidence and prevention of sinkhole formation above cavities in bedded salt.
(
)
6.
Consultant to Duke Power Co. on current design of Bad Creek underground powerhouse.
e e
4
~
,-wm.--
,-,,...aa---
,w-r--
, - - ~
r.
s
(
Alfred J. Hendron, Jr.
N
\\
l 7.
Past consultant to British Columbia Hfdro-Authority on stability of the Portage P.auntain Underground Powerhouse. (g6 ft span,1000 ft long,180 fthigh).
1 8.
Consultant to Morton Salt on the possible use of the Silver Springs brine field for gas storage.
1 9.
Consultant to U. S. Department of Defense on many tunnels and underground chambers at Nevada Test Site.
-)*
- 10. Past consultant to U. 5. Corps of Engineers on the use of large underground structures in rock for protective construction.
4
'1
- 11. Consultant to NATO and Norwegian Governant in 1965', as a Corps of Engineer officer, on large underground chamber construction. Received Army comendation medal for this assignment.
1 4
i
(
1 g
1 1
4 e
i IF e.
I 4
4
- I..
4 4
9 -
m NAME:
Ralph 8. Peck EDUCATION:
- 8. 5.. Civil: Engineering Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute D.C.E.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Post-doctoral studies Engineering Harvard University PROFESSIONAL Illinois: Structural and Professional Engineer (1942)
LICENSES:
Member. Illinois Structural Engineer Examining Board since.195g i
Hawa11 1956 California 1963 FIRM:
Ralph 8. Peck - Civil Engineer: Geotechnics (1975-Present)
(Bechtel Consulta'nt)
EXPERIENCE and QUALIFICATIONS:
Swanery 45 Years:
Internationally known consultant on foundation and stability conditions for tunnels, heavy loaded structures, and subways. Fonner professor of foundation engineering at University of Illinois.
Dr. Peck is the author of more than 70 technical publications dealing with foundations earth pressures, tunnels, slopes, earthdams etc. He collaborated on Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Foundation knaineerina, and gIgg Tneory to Practice in Soil Mechanics.
In 1944, he was awarded the Norman Medal of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
J 1930-Present: Dr. Peck is an internationally known consultant specializing in soil mechanics and foundation engineering. He has investigated bracing systems for open cuts for subways and deep excavations and has served as consultant on large dams in the United 4
States, Colombia. Puerto Rico, Hawaii. Costa Rica, British Columbia. New Brunswick, The Philippine Islands, Canal Zone and Greece.
Professor Peck has been a member of the boards of 1
i consultants for flexible paving design, pipe cover studies, the Garrison Dam Test tunnel. foundations i
for the Savannah River project. dynamic soil testing.
l Lincoln AFB missile sites for the Corps of Engineers.
l t
- e..~
a y
He has also worked on defense projects for the Rand Corporation, the Ramo-Wooldridge Corporation, and the Aerospace porporation.
1950-1975:
For twenty-five years. Dr. Peck taught on the college level. He was a lecturer at Illinois Institute of Technology, then assistant professor, associate pm-fossor, and pmfessnr of foundation engineering at University of Illinois.
G f
I e
f i
i s
(
(
^
- - - ---,, -.,_..,_