ML20091L071

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Initial Evaluation of Remedial Measures Planned for Category I Structures Placed on Plant Fill
ML20091L071
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 03/24/1980
From: Goodwin Z
ARMY, DEPT. OF
To: Rolonda Jackson
NRC
Shared Package
ML17198A223 List: ... further results
References
CON-BOX-01, CON-BOX-1, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8406070319
Download: ML20091L071 (28)
v • d • e


Text

--

~

t,.'

  • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

~

r-'

l((/h osynoir oestnicv. comes or suoinssas

.ox,,

r osTncer. MICHIGAN 44238 j

14 MAR 1980 NCEED-T SUBJECr: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM)

THRD:

Division Engineer, North Central ATTN: NCDED-g (James Simpson)

TO:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATIN:,Dr. Robert E. Jackson h

Division of Systems Safety Mail Stop P-314 Washington, DC 20555

/

(

1.

The Detroit District team which provides geotechnical engineering support to the NRC has reviewed most of the available documents concerning plant fill at the Midland Plant. The team met with the NRC staff, the applicant Consumers Power Comppny (CPCO) and its consultants, participated in a site visit to observe site conditions and discussed the proposed remedial measures planned for Category I structures placed on plant fill. Since final design computations have not yet been provided for remedial measures, we feel it p,

would be most expeditious for all parties to submit this INTERIM letter report to provide our initial evaluation of the remedial measures and recommend procedures to settle any unresolved issues, concerns and questions. The Oistrict also feels it is important to accomplish a thorough review which just cannot be done quickly.

2.

The Sistrict's investigation to date has been centered'mainly around the ** *

  • proposed remedial measures or other action for the Category I structures placed on fill meterials. The review to date includes at least a preliminary look at all data received through Amendment 74. The initial indication of issues unresolved to data fall under the following four general types with subtopics as notedt I.

Soils 3

a.

Groundwater b.

Borings and testing j

- c.

Settlement / Consolidation d.

Seismic concerne 8406070319 840517 4

PDR FOIA RICE 84-96 PDR G

. 4 Con 4umeys k^ b d ID G h t,

~

s.- =,

t

'i I

NCDED-G (24 Mar 80) ist Ind

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1, Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM)

DA, North Central Division, Corps of Engineers, 536 South Clark Street, 1

a.

Chicago, Illinois 60605

! ' 47R 1980 3,

TO: District Engineer, Detroit 1.

The subject letter report is returned for revisions. See Inclosure 1, recommended changes.

s 2.

Inclosure 2 is a suggested format for this report.

E FOR THE DIVISION ENGINEER:

't

~

))p... '^ } ^ ^ '

)

\\}

2 Inci ZANE M. GOODEEN, P.E.

c

.??

Chief, Engineering Division r

as 3l t

,J a

O

~

?.

,r t-d.

. 'y.

~

D i

s

.r l

/

1 10 I

s

.1

~...

...a _. -

I t

$4 MAR S O

NCIED-T SUMECT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM)

Misc. structures constructed on fill not covered in Paragraph II e.

below f.

Quality control II. Benedial Measures for Category I Structures on F111

a. ' Dewatering b.

Diesel generator building c.

Service water building d.

Borated water tanks Underground diesel fuel tanks s.

f.

Underground utilities Anz. building - Feedwater valve pit 3

O III. cooto=7 s.

Depth to rock

, b.

Layer formation c.

Fault and seismic history d.

Crustal rebound Interpretation of' borings, test pits, lab tests, etc.

e.

IV. Miscellaneous or General.

3.

Questions, uncertainties and unresolved issues are stated in the following These are in additica to the responses anticipated to be received from pages.

the applicant concerning additional design support information to the 10 CFR 50.54 (f) questions concern'ing structures on plant fill. The source of each gnestion, concern or issue is indicated at tae end of each iten.

'Q I.

Soils b.

Borings and testing (1) Who and what are the qualifications of the persons (s) who classified samples of all borings, driller or geologist? Were samples tested in a lab? Are samples still available? Where are the results, many appear to be missing? Source - site visit, various documents and general concern.

(2) Are final fill elevations available at completion of fill placement and prior to construction? Were additional borings taken prior to start of construction? If so, where are they? Source - Inc1 to CPC0 letter 2 Nov 79.

(3) Have all investigative borings for the plant fill problem been completed? If not, what are the locations of the remaining borings to be

'(

taken? Source - site visit 28 Feb 80.

\\

%/

2 o

4

.~

24 Ot 1980 i

O ** ECEED-T f

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland. Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM) c.

Settlement / Consolidation (1) Why have allowable soil bearing stresses not been discusaedh

~

What are the related soil spring constants so that settlement vs. load is quickly discerned? Source - site visit 27 Feb 80.

(2) Has the bearing value of the glacial till been deterair.ed and j

have settlements been estimated for this bearing stratus based on all building loads, particularly the reactor building? Source - site visie 27 Feb 80.

d.

Seismic concerns (1) New soil properties or new meterials used for backfill should be used in the revised seismic analysis for determination of structural O

ade,ua/cy. nas this been accom,11shed and documented 2 Source - questio.

i 262.13, q&R 2.5-22.

e.

Misc. structures constructed on fill not covered in Paragraph II I

below..

~

(1) Sand pockets hr.ve been noted in cooling pond dikes which lead toward the river. What are the adverse impacts (groundwater piping, leading to dike failure)? Was the dike properly compacted? Source genera 1 concern.

(2) Have all structures on fill be investigated for settlement?

If not why not? Have all buildings on fill been checked for cracking? Source

- interia SER.

1 I

(3) The design of the Water Service Building retaining wall is i

critical and partially category I.

This design should be provided for CofE j

f@*

review. What is the cause of the wait settlements noted during,the 27 and 28 i

Feb 80 site visits? Source - site visit 28 Feb 80.

I f.

Quality contro1 (1) Why are there so many shrinkage cracks (assuming these are i

shrinkage cra g ? Is this simply poor quality control? Will cracks be l

repaired in e Source - site visit 28 Feb 80.

l II. Remedial Measures for Category I Structures on Fin i

l a.

Dewatering (1) Why not utilize a slurry cutoff wall or trench across the primary recharge zone near the service water building in addition to pumped wells planned? Use of clay slurry wall would provide positive cutoff. Source

- site visit 27 Feb 80.

1

[

i s-3

-y 4

84 MAR 1980 i

G,. ECgEW T

. gUBJECT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland Plan't Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM)

(2) h e is the dewatering well gravel pack design? Does it vary with soil layer type? Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (dewatering).

(3) Will groundwater piping occur from cooling pond to well points over time? Any preventative measures proposed to stop this? h e about.

piping along piles, building foundations or caissons? Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (dewatering).

(4) Will weep holes in retaining wall at the service water building be plugged since these are no longer necessary with the devotering planned? This could be a likely source of possible groundwater piping in the i

i future. Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (dewatering).

j (5) h e are the test results concerning incrustation of the

(

{

desatering system as well as fines removal (additional settlement) concerns?

Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (dewatering).

l (6) h e is the final dewatering plan; aumber of wells, spacing, j

location, depth, diameter, pumping rates, recharge rates, back-up systems, I

ete? Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (dewatering).

1 (7) Are there any known problems of operations of the dewatering system due to presence of gas pockets in the area? h e about fire / explosion i

hasards with the electrical controls? Source general concern, prior i

experience.

(8) Has the need for localized dewatering in sand fill lenses been analyzed for structures other than the D.C. building? Source - site j

visit 27 Feb 80 (dewatering).

(9) Upon reaching a steady state in dewatering, a geophysical survey should be made to' confirm the position of the water table and to insure that no perched water tables exist. Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (dewatering).

j t

t'

{

b.

Diesel generator building (1) Provide additional verification that surcharge loading has i

indeed solved the settlement probles. Additional borings, if taken, should i

indicate higher blow counts waen compared to borings taken prior to i

application of pre-load. Settlement analysis should be made on samples from l

~

, sew borings. The drop in groundwater levels, implying heavier soil unit weights, and diesel plus seismic vibrations should be considered in the settlement and scismic analyses. Source - Q&R 2.5-22 and site visit 27 and 28 1

Feb 80.

(2) How was sand surcharge placed inside D.C. building? Was it

[

compacted? How was it removed? h e was in place unit weight of sand used?

4 4

e p

)

e I

f 24 MAR 120

.' sczzo-T

^

SULTECT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM)

Could removs1 of sand by heavy equipment cause cracking? Scr.arce - Q&R 2.5-21, Question 362.1.

(3) Establish cracking history as a function of construction and surcharge activities. Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (Anal. Investigations).

(4) What is the explanation of the " hump" in the settlement between the two western-most generator bays on the south side of the building?

Source - Incl. to CPC0 letter 2 Nov 79.

(5) Since certainty that the surcharge provided proper compaction has not yet been satisfactorily demonstrated to the Corps, and as a hedge

+

against. liquefaction, confidence in the structure could be established by underpinning. Source - site visie 27 Feb 80.

%l (6) Are post surcharge borings at.d rulated test data available?

If so, these should be provided. Source - CPCO letter 2 Nov 79.

(7) Why is there no floor in D.C. building? Will a floating slab be placed later? Source - site visie 28 Feb 80.

(8) Further, explanation o'f the 1 1/2" of additional settlement (1/2" earthquake, 3/4" static load and 1/4" dewatering) is requested. The 1/2" additional settlement due to earthquake loads must be reviewed by WES.

i Source - Q&R 2.5-34, Q362.17.

c.

Service water huilding (1) Corrective piles are to be 100 ton piles. How is this load to be developed and established, by tip elevation or blow count? Discuss the Q.

pile load test (s) to be performed. Resolve the problem of possible differential settlement that could occur between the pile supported and and

~

the portion placed on fill. Source - site visit 28 Feb 80 (Davisson present.ation).

(2) What computations show that sufficient lateral stability is provided to the proposed underpinning piles by the building? Source - site visit 28 Feb 80 (Davisson presentation).

(3) Would building lateral stability be improved by plugging the retaining wall weep holes and maintaining the devatcred condition? Source.-

site visit 28 Feb 80 (Davisson presentation).

d.

Borated water tanks (1) The soil test investigation report at the tank farm should be provided for our review. Bearing capacities should be determined from plate j

/

load tests. The yield point of the foundation should be determined. Source -

N

-site visie 27 Feb 80 (remedial work).

5

.. - -. = - - -.

.. - = - - - - -. - - - -

24 MAR 1980 C

.*. NCEED-T i

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2. Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM)

(2) Why has the ring foundation cracked? Is this crack in the area of the reported broken air line? The diagonal crack did not appear to be a shrinkage crack. Source - site visie 27 and 28 Feb 80.

(3) Why not increase the test load for the tank by a surcharge in addition to filling the tank with water? Ses?ce - Interia SER.

(4) Since applicant agreed that broken air line any have degraded the foundation material, the tests taken in this area must be conclusive.

Source - NRC 28 Aug 79 Memo.

-(5) What are the residual settlement predictions 'nd the a

j consequences thereof? Source - Interia SER.

()

e.

Underground diesel fuel tanks

)

(1) What are the settle:sent predictions on these tanks and will these then function properly? Any differential settlement expected? Source -

Interim SER.

(2) Does differential settlement reduce the fuel storage capacity? If so, how much? Source general ccacern, Interia SER.

(3) Are these tanks designed against "bouyancy?" Source -

-l Interia SER.

f.

Underground utilities (1) Why not inspect the interior of water circulation piping with video camera with sensing devices to show pipe cross-section, infiltration and Q

slope? Source - site visit 27 Feb 80.

(2) Have el u trical duct banks at D.G. building been damaged?

Have these been inspected after it was shown they were severly loaded? Direct observation of the western-most duct would seem appropriate and easy at this time. Source - site visit 27 and 26 Feb 80.

(3) Have all Category I underground utilities,-ducts, pipes etc.

been profiled? This would seem to be the only positive way to be certain no damsges to pipes or utilities have been sustained. What about corrosion to buried pipes or chemical attack of concrete pipes underground? What abouc stress induced by differential settlement? Are all stress levels below e

allowable and what about added stress due to residual settlement? Source -

site visit 27 Feb 80 (evaluation of piping).

I (4) Will all utility settlements be monitored throughout the plant lifetime, particularly at connections? Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 j

(evaluation of piping).

\\j 6

9 l

l

\\

l 14 MAR 20 scExp-T i

,' SURJECT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Mid1'nd Plant i

a Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report (INTERIM)

(5) Passing a " rabbit" through conduits is not a suitable safeguard or insurance that conduits are undamaged. Source - Interia SER.

(6) During our site investigation on 28 February 80 it was noted that the " rattle space" had been reduced at several buildings. How will these defects be corrected? Source site visit 28 Feb 80.

.(7) The category I pipelines (outlets, inlets) for return water at the emergency heat sink could be covered by a slope failure duri'g a n

seismic event. The applicant should anlayze the sideslope to determina if a sufficient factor of safety exists. Source - site visie 27 and 28 Feb 80.

g.

Auxiliary building - feedwater valve pits D< ;

(1) Seismic analysis of this area is needed concerning change from fill to lean concrete. Source - Questions 362.13 Q&R 2.5-23.

1 II. Geology

' c.

Fault and seismic history (1) Canadian faulting of aejor segnitude exists at Sault Ste.

Marie and Sudbury, Ontario. Why were these not considered in the FSART Source - FSAR Figure 2.5-27.

Interpretation of borings, test pits, lab tests, etc..

e.

(1) Many undisturbed soil samples were taken, yet no test results or reports are available for many of these. Why not? Source general review of documents.

hq' IV. Miscellaneous or General (1) Why are there so many shrinkage cracks, especially in plant aree structures placed on fill? This appears to be more than a coincidence.

Source'- site visit 28 Feb 80.

(2) Will C.P.Co. ccasultants Peck, Davisson, could & Hendron submit summary statements to NRC concerning their presentations at the 28 Feb 80 site visit? Source site visie 28 Feb 80.

(3) Cooling pond dikes have been repaired due to erosion. This dike design should be provided far CofE review. Source site visit 28 Feb 80.

(4) Will the applicant provide minutes of the 27 and 28 Feb 80 aseting?

\\

\\

~

.~

~.

24 MAR L980

... aCzzo-T l

SUSIECT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM)

(5) The entrance road to the plant appeared to be below cooling pond elevation. Would access to the plant be impaired for emergency vehicles in the event of 2 dike failure? Source - site visit 27 and 2'3 Feb 80.

(6) What provisions will be made to insure the dewatering system will be maintained in proper operating condition? Source - site visit 27 Feb 80 (dewatering).

9 (7) Some of the cracks noted appear to be enlarging with time. The width of these cracks would be already in excess of a shrinkage crack. Source

- site visit 27 and 28 Feb 80.

4.

The District's recommendations concerning questions, uncertainties and unresolved issues presented above are given when possible and appropriate

{

below in a like numbered paragraph:

l I.

Soils e.

Miscellanaous structures constructed on fill not covered in Paragra'ph II below.

(2) All structures, including utilites s,hould be checked for

~

settlement and cracking.

f.

Quality control (1) Undertake a comprehensive analysis on cracked structure.

Statements that all cracks,are due to shrinkage or do not effect structural integrity are not sufficient.

II.

Remedial Mea'sures for Category I Structures on Fill.

a.

Lewatering (1) Consider benefits of using clay slurry cutoff wall in conjunction with pumped dewatering.

(3) Analyze possible groundwater piping along the paths i

(4) Analyze pros and cons of plugging weepholes.

(5) Co.asider a control panel in control tower area to indicate plant groundwater level in the critical plant areas so that monitoring can be easily accomplished.

3

(

G G

9

.. A

l 24 W 1980

~

.~. JICEED-T

(

SUMECT: Interagency Agreement No. NitC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 - Midland Plant l

Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM)

I b.

Diesel generator building (1) Take additional borings and tests to prove surcharge worked.

f.

Underground utilities (2) Conduct an visual inspection of at least one (the westernmost) electrical duct bank at the D.G. building.

(3) Investigate any estegory I utilities not investigated.

(5) Provide additional assurance the category I utilities have not been over stressed.

g; (6) Establish mini== rattle space criteria and restore as (7) Analyze outlet pipes located in heat sink pit side slopes for seismic, event (SSE & OBE).

5.

If you have any questions concerning this interia letter report, please contact Mr. N.A. Gehring at FTS 226-6793.

FOR THE 313'll3ICT ENGINEER:

9 MeQ y

t, P McCALLISTER Chief, Engineering W ai m O

1 l

t 9

f\\.

~

D 4

+

r----,

v,

g-

.f..

-w -.1 z-m_._3.t

....hK. Q. M : ~. *. ~-

v 1n U-:.t % -

y sheet 1

of 6

l

.l M3RTH CENTRAL UITISIC.N Jonn r. Norton NCDED-G ggg y,,g,,7 JAMES W. SIMPSON 3xt, go,35734 gyg 10 Apr 80 gg Rid i

~

SE Q, CF.T. Dwit. or No.

No.

para. No..

COMMENT 1.

General l

a.

It is our understanding that the purpose of this letter report

...i is to partially complete the last sentence in Subtask No.1,

"~.

" Prepare a letter report identifying any unres~olved issues with s* i recomunendations on a course of action to be taken during gl~

().

construction to resolve these issues."

It is our opinion that we are not doing this by asking questions. We should change the format of the report by

'e O.

identifying issues and then request the additional information i

to resolve.these problems.

We, as consultan.s, are supposed to answer questions, not ask them. See the included exampic report prepared by this office.

b.

A report of this nature should not have inked in corrections.

2.

Page 2, Delete groundwater. Add under geology.

Para M.

2.

..j 3.

Page 2, (1) Faulting, seismic history and crustal rebound are of no Para III.

concern to us.

It is our understanding that NRC will furnish earthquake design data based upon this and other information.

f. y,.

We should not question NRC's information.

i;

(#

.,3 (2) Interpretation of borings etc. should be under soils, Para I.

4 Li 4.

Page 2, No statement is made about item "a".

Groundwater.

~~t Para 3Ia.

5.

Page 2, Reword these paragraphs so as to be a request for information.

Para 3Ib, Identify specific borings and tests necessary for each building.

(1), (2),

and (3).

1 s

Inclosure 1 y

scD roar.

20 Mar 75 MS EETIEER'S COMMENTS

.. -. ~

g<

,[

a 4,,.

.. u ' ' --

~ - - - - ~

. w, -

~

., li Sheet 2

of 6 ERTM CENTRAL DITISION l

JOHN F. NORTON l

NCDED-C ggg Reviour JAMES W. SIMPSON 3lxt, yo, 35734 gggg 10 Apr 80 M CT:

.. t

'4)

~

5F. Q, CMT. Dwg. or 9-No.

No.

pers. No.

COMMENT 6.

Page 3 The soil spring constants, alluded to here, is a poor choice Para C(l) of words. The spring constant concept is a mathed of computing y

deflections only when the deflections are in the elastic range. Settlement versus load can not be discerned with

,y, only elastic properties of the foundations in

  • question here because strains are well into the plasti'c range.

4 f)

Elastic moduli used in design calculations should be

., j requested only for design information and evaluation. E 9;.

(Youngs Modulus) and U (Poisson's Ratio) are the moduli required.

7.

Page 3 Request this design information for each building that you Para C(2) don't have it for.

f 8

Page 3, Request these properties and computations.

7'1 Para d(l) 1 9.

Para 3, Piping could possibly be a concern here, but not likely.

Para e(l)

Request' complete embankment design criteria. This should include material types, placement densities, stability analysis, embankment and foundation drainage systems (if any), under and through seepage determinations, slope f;-,.

protection measures, etc. The design can then b -re 1 :::!

,i and appropriate facets evaluated and addressed.

10.

Page 3, Ask this data for each specific building where missing.

fy]

Para e(2) 11.

Page 3, Don't ask the designers why the wall settled. Request-j Para e(3) appropriate information and computations so a determination

['id.

of the reason can be made.

12.

Page 3, The designers have answered this several times in meetings.

N, Para f(l)

C of E should make their own decisions regarding cause and l

ramifications of cracking.

~I 13.

Page 3, Do not reconumend d,esign changes. Evaluate the existing design Para a(1) and approve or disapprove. If it's not acceptable, let the designer provide' appropriate modifications.

\\

n"4"9s a

exnes cc=xts y

l j

l l it

,.,.2

.=

-e

r,

, g,g,

.3 r.

-. _r

-..a

^

g j

,.i g.

3, Sheet.,

of r,

i ERTH CENTRAL DITI3 ION JOHN F. NORTON

,},

Branch /Dffice NCDED-G Reviewer JAMES W. SIMPSON Ext No, 35734

-4.

$]

SUBJECT:

MTE 10 Apr 80 i

m

-t

[

{

~

5E Q, CF.T. l Dwe. or No.

Nc.

para. No.

COWENT 14.

Page 4, Request the complete well design instead of details.

.) '

Para a(2) 48 15.

Page 4, If well gravel packs are properly designed, piping is not Para a(3) a concern. Piping along piles, building foundations and

  • /.

caissons are not a concern, unless information has come to Q

light that the Division is not familiar witih. Recommend 3.i.

deleting this sentence if it can't be data-supported.

..( -

16.'

Page 4 The possibilities of this seem very remote. Delete this i

Para a(7) paragraph.

(

17.

Page 4 Request plan for localized dewatering.

Para a(8)

.1 18.

Page 4, (1) It is not appropriate to request more split spoon sampling.

Para b(1)

Sampli-ig should be continuous push so undisturbed samples for

,e density, consolidation, (and perhaps strength tests for bearing capacity) can be obtained. Obtaining densities by i

'l blow count is a rough approximation and not commensurate 3

with the degree of accuracy and reliability desired for j

settlement calculations for these structures.

.4

i. h*

(2) Load-settlement curves indicate primary consolidation.

due to surcharge was essentially complete when surcharge 1

was removed. However, a word of caution is in order

'd regarding future foundation consolidation potential. Stresses induced by the surcharge loading were considerably 2

.T

  • dissipated with depth. In the lower areas of the fill
  • i zone (say 20 to 34 feet below grade), vertical stresses were much less t;han surcharges contact stresses, which

,I were probably about 2400 psf. The groundwater level at that time was about elevation 627. When the groundwater is drawn down to 600, this will increase existing stress levels 27(62.4) = 1685 psf at the elevation 600 level.

~

The significant thing is it will be directly applied (without dissipation) at the lower fill levels. If sof,e i

{

layers exist near the botten of the fill area, significant

~.

s consolidation potential exists due to this different loading

J condition. This foundation loading condition will also be i

applied to the other structures.

18"#,"is m

am escoarm y- - - - -

-i,,w m

r-----,

w.,

.--.y-

--.y-9

=,*w-

--,an----e-'

l.~..._

-.~=--

~

~

. ;d 3heet 4 or 6 9

RNtTH CENTRAI. DIVISION JOHN F. NORTON EranchAffice NCDED-G Reviewer JAMES W. SIMPSON Ext. No. 35734 i

?-

,t.

g,

, 10 Apr 80 gyg 5

h EE Q.

CY.T. Dut. or No.

No.

Pars. No.

COMPEhi 19.

Page 4, How the surcharge was placed, compacted and removed are Para b(2) irrelevant questions. Regarding cracking cause, see

.h'

  • Comment No. 12.

h[

20.

Page 5, Request this information.

Para b(3) 6)1

i 21.

Page 5, Change " Compaction" to consolidation. Underpinning this g;.

Para b(5) building would be a very costly hedge. Recommend deleting this statement until such time it is determined that

,t liquefaction is indeed a possible failure mechanism.

22.

Page 5, Request specific boring at desired location and identify Para b(6) purpose.

..q e 4, 23.

Page 5, Omit this question. It does.not pertain to foundations.

Para b(7) 24.

Page 5, Request this data for each specific building where desired.

Para b(8)

7. l l

25.

Page 5, Ask for complete underpinning analysis including this i

Para c(1) information.

3

s..-

h.. '

26.

Page 5, Request a study of consequences of plugging the weep holes.

  • t Para c(3) 27.

Page 5 Delete sentence requesting use of place load tests to determine Para d(1) bearing capacity of foundation.

B'aring capacity should e

. i ~e; be determined with appropriate bearing capacity equations.

Elastic properties could be checked from existing plate load data, taking scale factors into consideration.

28.

Page 6, Ask for a study of this cracking including a foundation Para d(2) sectiement and bearing capacity analysis.

29.

Page 6, Outline load test,you want and give backup reasons.

Para d(3) i y

NCD FOW.

ue ETInER's ctzertNts 1

20 Mar,75

..,.. 3 -

..s

.(

. ~.

s 4.

a.

.g.

r Sheet 5 of 6

NORTH CENTRAL DIVISION 4

JOHN F. 'dRTON Branch /bffice MN Reviewer JAMES W. SIMPSON

,_ Ext. No.

35734 4

.- l

l,.

SUBJECT:

DLTE 10 Aor 80

. 'i !

. 1-f

~

SEG.

CY.T. Dwg. or

[

No.

No.

Para. No.

CCF?.Ehi i

30.

Pag. 6, Omit these paragraphs. They should be answered in Comment No. 28.

Para d(4) and d(5).

a' 31.

Pa:;s 6, Ask for a bearing capacity, bouyancy and settlement analysis.

/

Para e(l)

)

(C and e(3).

g.

e

,5 3

32.

Page 6, Omit this. It has nothing to do with our mission.

Para e(2) 33.

Page 6, Request such an in'spection.

j Para f(1) i 34.

Page 6, Request a visual inspection for damage.

Para f(2) l 35.

Page 6, Ask fo'r profile study. Corrosion is not our business.

- l Para f(3)

Request stress analysis of pipes where bending is significant.

.i 36.

Page 6, Probably not necessary since settlement will be 90 to 100 i

Para f(4) percent complete, Omit this question.

.3,

<-t

.W 37.

Page 7, Omit since a profile study has been requested.

Para f(5) 38.

Page 7 Request study to determine necessary rattle space.

' - i Page f(6)

I 39.

Page 7, Good comment.

Para f(7) i 40.

Page 7, Request a complete settlement and bearing capacity analysis.

j Pare g(1) 4 i

41.

Page 7, It is our understanding that the NRC does this study and Para c(1) furnishes coeffici,ents and design parameters.

l

~

\\

t t

j a nu 20 Mar 75 d

EF.7IDi!R'S CCPMNTS

.c

^_. l a.-

..S.- - -

?[: _ ;.....i t-a

-~%

4s Sheet 5 of 6

7';

EORTH CEN2RAL IIIVISION JOHN F. NORTON Branch /btfice NCDED-C Reviewer _ JAMES W.

SIMPS 0y Ext. No.

um I

4.j gg, gyg 10 Apr 80

.3,t. j

~

5T.C CY.I. Dwg. or No.

No.

Para. No.

COMMENT 42.

Page 7, Request specific borings and tests necessary for review of Para e(l) each separate building. We should have, or be able to 4,:

construct, a profile both lengthwise and crosswise.

43.

Page 7 Reword this paragraph to request a crack study'for each Para IV(1) building desired.

.f

.j 44.

Page 7 Request these papers and/or minutes.

Lyij-Para IV(2) and (4) 45.

Page 7, Good request.

Para IV(3) 46.

Page 8, Ask for a study of a pond dike failure and access.

'4 Para IV(5) 47.

Page 8, Request a maintenance study.

,y, Para IV(6) 48.

Page 8, Omit. This was asked for already. See Comment No. 43.

Parc IV(7)

  • )

p i

( >'

49.

Page 8, Omit this paragraph. These points should be covered in prior

?- l Para 4.

requests. We will cover this in detail in the full letter report.

  • ..e

?

I

(

NCD FORY.

M9 20 Mar.75 RETIDER'S COGENTS i

7--

er 3-

I p

~ %Lj o

.s.

v..

y c

, c.

NCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 -

Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM) 4,.. i f

l 6.*:

<g jd THRU: Division Engineer, North Central ATIN: NCDED-G (James Simpson)

.f

~

\\

2 TO:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cossaission ATTN: Dr. Robert E. Jackson 15 Division of Systems Safety

q' Mail Stop P-314

..t.

Washington, DC 20555 b

..M j

$1 1.*

The Detroit District hereby submits this INTERIM letter report with di regard to partial compliance with subcask No.1 of the subject Interagency agreement concerning the Midland Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.

The e

purpose of this report is to ident'ify unresolved issues and make recosamendations on a course of action and/or cite additiont.1 information l

necessary to settle these matters prior to preparation of the SER report.

fy 2.

The Detroit District's team providing geotechnical engineering Id support to the agreement to date has made a preliminary review of furnished documents concerning foundations for structures, has jointly participated

,)

in briefing meetings with the NRC staff, Consumers Power Company (the

,.]

applicant) anu personnel from NCD and has made a detailed site inspection

.4 visit.

The data reviewed includes all documents received through g),

Amendment 7.4.

Generally each building within the complex was studied i

as a separate entity.

A 3.

A preliminary listing of unresolved issues is presented in paragraphs 4 (Roman numerals I to XII). Initial recommendations following the l

i}.

listed issues mostly concern limited and/or missing information in the following catagories:

'i.s

,.1 (1) Inadequate presentation of subsurface profiles due to lack of

]

borings. The number and spacing of borings should be sufficiient'for 1

1 construction of at-least two detailed orthogonal profiles for each

..t structure.

l 1

l i

\\

l "1

Inclosure 2 i

(

I e

e e

f t

t

.+..- --,.

g

..y..

.p

~

L

.9

~...J N. ;a..?

  • g.g yr ;,.

A.

e

-y

.S...

NCEED-T M ~

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 -

9 Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM)

9. :

(2) Lack of proper soil testing information to ' support the design.

~

'd.*..

(3) Incomplete or non-existant bearing capacity' data.

9; (4) Incomplete settlement computations.

.5 (5) Missing detailed foundation design data.

N-(6) Insufficient data presentation regarding remedial measures for structures undergoing distress.

i 1

j?6 (7) Seismic problem information.

iyj h,.

'(8) Other miscellaneous or general concerns.

j

'[

4 A listing of issues and information necessary to resolve these problems for each separate structure and/or appurtenance are as follows:

N+

I.

Reactor Building Foundation Adequacy a.

Subsurface information j

(1) Two borings, one for each building, are needed to i

better define the complete soil profile to bedrock.

.j (2) R triaxial tests and consolidation test data from layers are needed to

-4 I

~

b.

Settlement / Cone dation

.n; G

Furnish settlement computations using both elastic and

' plastic soil deformation properties.

- i c.

Bearing Capacity Bearing capacity computations, including factors of

7. -

safety and foundation design assumptions regarding soil properties, spring constants (if used), etc. should be presented for review.

f;

'?

2 It \\

\\!

q

1 l

c.

+

~.

g-

a...~.

.y

-. y.

1

.Si

=..

l NCEED-T M

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 -

,Q Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM) 1 d.

Seismic Concerns

.!-l

'k (1) Show that these buildings will withstand the design seismic event.

(2) Discuss liquefaction possibilities.

II. Diesel Generator Building Foundation a.

Subsurface information g-

.V (1) Four additional borings, one at each building corner, l

(,,')

are necessary to verify that surcharge loadings have indeed solved the settlement problem. Borings should be continuous to feet below

.#l the foundation.

Ul (2) Sampling for tests should be (3) Testing of c.hesive and non-cohesive samples should be as follows:

q i

b.

Settlement /consolilation A settlement analysis should be submitted based en consolidation tests from new borings. The drop in groundwater levels, 1

implying heavier soil unit weights and diesel plus seismic vibrations

.-l should be considered in the total settlement picture.

f.3 c.

Bearing Capacity

~:.7

, Furnish allowable soil bearing capacity of fill soil using information from new borings. Factors of safety should be per sented.

-)

d.

Seismic Concerns a,

(1) Propertier, of insitu backfill material should be acquired from tests and used in the revised seismic analysis. Present this analysis.

(2) Discuss liquefaction.

~I e.

Miscellaneous Concerns (1) Furnish final fill elevations at completion of fill placement prior to building construction.

3 i

I y.

c l,,.c' N -. j', jr

' L L u.. '.u.

~

'w,.-

i

. ~. -

~~

cl; r

lll j

ECEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 -

Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (INTERIM)

.? t

. ;[ <..'

(2) Submit all computations on sand ssrcharge for review.

[:I (3) Present chresological crac!.Ang history.

9i (4) Study and present a post-morten of settlement differential especially that between two western bays on the south side of building.

(5) All existing pre and pont[ surcharge borings and

.f.

related test data should be provided for review.

a; i (6) Discuss significanca of. cracks to the safe operation

'{

of the building and the repair of the cracks.

y h

G III. Service Water Building Foundation l

i; ;l.

4 a.

Subsurface Information O'

Borings and tests?

b.

Settlement il Present computations regarding the problem of possible

~

differential settlement that could occur between the pile supported end and that portion placed on fill.

.4 c.

Bearing Capacity Provide bearing capacity computations for both sections

.1 of this building.

%4-

'fi d.

Seismic problem

~

,.4

,.']

(1) Present computations showing how this building and

,3 fix up seasures will withstand a seismic event.

fj (2) Discuss liquefaction.

.j$

~

Remedial measures for structure undergoing distress e.

,' i (1) Subeit complete design of corrective piles including data regarding load. tests to be performed and lateral stability.

  • i (2) Discuss construction procedures in detail.

l s

4-

.m.

= a e go g..e e.~ w e.

-g-e'

  • 9 4*a og m.

eta-se se fame

-=

            • N*

.f N L E..'.L.6 a.A

o.*.*f 3 E 1.

~

'.h :-

e L..u.L'-

. L. &.r.-

L.,

,~

, '. I NCEED-T v.

SUBJECT:

Interagancy Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 -

Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report 4

(INTERIM) 5}

f.

Other Concerns M.j

~i; I Explain reasons for crac'ts, their significance to the i

safe operation of the building and the repair of the cracks.

.4, IV. Auxillary Building Foundation 3.

i s.

Subsurface Information x i fi-Borings and tests?

(,

b.

Bearing Capacity Provide bearing capacity of insitu fill using data developed

(? I as the fill now exists. This would particularly apply to the adjacent control tower footing area.

r i c.

Settlement Submit theoretical settlement computations for this building as modified.

d.

Seismic Concerns (1) Develop seismic computations for this building.

i.'

(2) Discuss liquefaction possibilities.

~'

e.

Other Concerns

  • .j (1) Explain fully the reasons for cracking.

(2) Discuss the significance of cracks to the safe operation of the building.

  • l..

(3) Describe repair of cracks.

(4) Present full computations of proposed fix up design.

V.

Borated Water Tanks Foundations a.

Subsurface Information The subsurface investigstion report at the tank farm should be provided for review. New borings and tests are needed as follows:

l 5

l

. ~..

~ - -

5.

. ~.. ~ h. _. y L

'. ' - s.,; n ;,.g :.g. -

___~ _

-1 E,1 s

f NCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 -

)

Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report J

.tj (INTERIM) f.;

/-.i b.

Bearing Capacity

'D 4"

Furnish foundation design computations. This should

. 3' include bearing capacity determinations, and foundation moduli if elastic analysis was used. The factor of safety should be presented using the most severe tank loadings.

c.

Settlement

- u Submit tank settlement analysis, s.

d.

Seismic Concer:ss g... i

!s,.i h (1) Discuss liquefaction.

s j

.8 (2) Explain seismic design considerations.

i s e.

Other Concerns Explain fully tha reason for cracking, their significance concerning safe operation and the proposed repair of cracks.

,.g VI. Underground Diesel Tuel Tank Toundaticn Design a.

Suosurface Information i

?

I 1

b.

Yearing Capacity l

Provide bearing capacity and foundation design computations.

  • G)

'I d c.

Settlement

i 1

- ( #:

Submit tank settlement analysis.

i i

t d.

Seismic Concerns

[

l 4}

']

(1) Discuss liquefaction.

'i (2) Explain seismic design considerations.

I j

e.

Other Concerns t

_ j Submit uplif t calculations for the tanks.

I 6

a

...-__.._-r.

- =

r -

}-

.~

n

~

. jq.

=

.s..-

-f-b e

t I

6 BCEED-T

~

SUMECT: Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 -

Midland Plane Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report u

(INTERIM)

)

g,-

VII. Underground Utility Deficiencies a.

Settlement 4

M (1) The settlement of underground piping could be in question because of the unknown amount of fill settlement. Present a profile of major pipe flowline elevations.

h (2) Compute and submit pipe stresses in areas where bends are the most critical.

!s. i (3) Submit proposed corrective measures where the rattle

, ;4

  • space has been reduced.

a.

,d jl (4) Inspect visually electrical duct banks at the D.G.

building where they have been severely loaded.

h]

b.

Seismic Analysis t

(1) Show computations for stress in pipes and min h =

(

rattle space necessary at building connections.

1

'j (2) Explain seismic design considerations.

VIII. Feedwater Valve Pit Foundations (Aum. building)

(1) Provide computations for fix up including bearing O

capacity and new settlement analysis.

l*

"s

.,. ( :)

(2) Explain seismic considerations.

II. Cooling Pond Stability a.

(1) Cooling pond dike design should be submitted for review including stability, seepage and seismic considerations.

..!.j (2) Borings and tests?

3 U) Check suelet pipes located in the heat sink pit for nearby. slope stability failures that could block entry of water.

(4) Show that a cooling pond failure would not impare the

-I plant entry road for emergency vehicle access.

(5) Provide design for slope protection measures.

' k,f 5

5 t

I t

}

e'---..r---

v==

.r.->.-

.m- ~ ~~.

,,___ ;p. ;..

_: _ y

$h,

'[

NCEED-T

SUBJECT:

Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task No. 1 -

- l Kidland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report j

(INTERIM) a, Z.

Water Service Building Retaining.Vall Stability (1) Borings and tests?

?$l 2

(2) Submit the design of this wall including stability

.1 computations.

(3) Discuss the settlement of this wall and its significance to safe operation.

s. _

7 (4) Discuss seismic considerations.

{'t !

II.

Site Dewatering Adequacy VI

(-

(1) Furnish complete report including computations on

_-,d site dewatering design.

~

9; (2) Furnish typical well design including gravel pack.

(3) Submit groundwater chemical analysis data related to possible encrustation and/or corrosion problems.

(4) Present computations and explaination of significance

  • ,j of weep holes in retaining wall with regard to dewatering.

(5) Discuss in detail the maintance p1'an for the dewatering

/

I III. General Information Desired 1fh

a. Consultants Peck, Davisson, Gould and Hindron should submit c4 summary statements concerning their presentations at the 28 Feb 80 site W1 3,

visit for review.

b. Provide minutes of meeting 28 Feb 80.
c. Submit a list of people involved in field and laboratory gi l

gj classifications and testing and briefly list their qualifications.

l

-1 i

5 Resolution of issues and concetus stated herin will depend on the y

expeditious receipt of data mentioned above. Contact Mr. Neal Gehring i, '

at FTS 226-6793 regarding questions.

l Ji a

l

(

8 I

.s.

.,.. m

. cea a m %IM # h;b..--

14 (5')Sb hh) i l

\\

/.

-.~..

  • . = * * " * = * * - = = *

///// / NM L

.. _ g(

.. _x t

. (

I

\\

s.

Dl l

-e.e.

n m l

  • r
  • p s

=

\\

~

=

  • Rw-l

-w

-8

\\

j W

m-

.a,..

.^

N

.-#-OM

-e 66 6 M en m gam

-m.

t I

I

=

J I

_. i 9

-**8**

e.

t w

ee

.=

-m,

.~ co + *. *..

  • ee e mee.

.e, e..

.........,..w%,,,,,

m e

9s..N eD w

w.-

~aw-,,-.

.,-e..

.-.-w.-w,r.-,w.

+-4 w-w-..---,7-.w---ww-ew

w-ws w-e-s---m

G.m,#,, M ht" q M s.is ).. _ _.. __

h AM Ce

.n c:.::.;i:'d'U.:.ii.1 FC Gif.J 4n..y Mu r.....e.... e.,... 4 a m.is...,,,,......,. i a cc e w.

[

me' Trip Report of Meeting at NRC Offices Concerning

.. e t. ~JO G...a s./A Midland & Bailly Plants, on 15 January 1980 NCEED-T T RU: Chief, Eng. Div.

" " Asst. Ch, Tech Br.

DAu ll February 1980Cd 5 H

LAWHEAD/ml/66781 T0:

Files To meet with Nuclear Regulatory Commission Personnel and jointly 1.

PURPOSE:

review administrative policy, manpower, technical aspects, and the pending 16 January 1980 neeting with NRC applicant Consumers Power of Michigan concerning the Midland, Michigan Project.

2.

PLACE AND DATE: NRC Offices in the Phillips Building, Bethesda, Maryland on 15 January 1980.

3.

PARTICIPANTS: The participants in this meeting varied as the topics changed from policy to manpower to technical aspects to pending 16 January 1980 meeting.

c The group included the following:

1.

Rixby Hardy, OCE/ Corp 4

2.

Jim Simpson, NCD/ Corp 3.

John Norton, NCD/ Corp 4.

William Lawhead, NCE/ Corp 5.

Joe Kubinski, NCE/ Corp 6.

D rjil Hood, NRC

(

7.

Lyman Heller, NRC 8.

Joe Kane, NRC 9.

Robert Jackson, NRC

10. William Olmstead, NRC attorney 4.

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS: The meeting pointed out that the Midland Project geo-technical problems had been apparent to NRC for the past ih years. We were told that NRC had recently issued a Show Cause to Consumers Power concerning geotechnical aspects of the Midland construction. We were advised by NRC that all Corp spaces provided for NRC work should be filled with Geotechnical Engineers

However, considering the assignment scope and possible testifying requirements.

our personnel choice was up to us. It was requested that all non-Corp and non-NRC requests for project information be forwarded to NRC for reply. NCD should be kept informed of such requests. We also learned that the Detroit District assignment was a new concept due to its extensive length and responsibility.

Finally, NRC concurred that NRC Agreement activity schedules would be uniformly slipped two months.

5.

NARRATIVE: The initial meeting was opened at 0830 by Lyman Heller of NRC.

Rixby Hardy (0CE) asked why the Corp of Engineers was requested to take part in 1

1

" ~ ' " * " " " " ' ' " ' ' ~ "'

DA.'.r., 2496

  • " ' " " " + " * " " " '

n.

NCEED-T (11 Feb 80)

[s

SUBJECT:

Trip Report of Meeting at NRC Offices Concerning Midland & Bailly Plants, on 15 January 1980 the two NRC projects (Midland and Bailly). Joe Kane (NRC) informed us that NRC lacked the in-house geotechnical manpower to handle the projects. Rixby Hardy rela /ted that the Detroit District assignment with NRC was a new concept. Other District assignments were very short termed, around two months, and simple in i

nature. Lyman Heller concurred.

Rixby Hardy asked about present avaNability of Detmit personnel for the NRC work. We informed Rixby of Detroits F&M Section make-up.

In light of our reply, Rixby indicated that the following options should be considared:

a.

Detroit with W.E.S.* Support b.

Detroit with Consultant Assistance **

Turn work over to another Corp Division.

c.

  • W.E.S. has assisted in 34 such projects since 1973.
  • Hardy, Simpson, and Heller would prefer to avoid this, p

Rixby Hardy further stated that to hire new employees and get up to speed would probably take too long.

Rixby said he would discuss the above options within OCE with the intent of stressing required W.E.S. support.

Bob Jackson (NRC) suggested that Joe Kubinski (NCE) spend one or two weeks at NRC

(

o help get all concerned up to speed. Joe Kubinski agreed.

I concurred with this, based on past statements made by Joe Kubinski concerning work interferences.

Bob Jackson indicated that this approach had worked for others in the past.

Lyman Heller (NRC) estimated that of the four manyears provided by Detroit, three would be spent on the Midland Project and one would be spent on the Bailly Project.

Lyman Heller questioned Corp personnel concerning estimated progress and concurred that the NRC Agreement activity schedule would be uniformily slipped two months.

Lyman Heller suggested that perhaps the U.S.G.S. could provide assistance to Detroit on the NRC Projects.

Lyman Heller indicated that NRC had issued Consumers Power of Michigan a construction Show Cause, te; Show why HRC should not stop construction because of geotechnical considerations.

The present construction permit for Midland, as described by Hilliam Olmstead (NRC),

does not include foundation techniques (underpinning) proposed by Bechtel and Consumers Power. Further, the design of the changed foundation techniques has not been provided to and reviewed by NRC appropriately. Additionallly, a new Safety Evaluation Report (SER) review must be conducted in light of the changed design.

William Olmstead stated that Consumers Power may request, during the board hearing covering the Show Cause, that the board additionally consider the project Operating 2

m 4

j m.

b (CEED-T (11 Feb 80)

SUBJECT:

Trip Report of Meeting at NRC Offices Concerning Midland & Bailly Plants, on 15 January 1980 License. The project initial Operating License application was made in 1969. A board pre-hearing will probably occur in March 1980 with the actual hearing occur-ring in June and July 1980. Two interveners (Attorney 11yron Cherry and Mary Sinclair) would probably take part in the Show Cause hearing. At present, the State of Michigan appears to take a neutral official position concerning the project. William Olmstead was told about letters received from non-Corp and non-NRC interests re-questing information from the Detroit District concerning the Bailly Project. The

(

requests were not specific ie; copies of all infomation was requested. William Olmstead requested that all such requests, non-Corp and non-NRC, be forwarded to NRC for reply or appropriate action.

We were informed that the A/E Firm (Bechtel) for Consumers Pow $tr covering the Midland Project was also performing the Midland construction work (turn-key arrangement). He discussed the settlement of the Midland Diesel Generator Building (apparent major settlement problem) and apparent settlement problems at other buildings and facilities (Borated Water Tanks, Service Water Pump Building, a portion of the Auxiliary Building, and the Fuel Oil Storage Tanks).

The Corp of Engineers would be expected to play a major part in obtaining ascetaMe remedial measures by raising related issues for Bechtel to answer or by establishing requirements of information to satisfy the Show Cause.

5

.sil settlement problems apparently arose from approximately 30 feet of " Clay Fill" placed on the (11dland Project site.

Lyman Heller (NRC) indicated Detroit personnel should visit the two projects when construction activitier of interest are taking place. Coordination of appropriate times would be made through HRC inspectors.

Joe Kane (NRC) and Lyman Heller (NRC) stated that requests for infomation by the Detroit District from project contractor /A-E must be made in writing through NRC in order to become part of the records. Requests should be signed by the Chief of the Engineering Divisionf Detroit with copies to NCD.

fosM Joe Kane (NRC) stated that NRC would provide Detroit' Seismology data concerning the Midland Project. Seismic Analysis is an important consideration in both NRC Projects.

6.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS:

It is recommended that (1) the Detroit District make immediate arrangements with W.E.S. through NCD for W.E.S. to review and comment on the Midland Project Seismic Analysis as related to liqu_ef.actionand other seismic 3

~

~.

p NCEED-T (11 Feb 80)

SUBJECT:

Trip Report of meeting at NRC Offices Concerning Midland'& Bailly Plants, on 15 January 1980 geotechnical problems including affects on underpinning piles, (2) that the Detroit District take imediate action to establish validation of the existing soil data base of the Midland Project, (3) that the Detroit District follow above mentioned NRC.

recommendations concerning requests and manpower, (4) that the ')etroit District con-tinue to review available geotechnical data and schedule work to meet deadlines (as modified) established in NRC Agreement.

A s a

.2 ' d /

W. LAWHEAD Assistant Chief, Tech Branch

)

9 e

4 I

e 4

9 9 e

s i

L

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20091L071&oldid=4335698"