ML20093N554
| ML20093N554 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1979 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19258A087 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BX17-002, CON-BX17-2, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408020043 | |
| Download: ML20093N554 (15) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, - -. - __. _.__ 1. L_,,mm + -s U.! r O GW% $ yg 1) NRC Question: C What is the condition of the soils under all other plant areas of the site?
Response
1 Concurrent with the review of the diesel generator building settlement, a review was initiated of other plant structures and system foundations. This review considered both availabic settlement data and soil boring information. Review of other plant area structures and system foundations is still in process. ~ Beginning in 1977, permanent benchmarks have been installed in accordance with project Specification 7220-C-76 and are presently used to monitor building settlement. Prior to the benchmarks, construction marks (i.e., scribes) were used in some areas of the l auxiliary, containment, and turbine buildings, and can be used to identify settlement. Figure 2 provides a ( comparison of recorded versus predicted settlement, and l Figure 3, Sheets 1 through 4, shows time / settlement graphs for selected benchmarks. The settlement of Seismic Category I items is also discussed in interim Reports 3 and 4 Jor MCAR 24. l 8408020043 840718 PDR FOIA 1 RICE 84-96 PDR '^'
. _ __ _ ca._ _. m _ a. _. _.._ _ _. _ _. 2.. _.E _ i._._ _.. _ _ c.. _. _,- .ww-2. J E l l Additional borings were made in 1978 to confirm the ( ;/ plant area. fill in areas adjacent to Seismic Category I items and other major. structures. The locations of these borings'are shown in FSAR Figure 2.5-40A and the 1 blowcount/ material type summary is listed in FSAR Table 2.5-25. t Figure 1 identifies the foundation materials (i.e., glacial till or plant fill) of the major plant structures, tanks, and pipe / duct runs for both Seismic Category I and II items. Most of the major plant structures i (including the containment buildings, circulating water intake and discharge structures, river makeup intake structure, and parts of the auxiliary, turbine,.and i service water pump structures) are founded,on glacial till or compact origi*nal soils. The glacial till stratum was identified by borings made at the start of the job (1968-1969) and generally confirmed by later excavation work. The settlement measurements of structures s 7 founded on glacial till or other original' soils are o small and are consistent with the predicted values in FSAR Figure 2.5-48. It was concluded that structures on glacial till or other original ground have no identified foundation problems. j 2 I 4
e..t .y...4--...--.s.,# .w ... u,.-. L. -,...., _.N a 4 % u___--_--_-..._!<A--..-___ --- _ -_ .. E 2 W.. th a.V.*. 2 .. hnwMa The remaining structures, tanks, and systems are founded - p/ on plant area fill. These include: Seismic Category I a. Part of the auxiliary building b. Part of the service water pump structure c. Part of the retaining wall at service water pump structure l ) d. Borated water tanks e. Emergency diesel' generator fuel oil storage tanks f. Service water pipe lines g. Various other Category I pipe and electrical duct runs h. The diesel generator building (not discussed in i this response) l Seismic Category II a. Part of the turbine building L-b. Administration building c. Radwaste building d. Evaporator building e. Combination shop f. Cooling towers ./ 3 l t - : -m
l g. Oily waste facility i.,m V h. Transformer areas e i. Part of the retaining wall adjacent to intake structur's j. chlorination building i k. Guardhouse 1. Condensate storage tanks A summary of soll conditions for structure and system foundations on plant fill follows:. seismic category I a. Auxiliary Building Partially Supported on Lean Concrete or Plant Fill - In several areas of the ~ auxiliary building, side slopes for deep excavations required partial removal of adjacent glacial till material. Later, these areas were backfilled using lean concrete and/or plant fill. Settlements of the auxiliary building, including those areas founded on lean concrete or plant fill, are small (i.e., less than 0.5 inch for the 3-to 5-year i periods when most building loads were added). Because the settlement data is consistent with the predicted settlement values, no foundation problems were indicated. 4
~ _.. i.__. _. 2.2 % 7__,_ _ L ; A _, _L _..._,,_.ms .._m.__ m __ I b. Service Water Pump Structure partially supported ._i. (3 }. w./ on Plant Fill - Several borings in this area 1 indicate 1oose to dense sand _ backfill, exists adjacent to the building.' No significant settlement has been noted to date. However, the area is under further review to assertain the extent of any loose material, and will require additional borings to complete the evaluation. c. Retaining Wall Adjacent to the Service Water 'Pumphouse and Partially Supported on Plant Fill - i A 0.25 inch differential settlement between retaining wall sections founded on original soil versus plant fill was recorded during an 18-month period; recent benchmark measurements indicate a small, uniform settlement of the wall. Borings in the retaining wall areas indicate that this wall may be supported by stiff to very stiff clay backfill over natural soils. The wall will continue to be monitored. d. Tank Farm North of the Auxiliary Building - The j two borated water storage tanks are Seismic t f Category I, the remaining tanks are not. The ring i+ foundations and valve pits are constructed, and surveys of the permanent benchmarks show minimal i I 5 4 Ii . ;;t L
- .- =
.. : a n.s
- i..
.. ;,.. ;m. x -; ,,,umea,. l. j settlement. Field studies-in the tank farm area ll h' show generally stiff to very stiff clay backfill
- i l
with some zones of soft clay and occasional medium to very dense sand backfill over natural soils. !4 4 Current plana involve filling the tanks and measuring the structure settlements. Loading duration will be determined based en predictions of future settlements. No surcharge in addition to tank loading is planned, but settlement measure-ments will be continued after completion of I preloading. e. Diesel Fuel. Oil Storage Tanks - Field studies adjacent to the diesel fuel tanks show loose to dense sand backfill and stiff to very stiff clay backfill with some soft zones over natural soils. These tanks will be filled with water. Settlement will be monitored during preload te observe the behavior of the tanks. f. Service Water Pipes East and North of Power Block - I Borings adjacent to the service water pipes showed soft to very stiff clay backfill with (j occasional dense sand and backfill over natural soils. Borings indicated some very soft clay 6 [ 0
m .n o_ J_; ~ ~ .I 4 i backfill. These conditions are under evaluation. l h The pipes will be monitored for settlement. i - 9 g. .other Pipe and Electrical Duct Runs - For Seismic category I pipes other than service water lines (discussed in Iaragraph f above), as well as Seismic Category I yard electrical ducts, the evaluation is not complete. Checks on the duct 3 runs (e.g., using a rabbit) show no blockages. This item will be monitored as work on these items continues, and will be coordinated with the results of the service water pipe review. Seismic Category II a. Turbine Building Partially Supported on Plant Fill -As noted, part of the turbine building is founded on plant fill. No unusual settlement has been noted. Settlement of 3/4 inch or less has been recorded during 2 3 ears of benchmarks. The settlement data is reasonable when compared to the predicted settlement values, and no foundation problems are indicated. i b. Administration Building - During earlier construction of this building, significant settlement was noted M 7 m ,,,._m_,, _ _ _.._, 4 ~, -,_,,-.g-c..-,. --..,,..w. g ,g g-% y
- . =. u w=w==.. := - = :. c....
.,n,:.= w: man.; + t: !t p ,e .l l '1 in a localized area of reexcavated and rebackfilled G
- 4 material.
This fill was removed and replaced with ,i lean concrete. To confirm the adequacy of the l remaining areas under the administration building, I load tests were performed and additional soil borings were made. No further settlement problems l have been identified. c. Radwasta Building - Borings in the radwaste building (i area generally showed stiff to hard clay fill beneath the foundation level; however, some soft clay was encountered. One boring adjacent to the south side of the building showed loose.to medium dense sand above foundation levels. Settlements to date are nominal; monitoring of the building will be continued. At present, no foundation 1 problems are indicated. d. Evaporator Building - Settlement data is within the expected range. Borings made adjacent to the evaporator building showed medium dense to dense clayey sand fill and stiff to hard clay fill over hard clay and silt. No foundation problems have i ,l been identified. i, I s ,y S 8 t h, N
.m__.u.u _. A;.c. 2.. m Mu _. 1.1..
- 1., m m.mu.e,.. I
) .i l L{ ~ '4 e. Combination Shop - No foundation problems for this h.,3 building have been identified. u .) ! i lall l f. Cooling Tower - One boring was made at the cooling ll tower location. This boring showed very stiff to ' i } hard clay fill and dense sand fill over hard clay. g. Oily Waste Storage Facility - Construction of this facility has not been started to date. A boring (s) will be made to confirm foundation adequacy before i work proceeds. h. Transformer Foundations Adjacent to Diesel Generator Building - Borings made in the transformer areas showed stiff to hard clay fill and dense to very dense sand fill with occasional soft clay fill, over very dense sand and hard clay. One boring adjacent to the Unit 1 transformer area showed about 2 feet of loose sand immediately below the foundation level. There is a potential differential settlement of the Unit 1 transformer foundation; i accordingly, this area will be loaded with a 5-1 { foot surcharge and monitored to allow further evaluation. No settlement problems for the Unit 2 i transformer foundation have been identified. t t. 9 i 1 a
..... x w.L,.,....x :. :. : &1==:... =.a.. -mr:: .:n.u:,w w,, & x -i. }- 1? i. Retaining Walls Adjacent to the Intake Structure G and Partially Supported on Plant Fill - Settlement 1 j measurements indicate an approximate 1.4-inch a differential settlement between portions of the ,.j retaining wall founded on original soil versus .]- plant fill recorded during the last la months. -f g Borings made adjacent to this wall showed stiff i clay fill and medium dense sand fill over hard 'I clay and/or medium dense sand below foundation t. level. Monitoring of the settlement will be ~i continued. j. Chlorination Building - Studies made adjacent to I the chlorination building.showed soft to very i stiff clay fill over hard clay. The superstructure is very light, and the borings do not indicate any additional action is required. [ k. Guardhouse - Borings made in this area showed stiff to very stiff clay fill with occasional soft l clay fill over hard clay. Dense sand was found in one boring between el 613' and el 618'. This area i l is under further review. >j. t 1. Condensate Storace Tanks - Studies made in this area show stiff to hard clay fill with zones of 10 -i. z ._~
dw _..:'_ a-. w ~ -. m =. w -..:. 2.u.= 1=~ - ~ =- .2. soft clay ranging from 5 to 10 feet thick. Fill -in this area has settled under its own weight. [ This-item is under further review. A suggested .j resolutibn includes placing a 10-foot surcharge i 's- . load extending to a distance of 20 feet from the i-tanks. i .t
- J 2)
NRC Question: If soil conditions are not as required, what will be done to correct the conditions?
Response
As described in the response to Question 1, the pl. ant i{ area fill review has identified several additional areas of concern. Resolution of the foundation problems include: l .i a. Tank Farm North of Auxiliary Building - The settlement will be monitored, and the tanks will be prefilled
- I to effect an early preload.
.i 1 f
- }I b.
Service Water Building Area on Plant Fill - This .i condition is still under evaluation. iio .g I w' 11 .,:i ' t" r- =
= ..:.. _ =.. w c~u.= w.- ,a x ~.. .i ,_...n=.n..
- 2. m m i
1 b 4 c. service Water Lines - This condition is still h under evaluation. A review will be made of any secondary pipe stresses and requirements for slopes in these pipe lines. y d. Transformer Foundations - A 5-foot surcharge will ,j be placed in the area of Unit 1 transformer foundations. i j e. Guardhouse - This area is still under evaluation. l f. condensate storage Tanks - This condition is still under evaluation; consideration being given to placing a 10-foot surcharge load extending 20 feet from the tanks. In addition to the specific items mentioned above, the settlement monitoring will be continued, and additional boringe will be made as necessary. t A further study of plant arsa fill includes the review '~ of field density tests performed in this area. Drawings '4 l in 3-foot segments are currently under preparation to ll show location, elevation, and density test results. These drawings will be useful in identifying areas, if any, for which further evaluation of compaction conditions if l ~ is required. I ~ l' 12 l ! ~.il
, n_ ( j-I fi-JJ- 'i~ 3) NRC Question: CI v If answers to 1 and 2 are not known, what is the risk in allowing c'onstruction to continue? Provide specific d. l reasons why work should be allowed to continue and why j the subsoil condition is considered adequate. [
Response
4, ]' With the exception of the several aboveground tanks, f and the Seismic Category II cooling tower superstructures, oily waste facilities, and guardhouse, the construction (i.e., civil work) of the plant structures is complete. ~ However, there is also a variety of mechanical equipment, piping, and electrical items yet to be installed. The mechanical and electrical work to go will add only nominal loadings to the foundations, and should have h minimal impact on future foundation settlements. \\ t l l For the tank areas, preloading by either filling with water or by surcharge are expected to consolidate the 1 foundation materials. I this method is not completely .i .l satisfactory, other corrective measures can be reasonably I implemented. For the service water pump structure, the l 1 .j civil construction is complete. Remedial measures to the fill, if required, will be performed irrespective ex V 13 \\. j m. f ____________m_
r i- ~ ~- 1l~_.. of any noustructural' work (i.e., mechanical and electrical ys m ll items) installed in the following months. For the cooling tower, no foundation problems have been identified. No constructi~on will proceed for the guardhouse until any identified problem is resolved. Finally, for the oily wasta system facilities, construction will not proceed until the additional boring (s) confirm the ij' adequacy of the fill materials. 1 i
- 1 i
continuing scheduled construction work--primarily - j mechanice.1 and electrical items--will not compromise I the committed evaluations or remedial actions, nor make irrevocable any conditions which do not fully satisfy FSAR and other licensing requirements. For examplei a spare conduit is available or a conduit will be left unfilled until the adequacy of an electrical duct bank is evaluated. Corrective measures can be done if the licensing commitments are not satisfied, e. g'., the pipe can be replaced or structural modifications
- i performed around and/or after the equipment is removed.
- i Accessibility to questionable fill conditions will not be changed until the evaluation confirms the adequacy of the foundation or remedial measures are undertaken.
i 4 l Therefore, there is no licensing risk in allowing the I j! present construction activities to' continue. ,I i t s 9 14 ,-.-.__..---.___,___.-..,__.~--_...,-..r..
- - - ~ - - - w._j. e, Yk i ,j The nonconforming fill conditions relate primarily to - 1 I The type of plant fill P. the compaction of the material. (i.e., random onsite fill) is consistent with the soils i As described earlier, j consultant re' commendations. there is an existing settlement monitoring program j. which will identify any future areas of concern. i The conditions of the plant fill have been or will be evaluated for-all major Seismic Category I and II 6* Corrective measures as required - I structures or systems. Therefore, must -be completed before plant completion.
- j the fill condition either presently meets or will be corrected to a safe and adequate condition.
(~ In summary, it is recommended that the cons'truction There is no licensing risk, and no work.be continued. compromise to provide a safe and adequate plant. 4 1 2 i
- W j
4 i J i .s 15 l _.m .._._..---~......_.-..-._.._.,_.m._,
.__2 ., _ %,,. _ y ~ r ". - E E1WW Altd3 99,, g db JIJN 3 01980 1 1, l f Docket Nos.: 50-329/330 I I Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President ' Consumers pouer Company 1945 West Pamall Road Jackson. Michigan 49201 11, " ;
Dear Mr. Cook:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL,..INFORMATION REGARDIME PLANT FILL We have mvfeued your responses to our mquests of November 19.1979 regarding the quality of plant fill, effects and rumsdial actions result-ing therefrom. Our review is being perfomed with the assistance of the n U. 5. Arug Corps of Engineers.,We and they find that the results of additional explomtions and laboratory testing identified in Enclosure,1 (Request 37) are needed to cupport, required geotechnical engineering studies. Details on the extent of these studies will be pmvfded shortly by separate correspondence. Enclosure 1 is provided in order that you may initiate planning of the required explorations in a timely sanner. How-ever we suggest you aweit receipt of these.further details prior to physically beginning the explo m tions.. Enclosure 1 (, Footnote 4 of Table 37-1)alsoincludesrequestsfbr. advanced. notification _oftheavailability of certain samples. i As' noted in cur Request 37 of Enclosure 1. your position in previous ravnses to Requests 5 and 35 not to complete additional exploretions.- miing and laboratory testing after preloading continues to be unaccept-able to us. So that you might be1;ter, understand our. position, we offer the fb11owing observations: . (1) The preload pmgram as cenok :ed on the hetemqarmous materials which were placed fbr the purpose. of, structure, fill is not necessarily an inemvement nor does it necessarily pmduce founda-i i tion soils of more unifbm engineering properties, compared te the 1 soil perfb mance uhtch would have resulted if the esterial had been ~ properly compacted to the original. requirements established in the. Midland PSAR. g,_,..,,_, (2) To develop reasonable assurance of plant safety. the required studie's. ,,,,,_ are needed to serve as an indcpendent vertfication of the predictions i $,7f; g 7 of future. settlements and the conclusions of the preload program. V 9 I ovencn > .o.....).................. o.1= >............. ...Y e re c u u s t. res n.c u c240
- u.s. coVERNMENT PRINTING QFPICE: 1979 249-369
+ - - - -
_,,,,y y
A.. m.-
- j..
-~ i i i
- Mr. J. W. Cook JUN 3 01989 1
(3) The requimd studies will posit an estients of total and differential settlement for involved stmetures and systems following drewdown with the proposed permanent dowatering system. (4) Certain aspects of the pmload pmgree, such as the complication ~ l 1 introduced by the simultaneous raising of the cooling, pond msenoir, r' present difficulties in our full. acceptance of your conclusion of the . I i; preload pmgrun. a Enclosum 1 also includes other requests for inforestion which we and the U. 5. Army Corps of Engineers need to_ continue our review. -i He would e.,,,.
- tata your response to Enclosum 1 at your earliest opportunity.
A partial reply based upon data already available should be sutimitted rather than to aweit the msults of new borings and tests contained in i parts of Enclosure 1. Should you require. clarifications of these requests and positions, please contact us.... _... l Sincerely. / A. * ^ 1. w, Acting Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing Enclosure As stated cc-See next page 1 t i } i r.i/ \\ Orrica)....D..L.:. L..B.. #. 3.m. '.:.H.&. 9.N.... 1)
- . 3............'.........
..AS ncer suRNue)..D.SH..o.o. d.:.me..c3... 4... ear .. >..s(R...I.8.9..#.S.1../89.....st.a.C(8.9.. MACPORM 318 (9 748 MRCM 0240 D U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OrrtCE: 1979 209 369 a - .y. y-g_ y.- --y -f ,--m w*,yyw --,-n-w-w, w---~+ w w
w _. __.2-j, ),... i l cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq. Isham, Lincoln & Beale 4 [' 1 First National Plaza Suite 4200 lI Chicago. Illinois 60603 3 Judd L. Bacon.Esq. Managing. Attorney i Consumers Power Company 212 West MichiJan Avenue l Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Company l '212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Myron M. Cherry, Esq. 1 IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 ' Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental Protection Division 720 Law Building Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Wendell Marshall Route 10 i Midland, Michigan 48640 Grant J. Merritt, Esq. Thompson, Nielsen, Klaverkamp & James 1 4444' IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 l i 2 I L 1 'l l \\
- P'p'4 e
+ .e
- h. :.E. i~ in- _.
ax.=t;,:s>.,cne a 1 ~ 12 x.:::.::z. 2.::_ _. :; 1: i .s. l t w j 3- ,l' i ,j 'cc: Comander, Naval Surface Weapons Center ATTN: P. C. Huang G-402 White Oak j Sfiver Spring. Maryland 20910 Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager Facility Design Engineering Energy Technology Engineering Center P. O. Box 1449 Canoga, Park, California 91304 Mr. William Lawhead U. S. Corps of Engineers -i NCEED - T { 7th Floor l 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 9 ~ d o 1 9 l 9 _m___-_----_----__
-a
==::
- _=:_:1
._.==::=-- =. _ :n za. au 2. ::em.gm yL. -i' ADDITIONAL REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL 36. We have reviewed your response to Request 24 and find that information from additional boring logs is needed.
- .)
Provide the boring logs for the following explorations: 'j a. Pull down holes PD-1 thru PD-27 (35 holes that include 1 8A, 20A, 208,-20C,15A,158,15C and 27A) [ b. LOW-1.thru LOW-14 (14 holes)
- i c.
TW-1 thru TW-5 and PZ-1 thru PZ-48 (55 holes) d. OW-1 thru OW-5 (5 holes) e. TEW-1 thru TEW-8 (8 holes)
- j-
!}- The logs should include date and method of drilling, the type and location of samples attempted. Also provide the locations, boring logs and available test data of any exploration completed in 1979
- i-and 1980 which has not yet been submitted.
37. Your position in previous responses to Requests 5 and 35 not to (RSP) complete additional explorations, sampling and laboratory testing following the preload program continues to be unacceptable. We require that you complete as a minimum, the exploration and test-ing program indicated by Table 37-1. 38. Discuss the foundation design for any seismic safety-related piping and conduit connected to or located under the Radwaste Building and Turbine Building where piping and conduit have been placed on plant fill. e -l 1 i i' i l Js.
. m _ _. ;; r n a c, _ ; 7 ;
._-~.m_ h; Page 1 of 2 l . I. Table 37-1 6 y Request for Additional Explorations, Sampling.and Testing qn. N N Anticipated Geotechnical.6f f Location U Depth U Sampling Lab Testing Engineering Studies to be Required' i: 1. Diesel Generator !Thrufillanda Classify samples For cohesive soils . Bearing Capacity. Building !minimumof5' according to C-D(Consolidated-Drained} Settlement b u,3 ib !sj: Piping Distortion (6 holes along
- into natural Unified Soils C-U (Consolidated-Undrained) ip:
perimeter) Iglacial till soils Classification Consolidation Sj i a I g
- System For sand.
h{ Dralned Direct Shear on j l both loose & dense spect-t S sens g. i' i t- [, l Relative Density I l' l ~ l I, Same as above except Caisson Foundation f li Auxiliary Building Same as above Same as above (2 holes) add U-U (Unconsolidated-Design (Vertical and h P i Undrained for cohesive Lateral Load Support) [ soils ~ i t t i Service Water Pump, (1 hole Same as above Same as above Same as above except con-Pile Foundation Design Structure nd Ile-solidation testing would (Vertical and Lateral Load j talning Walls (2 holes) be limited to samples in Support) U retaining wall foundations. Retaining Wall Stability & t Settlement. 9; I i-Cooling Pond En-Extend thru fill For cohesive soils b L bankments and a minimum of Same as above (7 holes along 5' into natural C-D Consolidated-Drained) Slope Stability l l perimeter) residual soils ex-C-U Consolidated-Undrained) Fill compaction adequacy U-U Unconsolidated-Undrained) k cept hole no. S ll p-which should extend i to bottom elevation
- Y of cooling pond.
3 !!4, NOTES: See page 2 a g C
'[ __________________-__,__a . n w =.. = -.... - _. - .j Pagn 2 of 2 i Table 17-1 (continued) [ 1 NOTES: 4 1/ See attached Figs. 37-1 and 37-2 for approximate boring 3 location. Holes to be accurately located in the field to avoid obstructions, underground pipino and conduits and slurry trench area. 2/ No boring is to be teminated in loose or soft scils, i 3] Continuous split spoon sampling using SPT is required. Holes are - j to be held open using either casing or hollow stem auger. Additional borings to obtain representative undisturbed samples for detailed laboratory testirg should be located at the completion and elevation of the split spoon sampling program. The groundwater level should be recorded at the completion of drilling in all borings once the level has stabilized. 4/ Nomal classification (e.g., gradaCon, Atterberty Limits) unit weight i and moisture content testing to be perfomed on representative samples from each significant foundation layer. This column pertains to lab i testing in addition to the abo'te mentioned tests. It is requested tnat at least one week notice be provided to the NRC before opening undisturbed samples to pemit on site visual observation by Corps of Engineer representative. 5/ The maximum load should be great enough to establish the straight-line portion of the void ratio-pressure curve. p/ Details on the extent of geotechnical engineering studies to be completed using the results of field and lab testing work will be provided in a separate letter. F A 4 s 4 I 3 i l-
7 _ _ _, ~.
- p e
.e. e i i e M ~ e i .,s. a I i 'o 1 N >=co + g f tu,/ /g / ij / O /U / [6 ~J + f I' . e3 e38 .'g[3 ' as ' nr M ii) 4 j' y i o -, i t 'I' +1 P i +
- n e/
I )h*o'((I = (U i I Il l IQ + ,1 ] -k I l i f" " 6 - i ) L, I 11 n g 'l9 i n O' \\CU 4 I e' - 9 00 - {s l,2 +
- g 3
MM f ..t .r a l j ( +
- r
+ r l I. e. i C ) / k 3 l' + I 3 Il i '1 iN )p' ,i e ta ll ~~! - )@lU M _I " !l .l ~' 1 ) 6 1<lt 1 I
- 9 J~
^ * * ' " ~ ~ ~ -.--,wm,.
. - -.... - ~ _. i,~ - - ~ g-[ y., A. . CATER T.5EATMENT .,.as f v.o TANK AREA COOLING TOWER c.- n..e w., 6 g . c. ~ Q -Q.') ~Q,., ,( ) .: a. .a g, HYDROGEN OILY WASTE STORAGE i - ~ [,.[." AND TREATMENT TANKS I... R ADWASTE SLDG. A.= e... AUXILIARY BUILDING
- . s 5
RL O CIR 5.M(FiffU ) TN N (FUTURE) \\ \\ %v. I I I UNIT I UNIT 2 CONTAINMENT CONTAINMENT
- 3.,
) / (a C0f W I .r. I y y
- q. p i
... COE l(o 4t i
- u.,
l l a]u,,No EcvicE TURBtNE SUILDING eis. 9.. LDING togg toe 9 CC E\\O 'o-ia a*
- g. 'd iI g
/ i v L
- ..yx g
L 4 y
- g. ~y.af,y. g;p'T"t.B...
.. m..i..:., p. j 1 3 lfl 6 l t D l A l D 4,.f.,." "~ .;1.., e Co E 15 g q ~ 6 E. .'.. r,=;t 7,,,.., ~ ' y, \\ v. SERVICE WATER j .s M
- 'g'
- d-PUMP STRUCTURE NE ATOR *.
2... cae u /,,.,s n l ', GUARD HOUSE -en *swee CHLOR. 1 CCE13 37.. cUllDING ( ~ } M CIRCULATING l co-. LO E \\~2. CONDENSATE r WATER INTAKE STORAGE STRUCTURE [Q[ g o TANKS - . -s h A.a 4 jvi O 14 [ 4 A'.,' - ]. l 'Q.e,g[;',- i l s a.e s .-e COOUNG POND j OIL STORAGE TANKS Figure 37-2 l ' 7 DIESEL GENERATOR FUEL [ l I l l l l l l l l l[N f 4
u __m. m _ _.m _ { _4 /[w.e, 1 e,j UNITED STATES L! ~E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565 .1 l %,cew/ AUG 4 1980. f Docket Nos.: 50-329/330 Mr. J. W. Cook ~ Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear 11r. Cook:
SUBJECT:
CORP OF ENGINEERS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON PLANT FILL liy letter of June 30, 1980 requested the 'results of additional explorations and laboratory testing needed to support certain geotechnical engineering studies on the elidland plant fill and associated remedial actions. That letter noted that details on the extent of these studies would be provided by separate correspondence. Enclosure 1 is a letter report of July 7,1980 by our consultant, the U.S.~ Army Corps of Engineers, and is forwarded to this end. Paragraph 4 of the Corps report identifies additional information needed to resolve specific problems identified in paragraph 3. For purposes of con-trol, we have re-numbered the subparagraphs of paragraph 4 to be sequential with our prior requests on this matter. They have also been marked to reflect the results of NRR review. Your reply should reference the revised numbering system and should address the requests as marked to reflect our changes. Subparagraph 4j of the Corps report entitled Liquefaction Potential, is not included in our re-numbering since it represents an evaluation rather than ~ a request. We consider this evaluation to ae tentative at this time since it is subject to the determination of suitable seismic design input for the site. We will address this matter shortly by separate correspondence. l f0 fp. .y rp% w,
90 --. e : - a.~. - -. ~.- - - -.. .~.
- l....
i t .g-AUG ~ 11980 Mr. J. W. Cook - We would appreciate your reply at your earliest opportunity. Should you need clarification of these requests for additional information, please contact us. .j Sinc'erely, . Ilf!l I /. Wd/W YiA.~ Schwencer, Acting Chief ~ , Licerising' Branch No. 3 I'/// Division,of Licensing !f
Enclosure:
COE Letter Report i dated 7/7/80 'l cc: See next page 1 a \\ o m P I I a '} e% i ,j. pr r y r = .c ? - - -r
= s %.s.a -,=-.=
- k a u.a La nanew.
I l. 1l- ' ce; Michael I. Miller, Esq. Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 4200 1 First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60603 ..j Judd L. Bacon, Esq. Managing Attorney 'r/'p + Consumers Power Company . /' 212 West Michigan Avenue lf[ [ ' ,3 ~t Jackson, Michigan 49201 r,i - I -Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secreta !f'/ Consumers Power Company tj ') 212 West, Michigan Avenue - l}- Jackson, Michigan 49201 /,', ~ { Myron H. Cherry, Esq. u 1 IBM Plaza j Chicago, Illinois 60611 I Ms. Mary Sinclafi-5711 Sunrnerset Drive ~ Midland, Michigan 48640 Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental Protection Division 720 Law Building . g$ g Lansing, Michigan 48913 \\' Mr. Wendell Marshall ' i Route 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 Grant J. Merritt, Esq. Thompson, Nielsen, Klaverkamp & James 4444 IDS Lenter 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 t o 6 - .m ..g 9 Ih 3 , = -.
-ew a.n_.-w m m =_ma-_e.. _,uwu.m__.m.m.mm.. m.,m.w en: a .;3, 1:. i di / { ?.r. J. W. Cook 3 cc: Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 - f Mr. Dor, van Farewe, Chief / ' '/ / g.' Division.of Radiological $ Ith - 9 ,1 ~ Department of Public Heal h- - 48909j//[ s P. O. Box 33035 .j - Lansing,. Michigan . l..j, (1 ' WilliamJ.Scanlon,Esq.j]'l .s .: T 2034 Pauline Boulevard il. q. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103', ,n U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office 4 Route 7 ' 2 Midland, Michigan 48640 9 g d I \\ \\ t s 1 4 1 e i [ 4 es 2
w.u-_ =.. Jus.4.LG LLL. XL.GI.=.,;.- u.-a. = _ u i,. 't U l / l ;* cc: Coznander, Naval Surface Weapons Center
- j
)JTN: P. C. Huang ..j White 0 k . /.f[ # Silver Spring, Maryland.209).O t-j/ a Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager Facility Design Engineeri l Energy Technology Engineer. f.g! Center 'I ?. 0. Box 1449 / j Canoga,. Park, California 91; 04 lu Mr. William Lawhead l. U. S. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T 7th Floor 4 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Freeland, Michigan 48623 Mr. Michael A. Race 2015 Seventh Street '{' Bay City, Michigan 48706 \\ l Ms. Sandra D. Reist 1301 Seventh Street ] Bay City, Michigan 48706 Ms. Sharon K. Warren 1 636 Hillcrest i Midland, Michigan 48640 i j Patrick A. Race 7 1004 N. Sheridan Bay City, Michigan 48706 1 l George C. Wilson, Sr. 4618 Clunie Saginaw, Michigan 48603 I Ms. Carol Gilbert I 903 N. 7th Street I ] Saginaw, Michigan 48601 a 'I
- I
't I
_ ~ _. . x-.... - c 1 4 A p-- _4_ ,). . cc: Mr. William A. Thibodeau 3245 'deigl Road- ~ }, Saginaw, Michigan _48603 ,,/f . - Mr. Terry. R. Miller 3229 Glendora Drive 8- , l(? Bay City Michigan 4S706 i 'l i
- I o
l,, 'l 4 e I; 4
- f
.f 1 9 Y r .j. \\ i .\\ / .9 g t 8 i 6 ) 2 1 l 1 t
- )
~. -....
^ ^**---.--,.% OETROIT C4sThe=,.COAPS & LNG &hEERS sos =' ENCLOSURE 1 0-0,,. => 7 JUL 9 0 l M-i NCEED-T h Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant
SUBJECT:
Units 1 and 2 Subtask No.1 - Letter Report / I, TERU: Division Engineer, North Central. NCDED-G (James SimNon) ' AITN- , q :' I - ft .. i (f.,' U.S.NuclearRegulatory[ Commission (' TO: ATTN: Dr. Robert E. Jackson Division of Systems Safati Mail'Stop P-314 ./, l Washington, D. C. 20555 The Detroit District hereby submits this letter report with regard to 1.completion of subtask No. 1 of the subject Interagency Agreement concerning the Midland Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The purpose of this report is to 3 identify unresolved issues and make recommendations on a course of action and/or cite additional information neenssary to' settle these matters prior to preparation of the Safety Evaluation Report. The Detroit District's team providing geotechnical. engineering support to 2.the NRC to date has made a review of furnished documents concerning foundations for structures, has jointly participated in briefing meetings with che NRC staf f, Consumers Power Company (thei applicant) and personnel from North Central Division of the Corps of Engineers and has made detailed site = i l The data reviewed includes all documents received through inspections. Revision 28 of the FSAR, Amendment 78 to the operating license request, Revision 7 to the 10 CFR 50.54(f) requests and.MCAR Ko. 24 through Interim 3 ' Generally, each structure within the cccrplex was studied as a Report No. 8. i separatt entity. i A listing of specific problems in review of Midland linits 1 and 2 follows 3. The issues are unresolved in many instances, 3 for Categoty I structures. The structures to be addressed I because of inadequate or missing informatior.. follow the description of the problem. I Inadequate presentation of subsurf ace information from cornpleted a. A n structures. j borings on ceaningful profiles and sectional views. i I e un: =weswressansagss;s'.h?--__ ~* a r
.. O w w ,g 7 El $60 }[, a.: / NCEED-T i
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant L Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report ?a d b. Discrepancias between soil descriptions and classifications on boring 1] '- . loss with submitted laboratory test results summaries. _ Exa: spies of such dit.crepancias are found in boring.T-14 (Borated unter tank) which shows stiff i < to very stif f clay where laboratory -tests indicate sof t clay with shear 1 strength of only 500 p.s.f. The log of boring T-15 shows stiff, silty elay, .while the lab tests show soft, clayey! sand with shear strength of 120 p.s.f. ll ' All structures. i/ I c. Lack of discussion about he criteria used to select soil samples for lab testing. Also, identificatlion of the basis for selecting specific values ll for the various parameters used in foundation design from the lab test .. )! ( results. All structures.
- d..The inability to complet y identify the soil behavior from lab a
- l testing (prior to design and co ruction) of individual samples, because in general, only final test values [/
n summary form have been provided. All s tructures. 4 (1) Lack of site fspecific information in estimating allowable bearing pressures. Only textbook type information has'been provided. If necessary, 4 bearing capacity should be revised based on' latest soils data. A11. structures on, or partially on, fill. ^ n J (2) - Additional information is needed t'o indicate the design anthods used, design assumptions and co:nputations in estimating settlement for safety related structures and systems. All structures except Diesel Generator Building where surcharging was performed. e. A complete detailed presentation of foundation design regarding remedial measures for structures undergoing distress is required. Areas of remedial measures except Diesel Generator Building. 7 I h f. There are inconsistencies in presentation of seismic design i information as affected by changes due to poor compaction of plant fill. Response to NRC question 35 (10 CFR 50.54f) indicates that the lower bound of ii shear wave velocity is 500 feet per second. We understand that the same velocity will be used to analyze the dynamic response of structures built on l: fill. 'dowever, from information provided by the ap' licant at the of te meeting p l; on 27 and 28 February 1980, it was stated that, except for the Diesel i: Generator Building, higher shear wave velocities are being used to re-evaluate l the dynamic response of the structures on fill material. Structures on fill j j;j or partially on fill except Diesel Generator Building. d:j 4. A listing of specific iss.uas and information necessary to resolve them. il ] 3 f, Reactor Building Foundation (1) See tienent/ Consolidation. Basis for settienent/ consolidation of the reactor foundation as discussed in the FSAR assu:nes the plant site would ti h 2 dit 'I I N
- MDE*3N N
- a 3
3 ggggyg;,.;g; d 7 JUL1980 il ~ h 'NCIED-T , Task No.1 - Midland Plant 7
SUBJECT:
Interagency ' Agreement No. NRCH)3-79-167, ' Units 1 and 2, Subcask No.1 - Letter Report ,g
- i c]i not be dewatered.. Discuss and furnish computation for settlement of the
? Ranctor Buildings in' respect to the changed unter table-level as; the result of 97 site dewatering. Include the effects of bouyancy, which were used in previous 'I calculations, and fluctuaticas in water table which could happen 'if the dewatering system became inoperable. .(2) Bearing Capacity. Bearing capacity compucations should be provided and should include anchod u'ed foundation' design, design s assumptions, adopted soil properties, an,d basis for selecting. ultimate bearing capacity and resulting factor o'f/ safety. h. . Diesel Generator Buil l ( m 8 (1). Settlement /Consolidatica.? In the response to NRC Question 4 and 27, (10 CFR 50.54f), the applican't ha.t furnished the results of his computed settlements.dua to various kindsjof loading conditions. From his explanation i of the results, it appears that compressibility parameters obtained by -the preload tests have been used to cogute tha static settlements. Inforation 3; pertaining to dynamic response including the. amplitude of vibration of ij-generator pedestals have also been furnished. he observed settlement pattern of the Diesel Generator Building indicates a direct correlation with soil 1,_ types and properties within the backfill material. To vurify the preload test settlement predictions, compute settlements based on test results on samples fron new borings which we have requested la a separate mano and present the result s. Reduced ground water levels resulting from dewatering and diesel 4 plus' seismic vibration should be considered in settlanant and seismic
- j analysis.
Furnish the computation details for evaluating amplitude of l. vibration for diesel generator pedestals including magnitude of exciting forces, whether tL:y are constant or frequency dependent. (2) Bearing Capacity. Applicant's response to NRC Question 35 (10 t cy150.54f) relative to bearing capacity of soil is not satisfactory. Figure i 33-3, which has been the basis of selection of shear strength for computing b bearing capacity does not reflect the characteristics of the soils under the y . Diesel Generator Building. A bearing capacity computation should be submitted j based on the test results of samples from new borings which we have requested G in a separate memo. This information should include method used, foundation j; design assumptions, adopted soil properties 'and basi's for selection, ultiate a bearing capacity and resulting factor of safety. O U (3) Preload Effectiveness. The effectiveness of the preload should 9 be studied with regard to the moisture content of the fill at the time of j preloading. The height of the water table, its time duration at this level, j and uhether the plant fill seg placed wet or dry of optimm would be all important considerations. o ?$. te j.' 3 9 a d n, i' 4 _c--- .mg.ammemammweuuwsmesser.menemme
-g .. m.. - ~. _ ,.m._ f NCEED-T
SUBJECT:
Interagsney Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant e Units 1 and 2, Subtask No. 1 - Letter Report (a) Cranular Soils. 1. Uhen suffici'ent load is applied to granular soils it usually causes-a . ~. reorientation of grains and movement of particles into more stable positions + plus (at high stresses) fracturing of particles at their points of contact. Reorientation and breakage creates a chain reaction among these and adjacent particles resulting in settlement. Reorientation is resisted by friction between particles. Capillary tension' kould tend to increase this friction. A moistureincreasecausingsr.turation,'/suchasariseinthewatertableas oc' curred here, would decrease ' capillary tension resulting in more conpaction. Present a discussion on the vacAr table and capillary water effect on the i granular portion of the plaht fill.both above and below the water table during and af ter the preload. ((lj til (b) Impe vious and/or Clay Soiis.' ll Clay fill placed dry of optimum would not compact and voids could exist between particles and/or chunks. In this situation SPT blow counts would give misleading information as te strecgth. Discuss the raising of the water table and determine if the time of saturation was long enough to saturate porsible clay lumps so that the consolidation could take place that would preclude further settlement. Discuss the preload effect on ciny soils lying above the water table (7 feet f) that were possibly compacted' dry of optimum. It would appear only limited consolidation from the preload could take place in this situation and the potential for further settler ent would exist. Discuss the ef fect of the preload on clays placed wet of optimun. It would appear consolidation along with a sain in strength would take place. Determine if the new soil strength is adequace for bearing capacity. .\\ Co lu on* S ce he elia 11 o' exi in fil an e act n i formationb i u er in ad tic.21 b ino a te s de e id r rio an ar o s) ela iv de ty mois r con at dens ty, con olid ion rop ti Caucred 6; 4/$o pushJ-c/go a s en h ri al test v uld ppe r to e si ble n or er t at fa or y sve the be e q sti .s. or gs ho 1 be onti ou Hee r di ur dc esi - s 1 mpi ta n. i (4) tit scellane ous. A contcur map, showing the settlement configuration of the Diesel Generator Building, furnished by the applicant at the meeting of 27 and 28 Febr.uary 1980 indicates that the base of the building has sarped due to differential settlements. Additional stresses will be induced in the various components of the stru-ture. The applicant should j evaluata these stresses due to the differential settlement and furnish the cocputations and results for review. I i 4 E i ~. 4 de r. , / 5.h "[-[*h*%g (d.gJgg@]Qgy l j
n_ .. - ~. u, _. _,_ .. =,. ? JUL 1980 ' NCIED-T
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agrev. ment No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant i Units. I and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report N. [ Service. Water Building Foundation. l .t (1) Bearing Capacity. A detailed pile design based upon pertinent soil data should be developed in order to more effectively evaluate the l proposed pfle support system prior to load testing of test' piles. Provide adopted soil properties, reference to, test data on whf eh they are-based, and method and 0.ssumptions'used to est'imase pile design capacity including computations. Provideestimated/ maxi'mumstaticanddynamiclondstobe imposed and individual contribu' tion > (DL, LL, OBE, SSE) on the maximum loa.ded '.' gainst soil failure due to - 4= m pile load. pile. Provide factor of safe a (2) Settlements. Il/ Discuss and provide ///,analhisevaluatingporsibledifferential I 'i (a) i settlement that could occur be'tseen the pile supported end and the portion placed on tilland glAtlo.l tiff. I Descrafe the se, *<e.t of fallen on sdef Features (e.g. Jis,sel feel erlsfomfe f aus)y rehfe) behind oe (b) eresent Discuss h why N r#Ya g wall adjacent to the intake e structure is not required to be" Seismic Category 1 structure. Evaluate the in observed settlement of *both the service water pumphouse retaining walls and the intake structure retaining well and the significance of the settlement including future settlement prediction on the safe operation of the Midland againct < t/*ws.hk strerrer permittel by approved codes. y bl,e This eve /vefinn.chould addrers asteet sfeeeser in,fueed b Nucleat Plant. se tf/eweni (3) Seismic Analysis. Provided ths proposed 100 ton ultimate pile load capacities are achieved and reasonable margin of safety is available, the vertical pile support proposed for the overhang section of the Service Water Pump Structure will provide the support necessary for the structure under conbined static ant seismic inertial loadings even if the soil under the overhang portion of the structure should liquefy. There is no~ reason to think this won't be achieved at this time, and the' applicant has committed to a load test to demonstrate the pile capacity. The. dynamic response of the structure, including the inertial loads for which the structure itself is designed and the mechanical equipment contained therein, would change as a result of the 8 introduction of the piles. Therefore: .i l (a) Pleasa summarize or provide cepies of reports on the dynamic ll analysis of the structure in its old and proposed configuration. For the 'i latter, provide detailed information on the stiffness assigned to the piles and the way in which the stiffnesses were obtained and show the largest change in interior floor vertical response spectr'a resulting from the proposed li modification. If t.he proposed configuration has not yet been analyzed, 3 describe the analyses that are to be perforned giving particular attention to { the basis for calculation or ~ selection, of and the range of numerical ] stiffness values assigned to the vertical piles. 1 q ,i (b) Provide af ter completion of the new pile foundation, in accordance with conmitment No. 6, ites 125, Consumers Powr Conpany memorandum
- i 5
ii i!'! k [ M S E5 h s E E W M M M @5iFEA M Ei%GS18$$ M W 4 4 Tis 3 h il
m -m _ _ m m, - m 7.- /. T Jul $80 ' l ';CEED-I
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task,No.1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report dated 13 March 1980, the results of measure =ents of vertical applied load and = l absolute pile head vertical defor..acion which will be made when tha structural load is jacked on the piles so that the pile stiffness can be determined and i compared to that used in the dynamic analysis. N. [ Auxiliary Building Electrical Penetration Areas and Feedwater ! /! Isolation Valve Pits. i /// // Provid' ' the assumptions, method, computation and (1) Setelement. s estimate of expected allowable lateral and vertical defleccions under static fi and seismic loadings. fj,{;g i c (2) Provide the construction' plans, and specifications for underpinning operations beneath/3he Electrical Penetration Area and Feeduater Valve Pit. The requested inforshtion to be submitted should cover the following in sufficient details}for ' evaluation: the iensy n ery Details of cewatering system (locations, depth, size and capacity (a) A of wells) including the monitoring program to be required, (for example, measuring draudown, flow, frequency of observations, etc.) to evaluate the performance and adequacy of the installed systes..; (b) Location, sectional views and dimensions of access shaf t and drif t to and below auxiliary building wings. (c) Details of tenporary surface support system for the valve pits. b@ Devatering before underpinning is recommended in order to preclude differential settlement between pile and soil supported elements and negative drag forces. \\ () Provide adopted soil propertieN method and assu=ptions used to estimace caisson and/or pile design capacities, and computational results. Provide estic:ated maxi =um static and dynamic load (compression, uplif t and lateral) to be imposed and the individual clintribution (DL,. LL, GBE, SSE) on maxit:un loaded caisson and/or pile. Provide factor of safety against soil failure due to maximum pile load.. ? e(I) Discuss and furnish computations for settlement of the portion of the Auxiliary Building (valve pits, and electrical penetration area) in respect to changed water level as a result of the site devacering. Include l the effect of bouyancy, which was used in previous calculations, and --j fluctuations in water table which could happen, if dewatering system becomes inoperable. () Discuss protection measures to be required against corrosion, if piling is selected. 6 .3 ? .( ' m. u_mw-. - mow;.mastu3h4-;mawng%maggm
~... n =..w n n. . _ =.,=., n: _ _ a ,f 1 N SG / NCEED-T
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No.1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report (h ' Identify specific.information, data and method of presentation to j be submitted for regulatory review at completion of underpinning operation. This report should sumcarize construction activities, field inspection records, results of field load tests on caissons and piles, and an evalt.ation of the completed fix for assuring the stable foundatior. Io , [ Borated Water Tanks. / (1) Settlement. The ettlement estimate for the Borated Water Storage Tanks furnished by th applicant in response to NRC Question 31 (10 CFR 50.54f) is based upon the results of two place load tests. conducted at the foundation, elevation (IL 627.00h)! of the tanks. Since a plate load test is not effective in providing information regarding the soil beyond a depth core i than twice the diameter of the' bearing plate used in the' test, the estimate of the settlement furnished by the' Applicant does not include the contribution of the sof t clay layers located at ' depth more than 5' below the bottom of the tanks (see Boring No. T-14 and T-15, and I-22 thru T-26). (a) Compute settlements which include contribution of all the soil layers influenced by the total load on the tanks. Discuss and provide for review the analysis evaluating differentini settlement that could occur between the ring (foundations) and the center of the r=nirm. (b) The bottom of the borated tanks being flexible could warp under differential settlement. Evaluate what additional stresses could be induced in the ring beams, tank walls, and tank. bottoms, because of the settlement, 4 and conpare with allowable stresses. Furnish the computations on stresses j including method, assunptions and adopted soil, properties in the analysis. (2) Bearing Capacity. Laboratory test results an samples from boring T-15 show a sof t stratum of soil below the tank bottom. Consideration has not been given to using these test results to evaluate bearing capacity information furnished by the applicant in response to NRC Question 35 (10 CFR 50.54f). Provide bearing capacity compet'acions based on the test ~ f results of the samples from relevant borings. This information should include method used, foundation design assumptions, adopted soil properties, ultimate 8 bearing capacity and resulting factor of safety for the static and the seisnic loads. ff Underground Diesel Fuel Tank Foundation Design. (1) Bearing capacity. Provide bearing capacity computation based on g the test results of samples from relevent borings, inel-ling method used, foundation design assumptions, adopted soil proper-ies, ultimate bearing j capacity and the resulting factor of safety. j (2) Provide tank settlement analysis due to static and dynanic loads including methods, assunptions made, etc. l t i 7 i 1 ' ' UN.e-Mweg,m mmmmm,y _,
._,e ..,w, w w w =. n,w i e L G w ;; h..,:&; a ; D L M & c__- ~ =_ Jf. f[ 7JutsB0 NCzzo-T
- i SUBJzCT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167 Task 'No.1 - Midland Plant j Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report
- f I!
(3) What will be effects' of uplift pressure on the stability of the ~ 'i tanks and the associated piping system if the dauntering systaa becomes inopetable?' %,[ Underground Utilities: (1) ' Settlement (a) Inspect the interior of unter circulation piping with video i[- cameras and sensing devices to show pipe cross 'section; possible areas of crackings and openings, and slopes of piping following consolidation of the 11 plant fill beneath the imposed surcharge loading.
- I (b)' The applicant has stated in his response to NRC Question 7 (10 i *l CFR 50.54f) that if the duct banks remain intact af ter the preload program has been completed, they will be able to withstand all future operating loads.
Provide the results of the observations made, during the preload test, to
- i determine the stability of the duct banks, with your discussion regarding 3:
their reliability to perform their design functions. i <I '(c) The response to Question 17 of " Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill" states that "there is no reason to believe that the stresses in Seismic Category I piping systems will ever approach the Code allowable." We question the above statement based on the following: g !i ( Profile 26" - OHBC-54 on Fig.19-1 shows a sudden drop of approx. 0.2 feet within a distance of only 20 feet. Using the procedure on p.17-2, (b - z(e) - z ( n ) - x ( o ) ( 85 ) j 2R 2 L2 j) p = 30000 ( 26 ) [ 8(0.2)(12)_] = 130.0 KSI q 2 (20 12)' a s,,// u d /, d
7.::h:
- . ;, O..
W.; ;f f.::1.1. J0-$o$i..;, ... III, Li..:in 1,.: Lv. li J...,....: :h: :::: %.;;; L;.nifi;nis. ; :.. "I'" ......_:f . J -:1 9 ::2 ;..:.1-Yet, Table 17-2 lists only 52.5 XSI% tress y for this pipe. This matter requires further review. Please respond to f M apparent discrepancy and also specify the location of each computed settlement y( stress at the pipeline stationing shown on the profiles. More than one y critical stress location is possible along the same pipeline. U j (d) During the site visit on 19 February 1980, we observed three H instances of what appeared to be degradation of rattlespace at penetrations of Category I piping through concrete walls as follows: 4 i l l! 8 s I e i s 1 . '. t e ..nt_&W : u, .......g. s, y r - -. -. :. -. :.-.:= n L. z r. ....-..L a
-.- 1=x ~1 a.~.= r== c.= ne =:-=1=g1r:wm1x~nt 'l' A ac m -r
SUBJECT:
I: tor:gency Agracment No. 51LC-03-79-167; Tack No. 1 - Midicnd Plant Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report .) West Borated Water Tank - in the valve pit attached to the base of the structure, a large diameter steel pipe extended through a steel sleeve placed in the well. Because the sleeve was not cut flush with the wall, clerance between the sleeve and the pipe was very sr.all. f -/
- y.:'l l
~ 51s m f ~b C[ P e C&.'. *o.* " p,ws.it 4 L :.t4 ..+,w 1 d
- j
- Servic fliater Stiruchure - Two of the service unter pipes penetrating the northwest vall of the service ~' water stdr crure had settled differential 17 with respect'j ' the structure and were resting on slightly squashed shor't. pieces of 2 x 4 placed in the bottom of the pene ration. From the inclination of the pipe, there is!a suggestion that the portions of the pipe further back in thelwall opening (which was not , visible) were actually bearing on the invert of the opening. The bottom surface of one of the steel pipes had small surface irregularities around the edges of the area in contact with the 2 x 4. Whether these irregularities are normal manufacturing irregularities or the result of concentration of load on this temporary support caused 'by the settlement of the fill, was not known. .\\ s These instances are sufficient to warrant an iexamination of those penetrations where Category I pipe derives support from'p1' ant fill on one or both sides of a penetration. In view of the above facts, the following information is i required. __ l. (1) What is the minimum seismic rattlespace required between a Category I pipe and the sleeve through which it penetrates a wall? I (2) Identify all those locations where a Category T. pipe deriving 9 support from plant fill penetrates an exterior concrete wall. Deternine and report the vertical and horizontal rattlespace presently available and the ..l' ninimum required at each location and dercribe remedial actions planned as a l. result of conditions uncovered in the inspection. It is anticipated that the answer to Question (1) can be obtained without any significant additional jl excavation. If this is not the case, the decision regarding the necessity to , obtain infornation at those locations requiring major excavation should be 't deferred until the data fron the other locations have been examined. f 9 (- /
- 1 o
-..ww: m = v n..=. m u. c _:a.m. m. = __u.e u. w. m.mmm. 7 $t $80 NCEED-T.
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Task No. 1 - Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Subtask No. 1 - I.etter Report s
- j (e) Provide details (thickness, type of materiai etc.) of bedding or j
cradle placed beneath safety related piping, conduits, and supporting s tructures. Provide profiles along piping, and conduits alignments showing the properties of all support!ing raterials to be adopted in the analysis of pipe stresses caused by settlement.. l/ (f) The two reinforced. concrete return pipes which exit the Service Water Pump Structure, run along' ktlNr side of the emergency cooling water reservoir, and ultimately ented into the reservoir, are necessary for safe i shutdown. These pipes are burle'd within or near the crest of Category I 3 slopes that form the sides of di There is no report on, or analysis of, ftM/jemergency: cooling water reservoir. seismic stability of post earthquake residual di'splacement for thesn' popes..While the limited data from this area j do not raise the specter of any/ roblem,: for an important element of the plant such as this', the earthquake sta 111tyIshould be examined by state-of-the-art methods. Therefore, provide res its of the seismic analysis of the slopes leading to an estimate of the permanent deformation of the pipes. Please provide the following: (1) a plan showing the pipe location with respect to other nearby structures, slopes of the reservoir and the coordinate system; (2) cross-sections shosing the pipes, normal pool levels, slopes, subsurf aca conditions as interpreted from borings and/or. logs of excavations at (a) a location parallel to and about 50 f t from the southeast outside wall of the service water pipe structure and (b) a location where the cross section will include both discharge structures. Actual boring logs should be shown on the - profiles; their offset from the profile noted, and soils should be described using the Unified Soil Classification System; (3) discussion of available shear strength data and choice of strengths used-in stability analysis; (4) decernination of static f actor or safety, critical earthqune acceleration, and location of critical circle; (5) calculation of residual novament by the method presented by Newmark (1965) or Makdisiiand Seed (1978); and (6) a determination of whether or not the pipes can. function properly af ter such r.ovement s. i h. Cooling Pond. ~ (1) Emergency Cooling Pond. In rr. cognition that the type of i - enbankment fill and the compaction control: used to construct the recention i dikes for the cooling pond were the saos as for the problem plant fill, we request reasonable assurance that the slopes of the Category I Emergency Cooling Pond (baf fle dike and main dike) are stable under both static and dynasic loadings. We request a tevised stability analysis for review, which s.-ill include identification of locations analyzed, adopted foundation and 1 e=bankment conditions (stratification, seepage, etc.) and basis for selection, j adopted soil properties, math'od of stability analysis used and resulting f actor of safety with idancification of sliding surfaces analyzed. Please l, address any pot.ential inpact on Category I pipes near the slopes, based on the q results of this stability study. Reccomendations for location of new exploration and tacting have been provided in a separate letter. 10 1 { ~.__,y
u==_ _..mx. ! / ".
- .
- NCEED-T I
Intereg2ncy Agrasment Ns. NRC-03-79-167, Teck Ns. 1 - Midland Plcut
SUBJECT:
Units 1 and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report i (2) Operating Cooling Pond. A high level of safety should be required for the remaining slopes of the Operating Cooling Pond unless it can be assured that a failure will not: (a) endanger public health and properties, (b) result in an assault on environment, (c) impair needed Recomnandations for locations of new borings and laboratory emergency access. tests have been submitted in a separat,e letter. These recommendations were made on the assumptions that the stability of the operating cooling pond dikes [ should be demonstrated. T j I7. Site Dewatering Adequa (1) In-order to providh the liquefaction, it is necessary t'ol emo.necessaiy assurance of safety again l d nstrate' that the veter will' not rise above elevation 610 during normallipperations or during a shutdown process. In the event of a failure [ plish-this by pumping from wells at the The applicant,has decided to ace' partial failure,'or degradation of the site. dewatering system (and its backup system) caused by the earthquake or any other event such as equipment breakdown, the water levels will begin to rise. Depending on the answer to Qaestion (a) below concerning the normal operating water levels in the immediate vicinity of Category I structures and pipelines ~ founded on plant fill, different amounts of time are available to accomplish repair or shutdown. In response to Question 24 (10 CFR 50.S4f) the applicant states "the operating groundwater level will be approximately el 595 f t" (page 24-1). On page 24-1 the applicant also states "Therefore el 610' is to be used in the designs of the dewatering system as the maximum permissible groundwater level elevation under SSE conditions." On page 24-15 it is stated t that "The wells will fully penetrate the backfill sands and underlying natural sands in this area." The bottom of the natural sands is indicated to vary j f rom elevation 605 to 580 within the plant fill area according to Figure 24-12. The applicant should discuss and furnish response to the following questions: ,{ ) a (a) Is the normal operating devatering plan to (1) pump such that the water level in the wells being pumped is held at or below elevation 595 or (2) i co pump as necessary to hold the water levels in all observation wells near Category I Structures and Category I Pipelines supported ou plant fill at or 3 below elevation 595, (3) to pump as necessary to hold water levels in the I wells nautioned in (2) above at or below elevation 610, or (4) something else? If it is something else, what is it? l (b) In the event the water levels in observation wells near Category I Structures or Pipelines supported on plant fill exceed those for normal j operating conditions as defined by your answeer to
- Question (a) what action e
will be taken? In the event.that the water level in any of these observation i wells exceeds elevation 610, what action will be taken? l i i I i P-tcw &muemm d M ygq y
w :e . m.-.. e L _ Q g y y.CEED-T
SUBJECT:
Intsragency Agracment ho. NRC-03-79-167, Tock Ns.1 - Midland Plant f ' - l,. Unita 1 and 2, Subt:sk Ns.1 - Lattar Raport ['. j' -~ (c) Where will the observation wells in the plant fill area be locsted that will be monitored during the. plant lifetime? At what depths will the screened intervals be? Will the combination of (1) screened interval in cohesionless soll and (2) demonstration of timely response to changes in_,,, cooling pond level prior to drawdown be made a condition for selecting the observation wells? Under what conditions will the alarm mentioned on page .2 24-20 be triggered? - What will be the response to the alarm?' A worst case test of the completed permanent dewatering 'snd groundwater level monitoring systees ~ could be conducted to determine whethey or not the tdme required to accoraplish shutdown and cooling-is available.//T!Iis could be done by shutting of f the entire dewatering system when the' cooling pond is at elevation 627 and decernining the water level versds': time curve for each observation well. The test should be continued until thd[ water level under Category I~ structure, i whose foundations are potentia 11'y/ijquefiable, reaches elevation 610 (the l normal water level) or the sum ofytpa time., intervals allotted for repair and the time interval needed to accomplish shutdown (should the repair prove casuccessful)hasbeenexceeded,sijichever:occursfirst. In view of.the heterogeneity of the fill, the likhly varia' tion of its permeability and the necessity of making several assumptions in the analysis which was. presented in the applicant's response to Question 24a_, a full-scale test should give more reliable information on the available time. In view of the above the applicant should furnish' his response to the following: If a dewatering systed failure or degradation occurs, in order.to assure that the plant is shutdown by the time water level reaches elevation 610; it is necessary to initiate shutdown earlier. In the event of a failure + of the dewatering system, what.is the water level or condition at which shutdown will be initiated? How is that condition determined? An acceptable
- e: hod would be a full-scale worst-case test perforced by shutting off the 4
entire dewatering systen with the cooling pond at elevation 627 to determine, at each Category I Structure deriving support from plant fill, the water level. st which a sufficient time window still remains to accomplish shutdo. before the water rises to elevation 610. In establish'ing the groundwater level or condition that will trigger shutdown, it is necessary to account for normal surface water inflow as well as groundwater recharge and to assume that any additional acti-n taken to repair the dewatering' system, beyond the point in ti=e when the trigger condition is first reached, is unsuccessful. (2) As per applicant response to NRC Question 24 (10 CFR 50.54f) the ~ esisu of the permanent dewatering system is' based upon tuo major findings: d .l (1) the granular backfill materials are in hydraulic connection with an !.j
- _derlying discontinuous body of natural sand, and (2) seepage from the cooling pond is restricted to the intake and pump structure area, since the plant fill south of Diesel Generator Building is an effective barrier to the 1]
inflow of the cooling pond water. However, soil profiles (Figure 24-2 in the ~ ~3asponse to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill"), pumping test time-drawdown graphs (Figure 24-14), and plotted cones of influence (Figure 24-15) indicate that south of Diesel Generator Building, the plant fill =aterial adjicent to ,' G 1 12 l-I i dr NMMEMNEI NUIN M$ 988Di@@gg
x.. .. x _. - .f ' L ':s ygy ~j 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
- p l
the cooling pond is not an effective barrier to. inflow of cooling. pond. water., lq The estimated permeability for the fill material as reported by the applicant ~ is 8 feet / day and the transmissivities range from 29 to 102 square feet / day. Evaluate and furnish for review the recharge rate of seepage through the fill
- materials from the south side of the/ Diesel Generator. Building on the permanent dauntering system.
Thisi. evaluation should especially consider the recovery data from PD-3 and compl'eItai/ data from PD-5. jH.. (3) The interceptor wells have been positioned along the northern 3 side of the Water Intake Struci:ure' and service water pump structures. The L! _ calculations estimating the total:jgroundwat'er inflow indicate the structures serve as a positive cutoff. However, the isopachs of the sand (Figures 24-9 and 24-10) indicate 5 to 10 fee't ff remai'ning natural sands below these structures. The soil profile (F4gure 24~-2) neither agrees nor disagrees with the isopachs. The calculations f, or total' flow, which assumed positive cutoff, reduced the length of the line source of inflow by 2/3. The calculations for the spacing and positioning of wells assumed this reduced total flow is applied along the entire length of the structures. Clarify the existence of seepage below the structures, present supporting data and calculations, and j reposition wells accordingly. Include the supporting data such as drawdown at the interceptor wells, at midway location between any two consecutive wells, and the increase in the water elevations downstream of the interceptor walls. The presence of. structures near the cooling pond appears to have created a situation of artesian flow through the sand layer. Discuss why artesian flow ( was not considered in the design of the dewatering system. (4) Provide conscruction plans and specification of permanent dewateping system (location, depths, size and capacity of walls, filtarpack design) including required monitoring program. The information furnished in response of NRC Question 24 (10 CER 50.54f) is not adequate to evaluate the adequacy of the system. (5) Discuss the ramifications of plugging or leaving open the weep l4 holes in the retaining well at the Service Water Building. (6) Discuss in detail the maintenance plan, for the dauntering system. (7) What tre your plans for monitoring water table in the control i! tower area of the A.uxiliary Building? ll (8) What measures will be required to prevent incrustation of the !I pipings of the dewatering system. Identify the controls to be required during plant operation (measure of dissolved solids, chemical controls). Provide '1 basis for established criteria in view of the results shown on Table 1, page 23 of tab 147. l li 13 ii (
~- -~a- _ _ _ ~ 9 NCEED-I SUBJECT 1 Inttrcg:ncy Agratment No, NRC-03-79-167, Task Ns. 1 - Midland Plant i Units 1 cad 2, Subtxk Ns.1 - Lettcr Rsport (9) Upon reaching a steady state in dewatering, a groundwater survey should be made to confirm the position of the water table and to insure that no perched water tables exist. i Desatering of the site should be scheduled with a sufficient lead time before plant start up so that the additional sectiement and its effects (especially on piping) can be studied. Settlenent should be closely monitored during this period. f aJrs fo conds/ sting this youndW<$W .5'u Y Yey. l frow'de four J. Liquefaction Potential. An independent Seed-Idriss Simplified Analysis was performed for the fill area under the assumption that the groundwater table was at or below For 0.19 g peak ground surface acceeleration, it was found elevation 610. that blow counts as follows were required for a factor of safety of 1.5: Minimum SPT Blow Count *1 Elevation fc For F.S. = 1.5 610 14 605 16 600 17 19 595 .The analysis was considered conservative for the foll'owing reasons (a) no account was taken of the weight of any structure, (b) liquefaction criteria for a magnitude 6 earthquake were used whereas an NRC memorandum of 17 Mar 80 considered nothing larger than 5.5 for an earthquake with the peak acceleration level of 0.19 g's, (c) unit weights were varied over a range broad enough to cover any uncertainty and the tabulation above is based on the nost conservative set of assunptions. Out of over 250 standard penetration tests on cohesionless plant fill or natural foundation meerial below elevation 610, the criteria given above are not satisfied in four tests in natural materials located below the plant fill and in 23 tests located in the plant fill. These tests involve the following borings: SW3, SW2, DG-18, AX 13, AX 4, AX 15, AX 7, AX 5, AX 11, DG 19, DG 13, DG 7, DG 5, D 21, GT 1, 2. Some of the tests on natural meerial were conducted at depths of at less than Prior 10 f t before approximately 35 f t of fill was placed over the location. to comparison with the criteria these tests should be multiplied by a factor of about 2.3 to account for tha increase in effective overburden pressure that l.'I results from the placement and future dewatering of the fill. lt 1*For M = 7.5, blow counts would increase by 30%. I4 M-me,
--n.& m. z.g, ,g. ~ ~= . {..lWf ,3JUL1980-Nh,7 NCEED-T l ~
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, Tank No.1 - Midinnd Plant ~ Units I and 2, Subtask No.1 - Letter Report } If changed backfill on interior response spectra predicted by the various models can be readily seen.- (2) Category I retaining vall near the southeast corner of the Service Water Structure. This us11 is experiencing some differential settlement. Boring information in Figure 24-2 (Question 24, Volume 1 Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Yill) suggests the nell is founded on natural soils and backfilled with plant fill on the land side. Please furnish details clarifying th's following: i (a) Is there any plant fill underneath the vall? What additional data beyond that shown in Figure 24-2 support your answer? (b). Have or should the design seismic loads (FSAR Figure 2.5-45) be changed as a result of the changed backfill condicions? (c) Have or should dynamic water loadings in the reservoir be considered in the seismic design of this wall? Please explain the basis of your answer. 5. In your response for the comments and. questions in paragraph 4 above, if you feel that sufficiently detailed information already exists on the Midland docket that may have been overlooked, please :make reference to that information. Resolution of issues and concerns will depend on the expeditious receipt cf data mentioned above. Contact Mr. Neal Gehring at FTS 226-6793 regardir.g questions. l 7 0 3 T E S 3 15".2 1 C2 23G 132 3 38 e Y ) f. 1 3 , L[ }% 4 l P. McCELISTER. j Chief, Engineering Division 1 4 i t \\ t t 16 I [ .m.mewn, eammwMMUCT'#W9A%N';= fGEEdiMMW@
,~ ; + - ~---- .. ~... _ 7 JUL 1980 r. p /..,, NCEED-T
SUBJECT:
Interagency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-167, I2ck No.1 - Midicnd Plant Units 1 and 2, Subcask No.1 - Letter Report j Of the 23 tests. on plant fill which fail to satisfy the criteria, most are near or under structures where remedial measures alleviating necessity for 1 support from the fill are planned. Only 4 of the tests are under the Diesel i Generator Building (which will still derive its support from the fill) and 3 others are near it. Because these locations where low blow counts were recorded are well ' separated from one another and are not one continuous stratum but are localized pockets of loose material, no failure mechanism is present. In view of the large number of borings in the plant fill area and the conservatism adopted in analysis, these few isolated pockets are no threat to The fill area is safe sgainst liquefaction in a' Magnitude 6.0 plant safety. earthquake or smaller which produces a peak ground surface acceleration of 0.19 g or less provided the groundwater elevatica in the fill is kept at or below elevation 610. Seismic analysis of structures on plant fill material. (1) Category I Structures. From Section 3.7.2.4 of the FSAR it can of about 1350 f t/sec ves used in the i be calculated that an. average V, interaction analysis of the Category I original dynamic soil structure This is confirmed by one of the viewgraphs used in the 28 structures. Plant fill V, is clearly much lower than February Bechtel presentation. It is understood from the response to Question 13 (10 CFR 50.54f) this value. concerning plant fill that the analysis of several Category I structures are l underway using a lower bound average V, = 500 f t/see for sections supported on plant fill and that floor response spectra and design forces will be taken as the most severe of those from the new and old analysis. The questions which follow are intended to make certain if this is the case and gain an understanding of the impact of this parametric variation in foundation conditions. heta (a) Discuss which Category I structures havegand/or t.131 be reanalyzed for changes' in seismic soil structure interaction due to the change in plant fill stiffness from that envisioned in the original design. Have any Category I structures deriving support from plant fill been excluded from j eanalysis? On what hesis? (b) Tabulate for each old analysis and each reanalysis, the foundation parameters (v,,9 and P ) used and the equivalent spring and l danping constants derived therefrom so the reviewer can gain an appreciation of the extent of parametric variation perforned. (c) Is it the intent to analyze the adequacy of the structures and } their contents based upon the envelope of the results of the old and new j For each structure analyzed, please show on the same plot the old, analyses? new, and revised enveloping floor response spectra so the effect of the i 15 4 / x _- ~ ~=cw:.
. ~. -- - =- gyg g *' "m . #eby %*g 3.hnt UNITED STATES 2 NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e 'i j wassemorow, n. c. aosse b \\*****,# 4 August 27, 1980 C Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330 4 Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 {
Dear Mr. Cook:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING DEW.TERING OF MIDLAND SITE i Amendment No. 74 to your application dated February 28, 1980, provided information regarding a permanent dewatering system proposed for the Midland site in response to Request No. 24 from Mr. L. Rubenstein's letter of November 19, 1979. The review by the hydrologic section of our Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch indicates the need for further information regarding that response as identified in This infomation is in addition to related requests contained in our letter of August 4,1980. ( We would appreciate your reply to Enclosure 1 at your earliest opportunity. Should you need clarification of these requests for additional infomation. please contact us. <,* 1 : Sincerely, .e i ~ '?:: l l.b SA,,c,,0 ^ Robert. Tedesco Assistant Director for Licensing ( Division of Licensing [
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information cc w/ encl: M 'i See next page ,.r..%.s I.,. .,;.y. NJ. C , e. j (11hha I 't L * * ' .--y*ti y -. s
-,,.__.,.L, _., ___l_ L,.w w _ l ENCLOSURE 1 s 1 ' (. SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL i
- 49. Your response to our Request 24 states that if the dewatering system li _
l should fail, more than 90 days'would occur before groundwater levels l-would rise to elevation 610 feet, the groundwater elevatiori at which ? l liquefaction would become a problem. We are concerned that this water t l level rise might occur over a period considerably less than 90 days { in view of the following apparent discrepancies in equations and input l parameters: i, a. The error function solution to the partial differential equation describing unsteady groundwater flow which you used to determine permeability, appears to be incorrect; the correct fann should have a 4 in the denominator, instead of a 2 as you have shown. The correct equation is: d4K5t/n, i, where: i; 7j h = water level rise at X=0 H = water head at X=0 -l 5 = average depth of water erf error function =
- 4 ll K=
permeability X= distance t= time ne= effective porosity 1 i
- i s
i 't g_
-_ _ _ a.n;_ _ _ _^ L_ ~ g
- \\
- ! i
( l b. In the above equation since h is the average depth, its value should l lie between h and H. In ' applying this equation to compute a .]: permeability K of 11 feet per second and a corresponding rebound .fj time of 90 days, you used 0.1 foot for h,1.6 feet for H, but 20 feet for h. Use of a smaller value of h (somewhere between 0.1 ] and 1.6 feet) would result in a higher penneability and a rebound Q time considerably shorter than 90 days. 11-c. Your value for x in the above equation is 325 feet, which you ti say is the shortest distance between the critical area and the, d recharge source, i.e., the distance between the southeast corner 4 } of the diesel generator building and the southwest corner of the circulating water intake structure. However, Figure 24-1 shows k this distance to be about 240 feet. Use "of this smaller value for x will also result in a rebound time shorter than the 90 days 1 which you have computed. j, (1) please justify or correct the above apparent discrepancies and, ll if appropriate, provide revised analyses to better define the rebound time to be expected following a prolonged dewatering i+'I system failure. A more conservative analysis might involve utilizing the recovery data from the appropriate pump tests, il 1 f. e., K = 31 fps. q (2) In determining rebound time, it is our position that you should
- i
!. j a,lso postulate failure of non-Saisrate Category I piping at
- i critical locations. This should include the circulating water
- >s conduits.
MP. li- ___ _.... _.. _ _. _ ~. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ - _ _. _, _.. _ _.
- = _ _ _a __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, __,i,L_, _ J _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ l_ . J. 1* t. j
- ! 1
- .; f.
ff (3) Demonstrate that there remains adequate time to install and implement a back-up dewatering system to prevent groundwater U from rising above elevation 610 feet.
- 50. Your Response to Request 24 concludes that there is groundwater recharge h
from the cooling pond in the area of the intake and pump structures fi because pumping tests at well PD-15A resulted in very lettle drawdown ],. at observation wells SW-1. SW-4 and RR-1. However, for several indicated reasons, you also concluded that there is very little recharge in the area of the discharge structure and one of these reasons is that there is very little drawdown at observation wells PD-3 and PD-208 as shown by Figure 24-14. These appear to be contradictory conclusions (i.e., how can vary little drawdown indicate I- ( recharge at one location and no recharge at another nearby location?). Provide additional infonnation to support and clarify your conclusion 4 that there is negligible recharge in the area of the circulating water in discharge structure. (Also see related Request 47(2)).
- 51. Your response to Request 24 regarding the area well dewatering system concludes that 22 wells pumping at an average rate of 5 gpm would be T needed to remove groundwater stored within the backfill and natural sands. Two more wells are provided for infiltration and pipe leakage.
j! j; You have not demonstrated whether 24 wells would also be a sufficient number to maintain the area groundwater at the desired elevation following remova1 of the groundwater already in storage. Provide o ti I 4, h h 1 ! l-.
T~ m T --a x. .u s i i ! !'i ( additional infonnation to demonstrate that 24 wells will maintain groundwater levels below elevation 610 feet and provide the design basis used for this determination. Additionally, justify your use of 14 percent for an average Significant Yield Coefficient.
- 52. Your response to Request 24 discusses the source of groundwater which you have detennined from pumping tests in the vicinity of the t
~ l Service Water Pump Structure and the Circulating Water Intake and Discharge Structures. However, no tests appear to have been conducted to detennine if Dow Chemical's Tertiary Water Treatment Pond, shown on FSAR Figure 2.1-1A and located jus'. west of the nuclear plant, represents a potential source of groundwater. We are aware of your conclusion that inflow of groundwater from outside the plant area is (- precluded by the cooling pond dike which enccmpasses the nuclear plant site; however, you have pnsvided no infonnation to support this conclusion with respect to the Dow pond. Also lacking is information on the details of your West Plant' Dike shown on FSAR .] Figure 2.5-46. Provide infonnation to demonstrate whether the Dow pond is or will be a source of groundwater at your plant site. As a minin:um, include the following: (1) Provide a general description of the Dow pond (size, depth. ] capacity, purpose, contents, sealing method, etc.). Specify ) 3 maximum elevation of the water in the Dow pond with relationship to the groundwater levels below the plant. Include a sketch showing distances and elevations of the Dow pond relative to the West Plant f Dike. C \\ 1
} j-c w I {. (2) Provide details on your West Plant Dike. Compare the West Plant Dike to your cooling pond dike, including any similarity in their quality of construction and their source of construction materials. { It appears'that plant excavation extended to the area where the j West Plant Dike is located; discuss whether and how excavation for the plant affected construction of the West Plant Dike. (3) Provide as-built drawings of the West Plant Dike. (4) Provide the results of any tests conducted to reach a conclusion j on the effect of the Dow pond on the groundwater beneath the -{ plant. t j (5) If the Cow pond is a potential source of groundwater, provide i!j analyses of the chemistry of this water (both present and future) i and describe its effects on the dewatering system and other under-( ground components (piping, tanks, etc.). Identify any agreements ,f l or plans you have to monitor and control the contents or ' influence 4 i of the Dow pond during plant operation. 6 (6) Provide groundwater elevations in the warehouse area which is located between the Dow pond and the West Plant Dike. 1
- 53. Your discussion of the interceptor well system design in response to f;
Request 24 assumed that seepage would flow into a 400 foot slot located 150 feet from the cooling pond. You assumed that part of this slot would be ineffective because the intake and pump structures would cut off part of the seepage from the cooling pond. To account for this cut off. 'l you assumed that the slot would be located 450 feet from the cooling i pond instead of 150 feet. This " assumption reduced the quantity of inflow I to the slot. 1 ( e v
- L.:7
=-
==c -
=L
=Pr=A
== = a. Hf q. c '. j.' i -j-i ( 3;w Figures 24-9 and 24-10 indicate that 5 to 10 feet of natural sand + exists below the intake and pump structures (See Request 47(3)). Consequently, these structures may not cut off or reduce the seepage l from the cooling pond. You should therefore recompute total ground- 't water inflow without any reduction for the structures and recompute the number of interceptor wells required. Reposition and space wells .[ accordingly. Alternately, provide additional information to support ? g your conclusion that the structures serve as positive cut offs. -f ( I e g. t -1 1 4 + f t i 6' b ______r..__ ~~~ L
m .... A n,.. d.hd )f L h s ....s t 1 d 015TRIBU'10N: L Du ket Files FRinaldi DL:LB #3 Files Acappucci 3GW OCT 141930 NRC POR Local PDR bec: NSIC 4 Docket Nos.: 50-329/330 W RTedesco TIC 4 .I Filiraglia ACRS (16) DHood -JLee Mr. J. W. Cook ELD Vice President IE(3) Consumrs Power Co pany FSchauer 1945 : 2st Parnall Road w Rhm;;.. Jackson, Michigan 49201 JKimbell WPaton Daar Mr. Cook: y LHeller JKane e
SUBJECT:
SEISMOLOGICAL INPUT FOR THE HIDLAND SITE One of the open items associated with our radiological safety review of your application for operating licenses for Hidland Plant, Units 1 and 2, and identified in our letter of !! arch 30,1979, is the esta'blishment of acceptable seismological input parameters. for approval of the remedial actions associated with the soils settlecentReso !.O, matter which was the subject of the December 6,1979 Order on Modification of Construction Pemits. be#> mas noted in your response to our previous requests 361.2, 361.4, 361.5'and 361.7, you consider the Michigan Basin to be a distinct tectonic province for the purpose of evaluating site seismic design input, whereas during the Midland OL review, the staff has found insufficient support that the Central Stable ] .t. Region can be subdivided into separate tectonic provinces. 'q#~ quake (SSE) characterized by Modified Mercalli I thistoric seism 7 d. i $1'. Modified Housner response spectra anchored at 0.12g.n ensity (FNI) of VI, and a Discussed below is the staff's current view as to two acceptable approaches, either of which specifies g g'p.,, quires consideration of soil amplification.the controlling earthquake from ( i ' t -.., 0, U. The controlling earthquake we would currently requim to be used in detemin- ., l y,?.' . ing the SSE for the Midland site is similar to that which occurred in Anna, Ohio i in March 1937, and has a body' wave magnitude of 5.3 y , and a tNI of VII-VIII. 41 - *, Nutt11. (State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake Ha Nds in the United States, L <.1 Report 12..Cmdible Earthquakes for the Central U. S.: ii.9* 1, Anqy Engineering Waterways Experiment Statton.1978) using an alternativeMisc. P L i:0~. J method has also suggested this magnitude as the Tiiximum" when using residual.,' [ d events (those remaining after seismic zones such as Anna, Wabash Valley,*etc. I.'!'.1". are removed) for the Central United States. It is imortar.t to note that the u,.. July 29, 1980 Kentucky earthquake had a magnitude of 5.1-5.4 M and .,l
- ' '..
- . occurred in a ". rusidual area",
i bLI .t ... e,.r.- t,.,.n The following alternatives of characterizin Section 2.5.2:the staff and am consistent with the staff s Standard Review P ~ l .l orrece .a... summe a4...................:......................'. .........z N .c... N ~~
~ [o . y,., 4 a fir. J. W. Cook - -E-i The Anna Ohio earthquake of l' arch 9,1937 is the largast historic carth-quake in the Central Stable Region tectonic province. This carthquake had a 1011 of VII-VIII and should be assumed to occur near the site ^ (Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, SRP Section 2.5.2). Using this inton-sity one acceptable approach would be based upon the standardized response spectra of Regulatory Guide 1.60 anchored at 0.199 as determined by the trend of the r.eans of the intensity acceleration values in Trifunac and Brady (Scismological Society of Ic.arica Dull., V. 65.1975). An alternative rcathod of describing the SSE and responsa spectra result-ing fro:n an " Anna" type earthquake assumed to occur near the site involves t using the magnitude. As was indicated during the recent OL review on Sequoyah, magnitude may be a more realistic estimate of earthquake size a than intensity. Themfom o description.of the SSE can also be obtained by collecting representative real time histories for a magnitude of 5.3 +.5 M, , epicentral distances less than 25 kilometers at soil sites. L i ' ^*'Such a co1TNtion has been made by Lawrence Livemore Laboratory (LLL. ",
- Draft. Seismic Hazard Analysis: Site Specific Response Spectra Results.
August 23, 1979) but it would be beneficial if you update this data set as appropriate. It is the staff's position that the representation appropri-ate for use in establishing the SSE is the 84th percentile of the response
- j
, spectra as derived directly from the real time histories. The input for the comparative analysis of your present response spectra (Modified Housner) and Regulatory Guide 1.60 both anchored at 0.12g was at the , foundation level.' It is our conclusion that the appropriate location for , vibratory gmund motion input for your Midland site be at the topeof the natural glacial till (essentially the original regional ground surface). Above this till'is a thin ' sand layer which is highly variable in density and the com-1 pacted fill'that was placed to raise plant grade. Therefom either of our above acceptable approaches will also mquire an assessment of soil amplifica- -tion from.the till surface.- .c. a j 'We are available to meet with you at your earliest opportunity to discuss the above a roach in order.that acceptable data and methods of describing vibra-
- tory motion can be utili. zed for the Midland. site.'
.*w8
- t. ; !.
f. kontact our' project manager, Darl Hood, if you wish to arrange such a meeting U' .. : 1 + W r' (or desin' clarification of'this letter. f J ,r m ru r i.,i x, m n, ;, m m ;. 2, r. seeO w n.a (c.;t..1 *%.c.:. ' Sincerely * '.. ',"I. ",. : 4 I .Y ?1. i. r Vente ;;.;....; ;;.m.i:, :u,. e[.r[
- 1.;,,.
v..:ur,W v..: %cie :.: ::Q. W* im,. i,1:.d u,. :.:*.* y. of cr....-, Robert'L. Tedesco c...r.;c, t e,p.in Assistant Director for Licensing' We sitt.*;. n 8 ' ~ t i.o 1. o..,.. ... J... %...-: Division of Licensing i. . *. A, *. c t.. -.....
- n t-u.,Pi
..6
- See previous yellow cc: See next page
...0MLB.J.3....... ?.0E.:.S ER........*M ;@...... }...10 ELD .. DL:LB.A1.. <:f q.--..! AD ,..ESchaue r......... WPa tch .. RLTo da orr cc i L, sw..c>..0smoJ@//...ra u kson..... 9/....... /.80,,,,,9/,,,,,,, /8p,, U p/,, /,,, p 3,,.1N.... m. /.80, J QU L/ SL j j obc >..lSI.. !... M9.. - -... m :: ; -}}