ML20093N659
| ML20093N659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1977 |
| From: | Kane J NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19258A087 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BX17-009, CON-BX17-9, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408020086 | |
| Download: ML20093N659 (12) | |
Text
1
[r:m b M MIDLAND 1r2-FSAP d
y,ge. 4
'l 2.5.4 STABILITY OF SUBSUFFACE MATERIALS AND FOUNDATIONS f
2.5.4.1 Geologic Features 1
- i 2.5.4.1.1 Areas of Potential Uplift, Subsidence, or Collapse The geology of the plant site is presented in Subsections 2.5.1.2.1 through 2.5.1.2.4.
Foundation conditions including potential surface or subsurface uplift, subsidence, or collapse, 1
regional warping, and unrelieved residual stresses are described in Subsection 2.5.1.2.5.
The seismic response of the foundation materials is presented in Subsection 2.5.1.2.6.
It.is concluded that potential uplif t, subsidence, or collapse is not significant to the site.
1 2.5.4.1.2 Previous Loading History 4
The site soil strata consists of 350 feet of clay, silt, and sand SRP as des'cribed in Subsection 2.5.1.2.2.
Except for a small amount
. g %2.5 g of recent alluvium present in the Tittabawassee River floodplain, a
these soils were deposited by the last stage of the Pleistocene
.g56 age glaciation.
All the materials below the top of the p3 brownish gray clay (Unit c, subsection 2. 5.1. 2. 2. 2) to the 9
_ qg ri bedrock surface have been subjected to a load equivalent to at A
least 20,000 lb/fta.
The load was probably caused by the latest
[
thick ice sheet which covered the southern peninsula of Michigan.
t 2.5.4.2 Properties of Subsurf ace Materials
' Laboratory soil testing was done by Dames & Moore and Michigan.
j Drilling Company.(se) The scope and type of testing were specified by Bechtel for the Dames & Moore investigations.
Michigan Drilling investigations were performed for Dow Chemical Company in 1956 and for consumers Power company in 1968.
The following laboratory tests were performed to determine the soil design parameters in regard to plant foundation evaluation, dike design, and suitability of borrow material.
a.
Visual and laboratory classification b.
Grain size analysis g
NM c.
Atterberg limits 2.5.4/2 d.
Natural water content and density e.
Compaction
{
8 gg g.
Relative density a
h.
Permeability Revision 1
.i 8408020086 840718 2.5-40 11/77 PDR FOIA
'l RICE 84-96 PDR rm
[
MIDLAND 152-FSAR
!j l
- 1
- i-1.
consolidation
'l
{-
j.
Shear strength
.f k.
Dynamic moduli of elasticity J
1.
Liquefaction
)
2.5.'4.2.1 visual and Laboratory classification j
Samples were initially classified visually in the field, and i
subsequently in the laboratory in accordance with the Unified soil classification System (see Lambec so),
t
]
2.5.4.2.2 Grain Size Analysis
,1 Mechanical analysis and hydrometer tests were performed on i
representative soil samples in accordance with ASTM D 422-63.
{.
Grain size curves from these tests are presented in Appendir 2n_
Section 2n 2-Grain size distribution bands which encompass the l
individual grain size curves for the near surface in situ soil strata are shown in Fiaure 2.5-?e-The mean grain size, D 0, for 4
5 i
various areas is plotted against depth in Fiaures 2.5 2.5-31.-
and 2 5,
(
The grain size distribution curves were used to refine the visual 1
soil classifications, to judge suitability of borrow materials, s
to aid in compaction control, and to correlate with shear strength criteria.
1 2.5.4.2.3 Atterberg Limits l
=.
Atterberg limits, liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), and i'
plasticity index (PI), were determined according to ASTM D 423-60 2Af *Rfe,1.41 i
and 424-19.
The data are shown on the borina loas in Annenair g
and are also cummarized on plasticity charts in Figures 2.5 wf%
2.5-31, and 2.5-32._
ii 2.5.4.2.4 Natural Water content and Dry Density Natural water content according to ASTM D 2216-70 and dry density tests were made on undisturbed samples in conjunction with
. j engineering properties tests and also for the purpose of soil identification.
Moisture content tests were also made on disturbed soil samples.
The data are shown on the borina loas un j
Anoendir 2A.
Summary of test data for the plant area is shown
.,n j
Tig m 2.3-33.
g
,,, n,,,,,4,3 L-o 4
2.5-41 i
T
)h
_ _,_ _ _ _ i U h _ _ _ '.~ 2 Z : Z., Z : _
i,
[hlbb
__ l l
MIDLAND 162-FSAR 4
l
{
2.5.4.2.5 Specific Gravity Specific gravity of solids was determined in accordance with
,f.
ASTM D 854-50 in conjunction with consolidated-drained triaxial tests for cooling pond foundation and embankment soil samples.
Results are presented in Table.2.5-3.
f 2.5.4.2.6 compaction
+!
compaction tests were performed to develop criteria for placement of fill underneath and around structures, and for embankments.
Two-compaction methods were used.
These are the_ ASTM n 1557-66T WM method and the astu n 1ssv-sse -a+hna -nA4riaa +a
ch4.=
=
l comoaction anarav af 20_nna saa+-nannda ner cubic foot _ of soil, compaction tests were performed on bulk samples retrieved from
~
the borrow source.
Results are presented in Appendix 2B. Section 12 3-1 l 9J.t5.11 2.5.4.2.7 Relative Density M 15'bk Relative density tests were performed on bulk samples of granular soils.
These were made in accordance with astm o 20ue-sat _
2
~
Results are presented in Appendix 2B, Section 2B.4.
2.5.4.2.8 Permeability l'
constant head permeability tests were conducted in the manner described in Appendix 28, Section 2B.5 on undisturbed samples i
from the cooling pond foundation soils and on compacted samples from embankment borrow material.
Most compacted samples were prepared at optimum moisture content and compacted to 955 of j'
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557-66T modified to achieve 20,000 foot pounds of compactive energy per cubic foot of soil or 70% relative density as determined by ASTM D 2049-64T.
l!
Three samples were compacted to 955, 935, and 100% of maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D 1557-66T.
The permeability data are presented in Appendix 2B, Section 2B.5, and summarized in Table 2.5-4.
it j
2.5.4.2.9 consolidation i
Thirteen consolidation tests were performed by the dead i
load-pneumatic consolidometer developed by Dames 6 Moore.
The test procedure is described in Appendix 2B, Section 2B.6.
samples were loaded (at the field moisture content) with-a pressure equal to or greater than the existing overburden and i ;
were rebounded prior to performing standard consolidation tests.
l The standard test was then made under submerged conditions.
An additional test was performed on a compacted specimen prepared
'~
from a bulk sample from the cooling pond area.
The data are l
l 2.5-42 t
i
-.y
--. ; =.
._..__=
- r ::-:-
~ :L
~
h.
MIDLAND 162-FSAR shown in Appendix 2B, Section 2B.6.
Consolidation tests were made to provide data for estimating settlement.
The preconsolidation pressures were estimated by the procedures developed by casagrande,(*03 Janbu,(*13 Rutledge,(sa) and also 4
?
from shear strength using the relationship developed by.-
Skempton.(*33 As depicted in Figure 2.5-34 the-overconsolidation f
ratio for the glacial tills at the site is relatively large.
The estimated preconsolidation pressure ranged from approximately 8,000 to 36,000 lb/fts with a minimum range of 15,000 to 20,000 lb/fta for the upper 50 feet of glacial till.
For the lower i
stratum of glacial till, the evidence of the high degree of i-overconsolidation based on consolidation test data alone was not conclusive.
However, the high preconsolidation for the till below 50 feet can be deduced from the geologic evidence, laboratory shear strength tests, and geophysical shear wave velocity measurements.
site geology study indicates that the plant area was overridden by a thick ice sheet during continental glaciation (see subsection 2.5.1.2).
Bcth laboratory shear strength and the measured shear wave velocities show that the
'j rigidity of glacial tills increases with depth.
Therefore, it can be conservatively concluded that minimum range of il preconsolidation pressure of 15,000 to 20,000 lb/fta is applicable for the entire depth of till.
I' The normalized compression and swelling indexes (ce,,./1+e.) for c
the glacial tills were estimated by Dames & Moorecss) on the basis of laboratory tests.
Because the added pressures due to plant facilities will not exceed the estimated preconsolidation
- 1 pressures, the normalized swelling indexes were calculated from the first load-rebound cycle and adjusted to account for sample
- l disturbances which influence the sicpe of the compression rebound curve.
These values, together with other pertinent soil parameters, are presented in; Table 2.5-5. -
I' l'
2.5.4.2.10 shear strength Two basic types of shear strength tests were made, namely undrained tests and drained tests.
The undrained strength tests were direct shear tests, unconfined l:
compression tests, and unconsolidated-undrained triaxial compression tests.
Tests were performed in the manner described by Dames & Moore (see Appendix 2B, Section 2B.7) The majority of
- l these tests were made on undisturbed sasples, although some tests
- j were made on compacted samples.
Direct shear tests performed by Dames 6 Moore are shown on the individual boring logs in Appendix 2A.
Unconfined compression l'
and unconsolidated-undrained triaxial compression tests were performed for plant area, cooling pond dike, and railroad embankment soils by both Dames & Moore (se) and Michigan Drilling
(
company. (s e) The results of tests made by Dames & Moore are i'
t 2.5-43
!i l
1
=
=
=r-.:
- ======
~
~
~
~~
T
. ;;7 7
fl MIDLAND 152-FSAR summarized in Table 2.5-6 and are included in Appendix 2B, i
Section 2B.7.
The results of unconfined compression tests j'
j performed -by Michigan Drilling Company are shown on the
(
individual boring logs in Appendix 2A.
Undrained shear strength il based upon all direct shear, unconfined compression, and
' j unconsolidated-undrained compression tests for plant area are i;
plotted against ele'vation in Figure 2.5-33.
- i The drained tests consisted of drained direct shear tests and consolidated-drained triarial compression tests.
These tests
~
oj were performed on undisturbed samples from the cooling pond
- i embankment foundation soils and cospected embankment soils.
The 1
test methods and results are given in Appendix 2B, Section 2B.7, d.,
and further summarized in Table 2.5-3.
Il Rock compression tests were performed on selected samples of the l
gray shale bedrock which underlies the power plant area.
These tests were performed utilizing Standard ASTM D 2938-71 procedures.
The results of the rock compression tests are presented on the left of Boring Log D1 (Appendix 2A).
Ultimate compressive strengths measured were 6,051 and 7,630 psi.
f!
2.5.4.2.11 Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity Four cyclic triaxial tests were performed on cohesive samples to determine the dynamic modulus of elasticity within a certain range of cyclic strain amplitude.
Two tests were made in
(
mid-1968 on undisturbed samples of silty clay containing some i,
i l sand and gravel.
In 1970 two more undisturbed samples of silty l;
clay were tested.
The results of all four cyclic triaxial tests
- j are presented in Table 2.5-7.
4-2.5.4.2.12 Liquefaction il.;
Six remolded samples from the plant area were tested in cyclic triaxial compression at various relative densities, confining
+
pressures, and cyclic deviator stresses in accordance with the method of Lee and Seed.C**3 Test results are illustrated in Appendix 2B, Section 28.8.
l' 2.5.4.3 Exploration 2.5.4.3.1 General Seismic study is discussed in Subsection 2.5.4.4.
Wells and geologic profiles are addressed in Subsections 2.4.13 and 2.5.1.2
- l respectively Limits of required excavation and borrow site are presented in Subsections 2. 5.4.5 and 2.5.6.4.
Piezometers are l}
discussed in subsection 2.5.6.8.
j
.1 ti t
!l 2.5-44 is
[!
. -. - -. 2T L. - - - - -.- =.-
=....}
- r. l
-* ~ r g ;,,,,,, 7,,,==,,,.a f ~
.se.wm*.
wm%
-.~ v. wA--
- *c - *. -www A C s-m-
a-i,y.ggf)'
'~
a-s -;.,j,Q
.s
.)., g,'
.]
la- { [,, s '
.;.2
..+34
-' t
. > :g.,
~y g g,
-q 1
mi c
4..,
edYnse.kokR( fo3-Q _. %,: s'. n' n.
odth i
- GWe, e r.; n. m u
,\\
wg w. ~.
gp yapy.we
,n y,..,, wga.
.,.%m:.
n
, s-.
se 's-V g,qf t?.anuf';n**
C,U C
Ott o CC 5'
td' GCCCf UWG
'h;fk.
_: s
- y uk4% w wpc
.;gg
,3
~,.,
,.> m
[
W De 41 MI. N ON
.I{Q W'
C c :vw 6 ms6ce _ se shton3 7
- m. y.e.s.E. g < - q
.. s.,:..w r... s. n.,
Me Mt C
dmen o.,dcCawitNS-
[n.E h i
ts =.g
.[M e y a 5 {ed Qanhd m be.%x nll gQg.,
- ~
f WI w
_n.m Fx
. m. ~. y-.y n.>,;.;
u m
50(Chun
% ssh%nd,je hO opnd Sk(vc Vft W'C4 jhfh$hf.I
~,
L L%~qku%uJuh mRt@@v;nA m
7 8
3sWWp:,+
Qi.h.g.
,. u.-.
g lgg%
) (1N
.w..b., - q m
Vi 1
<e..
syd % ca cadus%d3 3
? p c b 4 % % 1 % wonc can 6 c.
y 7pp._g
~_3
- ek a u cp e s e w sekade 4. % g Q~.Q.'
, m
- # r'p*;*(-
./..
f J p+
J p.
w
..j.,
j W.K l
a ':....,
,..j%'d:
{}r0 Ewi W gW 2 #,.
- GCh..
L,i. %-
in3 e6ng CKcedd m q a. m,2.i p p
+.a r
. y-3,A w..
ki
[.".2 Udt t n }' ts on l Pb he-foh fIC,h6 c.,.$,.# ' C4y.k k
..w.
s r
N,~:., 7.cM ch CACC4 ht ip6R
. s.
r.
~
'.C :..E,rMO. d%
t
. N '".a:-/-,f*e3 h 6 O P'1 7
I a
\\$ Q1( '
M.CA ? ISO (0
'i i
l i
.4;' % l 9W'&. s Drive.fiki cnkna baHs Ltda}ll scq0> *-
C'yMW$
.?
4.
s ~
w,
- 1. 4 @ :
3 hMgMwr@dM9,h(.seb4 -M o.pky N.Q.,@.g.
}ksk%
- s.,.n.< y ;@,.
r
- F.
., e O.,4.. g..
n
.;,.,'.E. Ik @
a.'
~,,
..e
. t.s?
y.-.u a
. : g., ;:
y..
.s
-i, ;,-p y
.:f *;.'g..
- W d' * *,/ Q, <[H.f',..:4] w w':~....=, ?.
h5
.+. { ~ v k
i
. n.t,
^ +.
c4
.w.
oy., ?
A L+'-
1
_.y.ssj
.. gi,g s
y z
n'.,
~
~ ~, '
? '. '.' *.,,'. V a
- , t, ;,f..' ' &. Y. * ' >'
?
R',*?;~.,i5:W$,,
')
.O..,: -,ie
,c W-%:
s' f:.u &
l W ',*\\ '
- Y5
.L V
.\\.
s 4 '.. P=',y,1 l I
. x, 3
.s,
,0,. "e t
- 't e
o. *
+
x 5. - m _.._._. ~
J g.;; - e j a e u.._.
w _ q. a._
-.. e
.s..,
-_.m gg g j;,,
p 7
.s mwx
,;,~~<.~
.+.
~,
- . c.;
w.,
+, - m;>.;y p'm;
- m
.'?,M
/q
.3 :
c ;: -
y
- W,,gy *
.scua..yg[b,g9 ;
g,u.
- 'sb
~,
4.um...,w c c f.'
- r n eL i
... ~-. _ _
e.
qt y
i.
J...
W psp,'. '?!A,W,4%i '
s a.mw+g%g.4
'.a
'O k m. A wepas be - QMg m
~ 4 n.f? me,.
' C. ^ *n, '*9 ~.g nh.s w a v c
..j f':.p
.~
i s
$mcq, (nQg 1-y b
~
f/,. gg M,, P)
{g w. - m. a,
~
.N.
F-5N9. u rele.vo,# suwa cedrwooslv 9ckdel MM':.
- [s j
w
.s
.a-C 'r i" {u a
. m.".:.ik
.%f 4
r.
h h NEr?'3GlhJ t
.f
... g... _ p,..
%.,w
. s, m
u
..., m:*~.q
?f*. A,..
LU4 6
- f. Ys u
.y&'*..h,.
' : -:, l,,
Qed
\\
h '.
..S.
N C
'M0 i '
-'a
- - s..q w
" J q.J.Rg so.sM R4 gg d.*
y3
,...,%,..s....r.t,1, c 4
sr
^; A 'y.1 Q.&
L&
.Wr%('tg$
I .
,s.
, t.m 2 O%Ccn (EW(h 5 qy L..+.-
"6':la,7*j:*. f.:..Q %f;f::
\\
N '-
L
!r !5:!$t f.
~%
3
^p y.,p,42,
'. %.7
~~.. j -,?; 'fl
= t... ':
4;.Ir,,=C.5V.*,)
M a
g.
t sp,..,#ihk p-
./.,,
7
,v.
k
.' s, ad, n * *
..g< 4t'7 gr' h ;. f '.
f}&. 3:b ;ne,W'M
- ,.n.
),q f M
- v,, t c.,.n *m'w;';,s. t,, c'
.4. ' :m 6
--*l' *e pg v e W
.e r ed qs' s
~ h.a-. wd
,. -,. h,f,,.N 'el 0
3
-n-
's
, e ' $,%,'QtN. **e
,R'.... -f.
n i v
-r,,,
, v s wh.
< c,%:t.s,ey.
e
'{ '$p.d
- !.s.3> -
1
,.,&p L f :C
', ki'T'T E $Qg
.v.*
5X
.* ?*
a a.
l'- Q. j %'&*d*
' 'a u qfs,&1,s,.iI
,,,.....,5. '. ',.4. h,.. y;..
i ; e.gM...,4,ep.f l,
j,,.
.y
~ Af. My.. '.*.L.v 4.
- n. - t.,
. u.4
- e.,.. ?,.W, c.......
- - qg. -W..
c.
r,
.ps%
eb.
C,..s..
..., :,r, e,..,.
m,.,g u.+...y yw.a -,ed...
.w
./ _
~,.-
, ;~ ;:,3.%
..n
. ' @y,Q u.
- ,. r.v; -; ;,,., m q
- :; %
(%q y,,
y,.
f..w,
.7 s.c.
,... o g.
~.L '. y W 4,,@,..W.,.. c,
.. ~
M
\\f. M,c%,;w.f. p.
..-......i.,-
eqsh, *r., l'*. -l, ~,; re e b.,..m
, s..
lP. *l 3 3 6
3
- ,.L%
p *$- Af *,*'5*MM'{.hp g 9,.,.
.,g.%
- 2. go....
-c' sV,%
g,,r.4.'*
'.kf C ',2
.I
[,.
s.
. r,,,;,}1 n,,
. ~.
- g.,f.m.' h+ p,Gse..,m,, m.' w tp
.w.y.:.w ife u.P-
, j..
,,. m,,2.*; G.' 4.** y,,W.y:.;m a
,w; % 'p y :
n *,. -
M 4 ^. :. '.s'.'q>
- ^
G C'L. J s *,*'L :,3 7 i,K,2 3 - 7... y.: % b- ;..,,. *. ;~;,n
,Q v..:c;,,..
- ,> s
~
~ ' ' -
.. - r
.. ~...
. ".,y,t
..w.. -. g,;q: sy.y
. ; ~.. :,. l,...
- f * *. :. g. '. s.
t q
,.; x'y:,,ta r.y s
- ', '. ~,. -
.c,,,, r,- :
e,.\\
m l '* * **"G=y'b'y *y- %
Vll Q'Q;., & ;f," '.f', d.,' k..m!*J,M'..
- 4,'q.W...
- . a.y,y
.,,4
.e q.
p
].'. % :&.;
- j* n _ * *,;,
. ' ' * * ' 'f g QM.;d.... s.R.f.ff fW,, Q,. d.y4, W>2%
.v.,
- ;:& ~ AgiM%a,.
. Q.Ulqf Q Q:.y.Q Q < "
- ,,,,,;y;*y's.e:..Q7. '.
a "f.yQ,
- 2M *V..
'.~
- d. R.,.. Q,y, Q,; Q p, ' f'
'4.h:4y m-c.
g-4 -m 2;,, 5
..,... c m g y g,, h.-Q r.' %.( q. 5 -
e g,
,4 y yp D d
,(
.. f f., lq :,
, c,. g,NNN ;
j.
M i
.. ~., m.
- , s - *J,...,m.,, %, q" 4', s t
4 g-
+ f.g *~* e,a. T
.n' s
,w.#. - n.,,- ;
s
- 1 I..,r, 5,
l e
I e
- r. f A{s f s
- *... i.1.y.. i-.
p'.
.V.. e,
- .e
'*"r',
)
+
- r.,
.s-
-p e
g*
y gg
}'
, '4.,#.
~
1., ; i
.g s
A.'
a 6
- l
~
~
.~
3,.
b.. !
eA,,*
e g
,,+
,e
.g '
- 4, e
.[. ".6.". =,. c..
't
- s, s g
..c
- p ym,
.*>y
. m:,
. N a;.;-:.;
Q..,Lg'j m
L i
C F
g
,,.,.,,i.,,s,1
,f #'
..u.f
,.s. g.a,g %,g
__r,,.
s 4. ?. +.'4,.,.7,,,,4',.
s ;
., w y,,,,.
L'._
M4P9*1g., ' - -- }/Wtoe- ***
y-f
,_ s
.n w g1
.~
n.-._s g,,,
t:
Snlai D
I.Ib,s..
_h{p(dg OL d d 4 hh((qFb.
b r.
,w.
m.*-*o s-
-_,.a
~. -... _. -
i
_ mew..>.
g,
>$d __ rdtrvd.c.1 requed g%f h dehern.w.4. Riere o RWewpete_._
@M.
-._asswance AtA.6h4}c eke. dtchecp4J Abdem
?
pk.htM M WL _._rzk.3;a 45R Q h.4kvexe 4 wA b M2
.[
_. _. r *duda.5R9xerdsws 3cb.=c k M n m._cn b g M ck 3 4 _
3-[
_ emse AstJ..\\.Tecwoico es p< Ategahl,4.ybmW
.h. ;,
_ _. _ _Fac)Wms.d1 scopM-Sc. oru. offewew d*
WQ
.k6.c4bs_wsh.49c44.cnhossuh_o2.h.huvalb,4 '
_.lvhLc6 h.SckvAs,_bukTechcd Josiks /c.
2
! 4._.c..b_S%c._su_sec6,O.s.41t g 1sSr.hkeog.
cohem woe w,ch.& & wace sp4c uptas goe.enq Mot <..a Roro4 uthhvi 4-b phuW eqmeerwg upd._m.
l
_. _. Med.eeolps Shc db Ad oyywh. Jeu. ekksd._.
J
+.4
-........ ~.
.!. .g4.
i
.ta.*p
_l m
.. ~.. _
"~
mspl.
, s
, _. E __.
,, k.
_M
._--e,
_sf W.x.~.
Nb C... h D A..
.__khb '
k.t., m a- -. -. _ -
n u
y III%" _
NINS.
O)h3
.. t @
IG.
M IE-pQ.
R$
hNk QsqQw, S*te.4 yarhcdad Ac
' 1 "c* crb -
4 vd shcwd 3
n C.?k
- $.. p$
sc.smmyJ.,m t.
y kb ss aheh awsmad wt fespcww. h hk<vog. no.s. f.,%9nn n h % (,-
.. e e
4w:
=
h
.hnd(pthAb,,
kwh(fcg. O 11 N we. y
- f. 'To b thmng (_ _
- p. "
6nse opy chen MRW Ah w.h pce 4 q %6n \\ ddo __.
h m
(
F 4
7' da e *...
P
,e9'k 7
w 4
- , = ', '
.', wim( :,vg.4. m,u.* 4 4
I. p l 1.$p.' ' ) 3 ;,
-4 w w w,[,A,
, ?,,-
--u..
4_.
t,,y, M 'd','f j,'
Y.
I 1
s
- - - ' - - - - - ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
.4,
.g
~
-;g m,.
4 x
1 M
1l
$1es
- .'f-k.h
... e,
',$k
___ _..__upntd.h.hn.__ _. _
~# ;
. _._ M.na b wat3td x; C % y owd shk kw M iW cmc.% N. d....'.
9 Ni kiWTt 4 N (NM keJitukns bla h h V.td e ( t hc g
p ;_...a4 rupkro a.cc@na. en6a As on egrnyk.-b ony one aspcht A wrpn3 egneen9..
D.2%E g
.4)wesA,ckmyemmedlyhynohg - %c fee 2s.4.2 Mg
.. 4. hew.henh-weawsA_sewma eu,
' ig.
Mr.hst.sio dah entatL PNtocutes_
g
. f. "?
Senab yev,Mhemogc33.s-4o h es..4L -_
1is
.. __meks..kcu:x.epoce_unena.ckcasu wsRP SechoneA,'z,._;
MidN ord Rdo:lO9 StlM1on_2.6..I S...__
..._.Y. #e_w _i.
J ' ^ '-
.__ _.. __TWs. a veshel.
senblipoves.n 100%
_ n o< dedo
.ruyed..
.6 accwchcwxspose. +o cm Weu.Aw.
mad harka cheouygoNas %ks,Spespgpeaue aW hancl ecuj.14mucestwh xauencMe. cut umnceit x-
.. Oa. acceyhocyckdeca _wcas vweh.:._._ _
cw Maacereew~~J,.cn uu com%lk~~-..e-k
+ - -
- l..c s m a
.C W _ _._Aci. s
_asAud byenicaco +
by6 y,g J.-
oM hIVT1
'l I
k M
.y ww ms
~
ca<y sn a 4) 4-.
I N /,
.M lOn..groVtG -q C kW4ft jo W..
f..f.bh
\\ kRC sd,jd4 OMJ On.
fSW.J a
hoa (# read Jenkkd 1
iR P. _ __ _. a n 141LC:YestesGh, A_2,...... MFcREJEC4 Ah_
v' t "..,a..
L ;,, n**
.,n__._....
m l W,.O.3 * 'f
- lr%
,_,_[
I h,;.e 9
__..~ _.
- s.
I=
.,..,,,..w..2
.m_.....a-W'd.;,
gg y
- m..,
-.~
,g,
,I'
- :.L o.gp,Gm 3 y y
g y.
,c m.:7 -
,m
.;.,. gg;g; j&h
'h R$
{f
.gg N 'M _ '. _;-_$
a'l k. ^4l % $ $ & $..
.ix
m
- u m. _- -
_ gmQ q. _;
.s, v.;;; Wi---]
g e
-f 7 3\\nlu
+
t.;. 2 5Nons
'?? :
_.. Suhtd: QC. Lbr%a,6te,5 --__
Q G
nie hs r
. - ~ -. - - -. -. - -.,.
O h
=-*.-%-.
MMk *1NRC (9ek<e, dieded do ddermniLoc.cfl#%e.nkd.
^
2 r,ew wo, A aJI'L,,mw wu, w awu
-=
e a
..j 3-Expoi fementtA l
ka uhMuknsa.&suct, cgcht_cr knci are wu.euarp{.e b Ell-een
.a
+
=-.-.-ea_%,.--.
I h
i i
k 4tgh df UnM k (e WI{
- 'nhl N
l get g
,.= -
4M 4<9ed _.
g 3
idDl.
_ Q J,alv c% ye,spnid la }Ltme.
~
j c.) 4, 4
. k. L H k 41. u l.r d c m m p a h % n p c a _..
~
Jgi
_ - _. _ A d,<b A}L %4,*1%ayn 4 4 e%,9 4.wacc. - o. k 4 ancp.s b e % <.1 % m p.se__
3 jf.,
k b unc p,,b oo.Ayuy y rup,,si9e d e p a-nd 3
y..
+ A.
h.
8 e.
.v-r,ei L
.c.
,g.
2 2..
.y m s
.m---
,- g y p was;h
- .u:
+ - =a._
x xg _3 w. "
- 1
- 3 -
f yj,.. ljfg
.I~~~
...m.
y
--___.._,'g,,,_;,,,_,-=
.,, f ',.. t ;. n y.
~
- ~1,. 3
. -~~a. _ _ -
- m,*
r,1f 3
.;j =!y_.hr,*_**: &a s
a
.f s.
..,c, s
xD
%q\\v
- -i z+1
., ;.?
d;Er
- s. p
_ b nb
.' +I
~
No h.
- D _ _
hk (upds h ed demfida in (espv. bhfar.1, shk. bc 9 b
.:) ]
L. k.k4y pdedn, mpo hinhy.S,shk.s)pch5Acf 3
"i f.'
_M Ad h{$* *msors '4 A 68Lk%1 a
<AinonlwASh))_b_coccUdMe.s.cssocmW ud,a Ad
'~ =
. ?-.,..- _. _. _. _ p & m \\\\ k s o \\ x A. _.. _ -
at I
b._. __b4cyn mkhnl shkiw ce 4
' ~-
y
,.u,.
O_
%)
ff4h In k) n3C 0 fila 4
LM h
Gih_ _64 7 C
__a5 mm+ c C% A pode. in caler hr Sh4_b concLJe_%h Q(e-Al cda., iJ k radic.A..._.. _..
i wesami i-4 k ecL ihr 4.i4.9nn in 93sce Onteu.12_ sh_fc.$. -2.c as b
_._4 1
G m..
. :.. y c55 _G_
nu.,
._Whrx4 h Shb,..,bn Mu.
1 :??._,:
q p
e,,g,,,Sr
'L c
yv
,.i 4,.
...m_
4 lb'*;' g
'?
c,* 3 in. l j.
m (u, s
.b A
's N_..,w--__
.,7 1
.._..,,.,[
_--.,m.
- -, - - + -
.4. &i,,;;
- O':)IV.'
a. iWw.h : ':" ~:. ~
- 2. s.y.,:*,;* D N d. L w.
a
-nn D
49'. '% e -'
J" W'
~
~
GM MAJ
- [_
[^ $ - -
[. '
..P@
'k$
,4,b4u L,
e * '
i,d a
u
^
%f e
- s g
O.
4 e
.L;,
t ' 3 g
sF
..... ~
-* * :9.,
e-
'A*
/
- e e.
- ' :'.,9,.r
. La,,
.(. _,
,.,. Q' 4 i S.
e ee.m-
% mm 4
I
/ew 4
,y
,#U
- * - ~
~
- s*_
.h G mdb ' +
k.".
I
@ 3All
~f h "
Z I
-~ - * ' ~
}. _ a.
, a J
=,
a/* '* 4 4 ' e) s
- r s.'.
k m
Q:-
- 6. >
O, S.T e
.,4. ~y 7 --
--Y..
~
j
~
^
WW y
L.-R
\\',rl'* '7
> a,. -..y.>
y[.
%e, W-
-s:a
~
. _. _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _.. ___.._. __ _ _ _ _ W na f
-.=-e.
-_.-.w s-4 4
,h er J
(..
3
. M &*j Q gli
' qq : n.;
- ,.v,.
.-c ;
- ,... - - - - m 3. ;g-~r.
7.~; :. m...
r7~ =9py -
- c. mynv;3 _
-h
~
-?
{e f
c 3
rJw h g
yt M E
}
M g Odd Nh li J
t FEB 2 7196f Docket Hos. 50-329/330 NEMORANDutt FOR: Robert Tedesco. Assistant Director for Licensing Divistoa of Licensing THRU:
Lyman Heller. Section Leader i'g Geotechnical Engineering Section Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering George Lear. Chief I
Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering FROM:
James P. Knight. Assistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering l
Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
INTERROGATORY RESPONSES - GEDTECHflICAL ENGIflEERIrlG IrlPUT i
Plant flame: Midland Plant. Units 1 and 2 Licensing Stage: Post CP i;
Docket flumbers: 50-329/330 Responsible Branch: LB No. 3, D. Hood. LPM Requested Completion Date: February 25, 1981 i,
i We have enclosed the Geotechnical Engineering input for responding to Constners Power Company's first set of interrogatories to the NRC staff wh t:h were dated November 17. 1980. This enclosed input was prepared by Joseph Kane. DOE. HGEB. GES and previous drafts of these responses had been i
i provided to Darl HoM to assist him in his efforts of coordinating a consistent response fermat with other Branches.
1
/
l !
i5 5
i James P. Knight. Assistant Director j
for Components and Structures
[Ivision of Engineering l
)
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See page 2
'e i
p, annr I nrf s
. w>~ nv t an.
\\\\ J
"'c8U.HGEB:DE l l HGEB,:0,E, A,/,hC,S,EM,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I l
"""'"'N. JKanefmc,.,.....,,H.GEB,:CE.....L8el.lN,g,,,,,.Glea r...,b,,,,.,.,.
.#.h.igh,t,,,,
t I
- * >.2/Sk./.83..... 2/.M.l.8],,,,, 2/,881,,,,,,,
2/,N,/,81 une r
=u ais,to. aci sacw mo OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- 'S**-3 S m
ic
.'1.
Robert Tedesco
- MB 2 71987 cc: w/o enc 1.
R. Vollmer W. Paton 4' '
w/ enc 1.
J. Knight d
G. Lear
- 1
'R. Jackson
'1 L. Heller
,1 D. Hood
.l H. Levin N. Gehring Detroit Dist. Corps of Engineers I::i i
F. Rinaldi A. Cappucci R. Gonzales D. Gupta J. Kane i
,6 e
s
'i i
i i
4 1
i e
i j
l 1
e
- g
'l
. =. -
1 Midland Plant - Units 1 and 2 Consumer Power Company Docket Nos. 50-329/330 Geotechnical Engineering Input into Interrogatory Responses n
3 Prepared by: Joseph Kane, DOE, HGEB, GES
}
- nterrogatory,1. Define " acceptance criteria,", as that term is used at
(
page 3 of the Order.
1 Response. Staff acceptance criteria are criteria used by the NRC staff to 1
deterwine whether the applicants design, requirements, criteria and information provides reasonable assurance that a facility, j
or repairs to a facility, can be constructed and operated without i
undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
The term " acceptance criteria" is widely used by the NRC staff in their work of evaluating the safety of nuclect power plant designs. For example in the field of geotechnical engineering, refer to Standard P.eview Plans (SRP) Sections 2.5.4 II, page l
2.5.4-3 and Section 2.5.5 II, page 2.5.5-1.
In the SRP examples 1j it is indicated that acceptance criteria would include, for each d
g specific and important engineering feature, a thorough evaluation of the particular engineering aspect along with submittal of basic data that supports all conclusions. This infonnation is necessary to allow the staff to conduct independent analyses and to reach their conclusion that reasonable assurance of plant safety can be expected at the CP stage and demonstrated at the OL stage of review.
J
.. 'l Interrogatory 2.
State which "of the Staff's requests were directed [as of y
or before December 6,1979] to the determination and f
justification of acceptance criteria to be applied to various remedial measures taken" (Order at page 3) and which portion of each request was so directed.
f H
q Response. The follouing table identifies and lists the Staff's requests
- n
!j directed [as of or before December 6,1979] to the determination and justification of acceptance criteria to be applied to the various remedial measures taken and the portion of the request which is 1;
applicable.
I N
lIJ 1
.i l
- i i
I d
s i.
4 4
.i O
k I
m
7
_mm Identification of Previous Applicable Portion of Date Request Submitted Staff Request Request to CP Co.
11 362.12(2.5.4)
First sentence December 11, 1978 1
362.13(2.5.4)
All but last sentence December 11, 1978 362.14(2.5.4.10.3)
Entire request January 18, 1979 362.15(2.5.4.5)
Entire request January 18, 1979 362.16(2.5.4)
Entire request January 18, 1979 362.17(2.5.4.10.3)
Entire request January 18, 1979 1
50.54 (f) Questions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 9, lo, Entire requests March 21, 1979 11, 12, 16 i
50.54 (f) Questions.
Entire requests November 19, 1979 I
Nos. 24d, 24g, 27, 31, 35 1
1 Interrogatory 3.
State and explain the reasons why,"such [ acceptance criteria],
coupled with the details of the remedial action, are necessary for the Staff to evaluate the technical adequacy and proper implementation of the proposed action."
(Order at page 3.)
I Response. The criteria as defined in response to interrogatory 1. along with
~
the specific details of the remedial action are necessary to permit the staff to reach their conclusion as to whether reasonable
[
assurance of plant safety has been demonstrated by the licensee.
Again, SRP 2.5.4 II reads " Sufficient information must be provided to allow the staff and its advisors to conduct independent analyses."
I t;
_~
my
+
S
- Interrogatory 4.
State and explain the basis for the statement. 'It page 3 of the Order, that "the information provided by the licensee i
fails to provide such criteria." (Acceptance criteria).
(Order at page 3).
Response. This interrogatory 4 is essentially the same as interrogatory 6 (d)
>]
and the Staff's response will be provided in answer to 6 (d).
1
- 4 Interrogatory 5.
State with particularity each item of information the Staff requested up and until December 6,1979 with regard to acceptance criteria.
L' Response. The particulars of each item of information requested by the Staff up and until December 6,1979 with regards to acceptance criteria have previously been provided in response to interrogatory 2.
a Interrogatory 6.
With regard to each item of information identified in response L
to interrogatory 5, state:
(a) the identity of the request; (b) whether Consumers responded to that request; (c) the e
identity of the comunication that the Staff considered I
Consumers response to the request; (d) whether the Staff considered the response adequate; (e) the identity of the
[
comunication by which the Staff comunicated its position as I
to the adequacy or inadequacy of the response; (f) the basis for the Staff's position regarding adequacy or inadequacy of N
e
s-
. -m F
3
<.. n y
Consumers response; and (g) the Staff personnel responsible
- s for determining whether Consumers' response was adequate or inadequate.
A b -
Response. With regard to each 'ltem of infomation identified in respense to E
Interrogatory 5 (which in turn refers to the answer to interrogatory 2). -
Table 6-1 hereto responds to parts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of interrogatory 6.
Answers to parts (e) and (f) of interrogatory 6 foll w.
r 4 f.i Regarding part (e) of interrogatory 6, the means by which the Staff ccmmunicated its position as to the inadequacy of the Licensee's response was primarily by the issuance of additional questions on the same subject. Th'e identification of the followup requests are listed in Table 6-1.
Forexample,50.54(f) Request 35 1
specifically indicated the response to previous Request 5 was unacceptable.
It is not Staff practice to indicate acceptable responses to Licensees, except by separate request on a case-by-case basis. Such indication of acceptance is typically left for issuance of the Staff's safety evaluation report for those responses
- j which are of significance to that report.
s Constners in response to several 50.54(f) Requests from the Staff elected to combine their answer into a response with another request.
As an example, Consumers answer ta requests 9 and 10 was directed to s
m;
_w
._ x, x c
the response of request 12 and request 16 response was directed
[
to request 17 and 19 response. The Staff in recognizing this
,ij combining would then direct any follow up question only to the finally referenced request.
.)
The basis for the Staff position of inadequacy shown by part (?)
of interrogatory 6 is that the Licensee's response failed to meet g
the Staff's acceptance criteria as define (in response to d
interrogatory 1.
Specific reasons for failing included not being fully responsive to the Staff's requests or insufficient submittal
~
!l of basic data to support the conclusions or positions submitted by i
the Licensee.
.t
-1 Consumers responses to 50.54(f) Requests 4, 5, 6, 12 and 21(c) were inadequate because of missing information or data or the responses raised additional questions. The portions of the above requests which were inadequate are identiffed in the contents of the follow up requests that are listed on Table 6-1, column 6e.
l An example where Consumers has repeatedly failed to fully respond to the Staff's request is_ exemplified in the June 30, 1980 letter l.
from A. Schwencer to J. W. Cook. This letter clearlyindicates that
[
Consumers previous responses to questions 5 and 35 continue to be I'
unacceptable and offers observations to better clarify the Staff's l
.s :,= - -
__g
. _ =
3 1 position and concern for th'e effectiveness of the preload program.
.i 1
As late as February 1981 Consumers has steadfastly refused to provide the requested infomation which the Staff and its Consultant feel is necessary to have reasonable assurance for plant safety.
Consumers responses to requests 362.13, 362.14 and 362.16 were inadequate because the Staff concerns raised in' these FSAR questions were not to be fully resolved until Consumers completed additional field and laboratory work. Ultimately these issues have been pursued
~
by the Staff in subsequent 50.54(f) questions.
t h
The portions of the nsponse to request 362.17 which deal with
.r predicted settlement are similar to the above in that fielfwork i
had to be completed before the issue could be resolved. The portion l
3 of the response pertaining to induced vertical stresses versus depth was unresponsive in providing needed specific data and results, o
6 1
i a
LI e
i 1
,t r
7
_s I
TABLE 6-1
]
l Identity of Whether
Response
! Staff's follow-up Responsible 50.54 (f)
Consumer Identification as Consideration Requests Staff
?
Request Responded of 12/6/79 of Response Personnel as of Adequacy 4
12/6/79 as of 12/6/79 6 (a) 6 (b) 6 (c) 6 (d) 6 (e) 6 (a) 4 Yes Rev. 3, 9/13/79, Inadequate 27, 40 L. Heller &
Responses to NRC D. Gillen Requests Regarding Plant Fill 5
Yes Rev. O. 4/24/79 Inadequate 35, 37 L. Heller &
Responses tc NRC D. Gillen Requests Regarding Plant Fill 6
Yes Rev. 3, 9/13/79, Inadequate 31, 33, 43 L. Heller &
Responses to NRC D. Gillen Requests Regarding Plant Fill 9
Yes Rev. O, 4/24/79,
Response
Refer to L. Heller &
Responses to NRC referred to Question 12 D. Gillen Requests Regarding Question 12 Plant Fill 10 Yes Rev. O, 4/24/79
Response
Refer to L. Heller &
Responses to NRC referred to Question 12 D. Gi?len Requests Regarding Question 12 Plant Fill 11 Yes Rev. O, 4/24/79 Adequate L. Heller &
Responses to NRC D. Gillen Requests Regarding Plant F111 l
I
.m
j l
TABLE 6-1.-
i Identity of Whether
Response
Staff's Follow-up Responsible I
50.54(f)
Consurer Identification Consideration Requests Staff l
Request Responded as of 12/6/79 of Response Personnel as of Adequacy 12/6/79 as of 12/6/79 6 (a) 6(b) 6 (c) 6 (d) 6 (e) 6 (a) 12 Yes Rev. 3, 9/13/79, Inadequate.
38, 39, 41, 42 L. Heller &
Responses to NRC 43, 44, 45, 46 D. Gillen Requests Regarding 47, 48 Plant Fill 16 Yes Rev. O, 4/24/79 Responsive but 34 L. Heller &
a Responses to NRC additional applicant D. Gillen 1
Requests Regarding work required to Plant Fill resolve 21 (c)
Yes Rev. O, 4/24/79 Responsive but 35, 37, 40 L. Heller &
Responses to NRC Inadequate D. Gillen Requests Regarding Plant Fill i
1 362.12 Yes FSAR Rev. 24, 9/79 Adequate L. Heller Responses to NRC D. Gillen Questions 362.13 Yes FSAR Rev. 20, 4/79, Inadequate 4, 5, 7, 9 L. Heller Responses to NRC 12, 13, 14 D. Gillen i
Questions 362.14 Postponed FSAR Rev. 24, 9/79, Inadequate.
9, 10, 12 L. Heller Responses to NRC Response postponed 15 D. Gillen Questions to future date.
i j
_ m..
. m.._ 3 m_..
-n
,3 a.
TABLE 6-1 ;;
Identity of Request
. Whether Communication Staff's Follow-up Responsible Consumer Identification Consideration Request Staff Responded as of 12/6/79 of Response as of Adequacy i
12/6/79 4
.}
6 (a) 6 (b) 6 (c) 6 (d) 6 (e) 6 (g) 362.15 Yes FSAR Rev. 24, 9/79, Adequate L. Heller Responses to NRC D. Gillen Questions 362.16 Yes FSAR Responsive but 4, 12 L. Heller i
Responses to NRC submittal of.
D. Gillen Questions needed revised settlement I
postponed to
. j analysis future i
362.17 Yes FSAR Rev. 24, 9/79 Inadequate 4, 8, 14 L. Heller i
D. Gillen s
..g 1
id 8
9 m
l
. sw - -
-a
_=2 w.__=.-,.n_-.
_e-1
. L Interrogatory 7.
State with particularity each item of infonnation the Staff 1
requested after December 6,1979 with regard to acceptance
]
criteria.
]-
Response. The following table identifies each Staff request after December 6, 1979 with. regard to acceptance criteria. The information contained in o
each request has been available to Consumers since the date listed in d
d the third column when the information was transmitted to them.
Identification of Applicable Portion Date Request
]
Previous Staff of Request Submitted to CPCo
_~ '
f Request 50.54(f) Questions Entire requests June 30, 1980 a
i 35, 37, 38 50.54(f) Questions Entire requests August 4, 1980 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, t
47, 48 Interrogatory 8.
With regard to each item of information identified in response to interrogatory 7, state:
(a) the identity of the request; (b) whether Constners responded t'o that request; (c) the identity of the connunication that the Staff considered Constners response to the request; (d) whether the Staff L
considered the response adequate; (e) the identity of the communication by which the Staff connunicated its position as to the: adequacy or inadequacy of the response; (f) the basis for the Staff's position regarding adequacy or inadequacy of Consumers response; and (g) the Staff personnel responsible for detennining whether Consumers' response was adequate or inadequate.
1 4
w
w-
-- m v m.
xm E
e I Response. This answer is provided by Table 8-1.
Additionally, Table 8-1
~
fncludes items of infomation the Staff requested before December 6,
.ii
- 1979 with regard to acceptance criteria, but for which the initial reply by Consumers had not been submitted as of December 6,1979.
Regarding part (e) of interrogatory 8 the means by which the Staff communicated its positiost as to the.inadWuacy of the Licensee s 8
response was primarily by the issuance of additional questions on l'
the same subject. It is not Staff practice to indicate acceptable responses to Licensees, except by separate request on a case-by-case basis. Such indication of acceptance is typically left for issuance l
of the Staff's safety evaluation report for those responses which are of significance to that report.
4 The basis for the Staff position of inadequacy shown by part (e) of interrogatory 8 is that the Licensee's response failed to meet the Staff's acceptance criteria as defined in response to interrogatory 1.
The reasons that the Staff considered the responses to Requests 24(g) a1d 31 to be inadequata are given in the contents of the follow up requests which are listed on Table 8-1, column 8e.
The responses to Requests 35 and 37 are inadequate for the reasons stated in A. Schwencer's letter of June 30, 1980 and in the "Sumary g
of Appeals Meeting of August 29, 1980 Regarding Additional Explorations and Testing of Midland Plant Fill," February 10,1981.
l l4 l
~
~
-w n
=.
l -
As indicated at the January 28, 1981 Prehearing, the Staff and its consultant are currently reviewing Consumers submittal of Revision 10 (Amendnent 85) which includes Consumers responses to requests 38 thrctigh 48. The Staff intends to formally respond to Consumers on the adequacy of Revision 10 responses by late March 1901.
'i
- 1 4-
}
l J
1 e
i
_ =, -
c
- y s-,;7 ; n. m e m xy.
c -
TABLE 8-1 l
J
..l Identity of Whether Wesponse Identification Staff's consideration Follow Up Responsible U
50.54(f)
Consumer Reviewed by Staff of Response Adequacy Request or Staff K
Request Responded as of 2/24/81 Communication Personnel q
After 12/6/79 8(a) 8(b) 8(c) 8(d) 8(e) 8(g) 24(d)
Yes Rev. 5, 2/80 Adequate Corps of Engineers Response to NRC 4 J. Kane Request Regarding Plant Fill i<
24(g)
Yes Rev. 5, 2/80 Inadequate 36, 42, 47.
Corps of Engineers
& J. Kane j
27 Yes Rev. 5, 2/80 Adequate Corps of Engineers
& J. Kane 31 Yes Rev. 5, 2/80 Inadequate 43 Corps of Engineers
& J. Kane 35 Yes Rev. 5, 2/80 Inadequate 37, 40 Corps of Engineers
& J. Kane
- J 36 Yes Rev. 9, 9/80 Adequate Corps of Engineers
- 1 i'
Responses to NRC
& J. Kane Request Regarding Plant Fill 37 Yes Sept. 14, 1980 Report Inadequate Tedesco Letter Corps of Engineers Discussion of Applicant's to Cook 11/10/80 & J. Kane Position
)
(
o.
TABLE 8-1 ' '
Identity of Whether Response Identification Staff's Consideration Follow Up Responsible 50.54(f)
Consumer Reviewed By Staff of Response Adequacy Request or Staff
. Request Responded as of 2/24/81 Communication Personnel i
After 12/6/79 8(a) 8(b) 8(c) 8(d) 8(e) 8(g) j 38 Yes Rev. 9 9/80 Responses Adequate Corps of Engineers to NRC Request Regarding
& J. Kane Plant Fill i
39 Yes Rev. 10 11/80 Responses Under review-To be Corps of Engineers to NRC Request determined
& J. Kane Regarding Plant Fill 40 Yes Rev. 10 11/80 Under review To be Corps of Engineers detemined
& J. Kane 41 Yes Rev. 10 11/80 Under review To be Corps of Engineers L
detemined
& J. Kane 42
.Yes Rev. 10 11/80 under review 10 be Corps of Engineers determined
& J. Kane I'
43 Yes Rev. 10 11/80 Under review To be Corps of Engineers determined
& J. Kane 1
44 Yes Rev. 10 11/80 Under review To be Corps of Engineers p
determined
& J. Kane l
N 45 Yes Rev. 10 11/80 Under review To be Corps of Engineers '
J determined
& J. Kane 46 Yes Rev. 10 11/80 under review To be Corps of Engineers determined
& J. Kane 47 Yes Rev. 10 11/80 Under review To be Corps of Engineers L
detemined
& J. Kane 1
3 48 Yes Rev. 10 11/80 Under review To be Corps of Engineers determined
& J. Kane L
. th