ML20093N865

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards marked-up Input to Staff Testimony in Preparation for ASLB 821027-1104 Hearings Re Bearing Capacity & Underground Piping,In Response to Verbal Request of W Paton & M Wilcove.Response to Stamiris Contention Encl
ML20093N865
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 10/14/1982
From: Lear G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Adensam E
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19258A087 List: ... further results
References
CON-BX17-023A, CON-BX17-23A, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408020184
Download: ML20093N865 (10)
v • d • e


Text

1

,7 -il.

  • UNM EU STAl ES J, Cg ne NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasmmorrm, c. c. rosss g

.S QCT 14 1982

-l Docket Nos.: 50-329/330 I.

i MEMORANDUM.FOR: Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch #4, DL f'

e

)

THRU:

( James P. Knight, Assistant Director j

for Components & Structures Engineering, DE

,b 0

FROM:

1 George E. Lear, Chief 1

Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch, DE

]

SUBJECT:

MIDLAND ASLB HEARINGS - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INPUT Plant Name: Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 Licensing Stage: OL

~

Responsible Branch:

Requested Completion Date:LB No. 4, M. Miller, D. Hood and R. Hernan, LPM October 13, 1982 Statusi Completed 4

In response to the verbal requests of W. Paton and M. Wilcove of OELD, we have enclosed our input for staff testimony in preparation for the i

upcoming ASLB hearings.

November 4,1982 are to cover (1) bearing capacity beneath the Die and (4) Permanent Dewatering. Generator Building, (2) underground p

' )'

where the geotechnical engineering staff has address 1

.. t for the upcoming hearings.

Under Part II of the enclosure we have identified either the SER or SSER sections or we have provided our response to

?

identified hearing topics. issues listed in the.Stamiris and Warren conte 1

1, Any questions that you may have on the enclosed input may be referred to q

J. ~Kane (28153), Geotechnical Engineering Section, HGEB.

1]

7 i

d Q

j George E. Gar, Chief j

Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering j

Enclosure:

'j As stated t

cc: See next page i,

8408020184 840718

~

1 PDR FOIA RICE 84-96 PDR

.t 1

a

H, j

I i-l cc w/o enc 1:

)

i R. Yollmer i

' - W. Paton T

M. Wilcove T. Novak

___cc.w/ enc 1:2 i

L. Heller-2:

E. Sullivan 4

l.

M. Miller D. Hood R. Hernan J

R. Gonzales I

M. Hartzman F. Rinaldi J. Kane S. Paulos, GEI l

H. Singh, COE P. Chen, ETEC A

9 f

1 i

e O

3 1

t 1

I I

1, i

1 ii I

T i

i t'

.h i

~

. m e-wees***F*a N?MW '. [, d'_1 O1.

11,,a.

. [*e",

_, _ _ _ _ _j*

I a.

c.

Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2

}

h Docket Numbers: 50-329/330 193 2 k,.

A

~"

Geotechnical Engineering Input into Staff Testimony Prepared by: Joseph D. Kane, HGEB, NRR

- - ~ ~~ = :

.: w..... :

PART I - PERTINENT SSER SECTIONS FOR HEARING TOPICS 1.

Hearing Topic: Bearing Capacity beneath the Diesel Generator Building i

SSER Section with Staff Safety Evaluation:

Section 2.5.4.4.2, 2.5.4.5.1 2.

Hearing Topic: Underground Piping SSER Section with Staff Safety Evaluation: Sections 2.5.4.4.5, 2.5.4.6.2, 2.5.4.7, 2.5.4.8 i

3.

Hearing Topic: Service Water Pump Structure

~

l SSER Section with Staff Safety Evaluation: Sections 2.5.4.4.1,2.5[4.5.2, 2.5.4.5.3, 2.5.4.6.1.1, 2.5.e. 6.1.2, 2.5.4.7, 2.5.4.8 j

4.

Hearing Topic:

Permanent Dewatering SSER Section with Staff Safety Evaluation: Sections 2.5.4.4.4, 2.5.4.5.5.

T p

'PART II - RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS 1.

Stamiris Contention 4.C.b. _as supplemented on 4/20/81 and as it pertains to this hearing session, reads as follows:

Y Consumers Power Company performed and proposed remedial actions regarding soils settlement that are inadequate as presented because:

1 A. ------

'I B. -- ---

..,cC. Remedial soil settlement actions are not based on adequate evaluation of dynamic response regarding dewatering effects, differential soil i

settlement, and seismic effects for these structures:

'I

a. ------

11 i

b. Service Water I'ntake Building and Its Retaining Walls i

)

c. ______
d. ______

4

e. ------
f. ______

i

i. u.

~.. _ _.. _ _ _.. _ _. _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _

-- ~._. _

I P h ntial soil settlement, it is the ygg 3.,

h hG$y.9 hspc.m:

tion that it is directed to t e

-t loading

%. uqT With respect to,the concern on differe interaction study for earthquake staff's understanding of this conten t cture underpinned Service Water Pump S ru Ad41 k f

adequacy of.the soil-structuref differential soil settlement.

lt in[W u u,3 en fed j

h tnd whether that study for t eproperly evaluated the eff_

i g constants..p.i wp, n am nt of settlement which will resud g ; 4 "' p i

timated using dynamic soil spr n 0

the

't the staff has concluded that During earthquake loading the amou i

r d by the applicant for use in dynam c the foundation soils has been esAs indicated in SSER S 6

i ion to t ble and the applicant's dec s tive.

i lting soil spring constants is conse soil shear moduli values, adopte 1

analysis, are reasonable and accep a i e Water

.j allow + 50f variation in the resu alysis of the underpinned Serv c Therefore, the staff concludes thatproperly addres l

seismic Category I retaining walTh Pump Structure.

i wall.

h Remedial foundation measures for t e l

adjacent to the SWPS were not requto the foundation of ired.

I plant fill problem did not extend d 2) reads as follows:

Stamiris Contention 4.0. parts 1) an d proposed remedial actions G

2.

as presented because:

Consumers Power Company perfomed ansoils sett D 4.D. 0% d:

t A.

8.---

1 i

C.

il and seismic characteristics of Pemanent dewatering lly approved PSAR character,.

O.

would change the water table, sothe dewatered site hich the safety and integrity of the i

fi g a reevaluation of these'.-

-f" 1)

. istics - characteristics on w plant were based, thereby necessita. n I structures; characteristics for affected Categoryf further settlement in y

d drawdown effect; may cause an unacceptable degree orelated str 2) 9 information in its evaluation of I i, Response to Part 1) of 4.D!

The NRC staff has considered the follow nglant su e

i f

the dewatering effects on the various p site.

4 W

e

-~. 4

.\\..' a h-=,..%

^~ ~ --- - -

-,, e

. x.

-- -- ~ ~...

-~ ~. _

N I.d.d

(

,r;-

l

}!

-.]

,., ~.

--j i

E-a.

Because the long tem dewatering will lower the groundwater level in

{

P

- the upper perched groundwater system to approximately el. 595 feet, i

there will be minimum effect to olant subsoils below this level which

. - --- l :I would include the approximateTy 150 feet thick preconsolidated impervious

..- Q 3

6 ci clay layer which separates the-two groundwater systems. This impervious

,1 j

clay layer has been shown by subsurface explorations to be located between approximately.el. 580 feet and bottom el. 430 feet in the auxiliary

,t!

,/

f building area.

f 1

b.

In the depths of subsoils which will be affected by dewatering, the staff anticipates both improvements to the engineering properties of the t

i foundation soils above el. 595 and certain adverse effects due to j

dewatering as discussed below.

Reevaluation of soil engineering properties i

has been performed by methods that include additional subsurface explora-tions, laboratory testing and seismic ~ surveys in the field. The. staff's 1

L, conclusions on this work are presented in SSER Sections 2.5.4.1.3, 2.5.4.2 and 2.5.4.3.

c.

An increase in the shear strength of the subsoils would reasonably be l

expected as dewatering would remove pore water and lower the water

. content of the foundation soils. This increased shear strength would i

result in higher margins of safety against bearing capacity type 2

failures. The staff has not required the applicant to estimate the improvement in safety if acceptable levels of safety had been demonstrated under the more. severe conditions (q.g. non-dewatered condition).

h... j!

d.

l.owering the groundwater to levels below the walls of embedded structures will reduce lateral forces on foundation walls by removing i.

water pressures. This reduction will result in an increase in i

structure stability.

e.

A potential adverse effect of long tenn dewatering could be the removal

j f.j.

of soil finds caused by lowering and pumping of the groundwater in the

".. dewatering wells. The staff's position has been, since the time.

dewatering was initially selected as a remedial measure, to ensure y))

I that a high quality dewatering system would be designed and properly controlled and installed in the field so as to avoid the loss of soil fines problem. The staff efforts in this regard are documented in

]

50.54(f) questions numbered 24, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53. The staff r

has met on several occasions and has participated in numerous conference

, calls with the applicant to resolve its safety concerns on the design and installation of the dewatering system.

One of the more important documents which summarizes the staff's review effort is the letter of June 18,1981 from R. Tedesco, NRC to J. Cook, Consumers Power Company.

j

,. As a check on the acceptability of tht dewatering system design and field installation, the applicant has successfully completed the full i-I l

C

7 L :.

.. ~,

h*

(

j 4 '.

b 1

d.'.

~

scale field drawdown and recharge test. The monitoring of loss of P

soll fines which has been cc:npleted with portions of both the temporary construction and permanent' dewatering wells in operation f

1 has indicated that the dewatering system can safely operate and meet j

j-

~- ~

the required conservative acceptance criteria on loss of soil

^

particles. 7he established criteria which ensures that the N

3

<j detrimental loss of soil particles will not occur requires that

- soil fines la'rger than 0.005 mm that are measured in the collected t

seepage water are not to exceed 10 parts per million.

If this di level is reached during plant operation the applicant is required to determine which well or wells are causing the loss of fines and to

'l stop pumping from the well(s).

If necessary, the problem well(s) will q.

be - repaired or replaced.

On the basis of the above infonnation. and our review of additjonal information provided by the applicant on permanent dewateringathe the FSAR and technical reports, the staff has concluded in SSER Section 2.5.4.5.5 that the permanent dewatering system will eliminate the potential for liquefaction.

l

~

Response to Part 2) of 4.d.

The major disadvantage of dewatering on the plant subsoils is the removal of buoyancy. This removal causes an increase in the effective weight i

of the soil mass which in turn places greater loads on the foundation soils leading to greater soil compression. The staff pursued resolution with the applicant of its concern for increased soil compression due to dewatering in 50.54(f) questions numbered 33, 39(l), 40(1), 41(2)(b),

42(2)(e), 44(2) and 47(9).

The staff is satisfied that the settlements estimated by the applicant to occur due to. dewaterirg during plant operation are conservative and acceptable fo'r use in structural analysis which evaluate the effects of these settl'ements.

In addition, long term settle-ment monitoring during plant operation will be carried out to verify that estimated settlements are not being exceeded.

-i.

. 3._,Sarren. Contention 28 expresses a concern for liquefaction of the fou~ndation soils. The staff's evaluation of this issue has been provided in Section i;

2.5.4.5.5 of the SSER.

f d

,e

.,m w,w-._w f.m

,,y_,.,

g,en

L

__u f _. %_ m-bod,ko fe5forudC Namimbnhbon k to). 6 ;

j t4 l

5

.L ta s y

g 1

q buWit

  • Soil mp rectuwd or dromic oml s% -Mdune rec 4j h

f 3

h.-

r R

j.

k,-

i 'p 1.1) gnomic soil Acor-vnocialus b vow 3e 4to % b lo %%h,61 i5

2. bor qa sdoc,h.,b (m eyhud tunyyur to 7 skin m$e3 j

. 9otssons ytino <<

1 I

.3cmyim yor'ambri 3}o,.J)kswdmeJ C-

s. Seneiconsbh(b,L,4v, Obi,sW >spai,s b'aal i,

E A Asgdreawuogiomd :

ge.oph stco.\\ suYVgs k dllo, iS od

\\s was eshltshed h,,,kt semy>, A-Ams.L eem y

a m [ill kpm %)e. susme 7

ok wde.r does wd SWnt4covik idrluence Il->uelocdb 4-N beWmt

@vov, SW-AA \\911Xyk., hy 89

- D nwsc. soil bear vneddlus '6 was cIecyedc, h M COE. wiMa yehaowshipG : (t' ww G 6.gop.i l

(: mm dersk : ondweehil y :32/2 p ed k fresvsce e Etr owd onI)hr$di bt cbng Smu.Is u bd i

h eptd{com wdveE h dewa ec co w6n il,e4

' eM wti$ }44 N

bt

\\dk ty c, G %etc\\ k upM bdav, wcduch kuore,c..Jen j

osssoNs fakto herkyical wive.s cyfomen's k io -Su bh-Wg.n

\\3nsduaWl tk c.35 k savtak cia 3 o.So 3

3asds o h to c.35

?

i So 4

[

A 4 s oil o.t s b o. z cc e6, o w,yl c a veq so% mbalM, e *rw,,q i

swm I

e c.Wv,Se_ m vobe. LN),y.3 s$r.f un\\g lowbg @e sg(bQ wM, h rubA

!i-3 k %Le = os %

Inc l

1 s ve on g;..

3

' u..,.t.;:: :._. -

. - _ = _ _ _.

\\G

'e,

',]

Ly J. b c I

-Pow's wh 6td see se m2 R$- P.

knw 3

v h #A f.dA o< labbd 6baAe6p1&<Wea ta. EfC

^

i Mi hdtd os a consh4 s.nce h 6 uTn.s.

hJ is g

i sek 4.bekcer o.% -b o.s dep,,di$ co is c 3iec 45abbon q'

Fo<mid61,\\cankh,

\\cassde sc.

valacs 4-s =. o.42.

<,ela3 sods m 3ekck j j

i o g -e =. o.40 e x49 sai bon.kokyes cLp,g : i% awa.pg4 d

1.c_aecataesshe g

i

-M as ~mes mmA awe k snauk um,k e A,.w.casir, kwovas sn

1. Whvd (Fnh

. hbicoM roAger denpa4 3

.whdamp l

b d Ac *d"'o"q Jevn est huiL A. L set Judo

'dhhM "Ec"% 4~ #d k S*

  • M N l

vi,b erAcccurs uder ftyOb

ccuinc3 L

7t% mmwe= seemeco.t.0amm,c4 \\ Mcdumi by 3

{'GemeAnco e<h.Y~ Tag 2on b,%

- Each bdk f uJdon J+,c,dv eweIoadim 5 R M N.lTt*.;4 " M s

f a dcmk ts d

er Li ~ ~ s cess uove u en%<eeA elednna e

gnahd onc\\ % wave l

ctg cau9n.3 some 4 % e.wes3 31 c.we,y n 'wt and f"

P

  • T*3 " "C" b*" "'*" U"$d b'"'f)"S U

To A m,ns radsham 69 b hco a 03d e p 6 ns b ok, m )

l h s a em % p p d h. re b n y n on eux La%e. i l

FA b WoWaf@AL radabn clampin c4csnhjeeveibicf li 4

a\\cecgroce Opu.cw omi bsonal cyu 4p '

r 4 men.%hyen,c %

x-see a4Cy..a-c+

2. :. r v

Yr tn een 49{

c$ u.

7:.

_e,

  • ~ J..

j

!r(

M

~

.A_,,

__*L

s w y \\t. :.

7 I o.

3jy

=

w

  1. ~

J. k.n.-

I I h o my}e 4 d id%* N toth h YtrhtCol vnoh00 Cu

. $y@M. J 3

i

~4 4.

  • b.

f Ed t?.

  • 1 CO*O "

.W

  • =

a' E!M4 rd p dh4.n e

mnis den 5,k gt,oiIWel4N-i s

C,:. dpo, c wil s6 mekivs b = AGL

.AddPbwreAJpko.C M.a ut.Aa, rJ M6x i

D 4-pg

\\

t<.

cc.u a %,.,- ua hinc 0 h h he.

nk, o2ncj.tSOh spe red 4 h froM}rinj COr$4 o CE TO \\Q On sk ao s d -em,om a_s.g a a,_.m w q %s 63 ua wwe

,,,,q t.,gyry,,,p;" g h P

b<

a i {

uMer ico.d,h}. wcNt. ge_d -k N omood e o

.,%p he grecdee bNe i

.. a

n:.

V --

,,g ikJ ;.

g

' u'"'

T u Q,,,., J

  • b

[

f To M h,,pi

-hs he, us ed h o m sc. a n e l s.s ts b a m Ik 4 Yodtchon ryomekncol)in cdomyn3 y cq h alckgig.

I f

4

, (.

(

9.

[ChE M MQ R[

LG lO n

. da r g, $

as A o % h cd Dh t(MMa vty d disc res h g om a

[

b 3

~'

J um.u& w ms raddiow c\\ amin $ sw desyn.%a% redec 25 u m ade in i

roccephen %k a bywed syskm,b nde,bn cbnsyiq Li is er As emcwe os se a W1. spce sge- %~ps

l j

and ushoyic).

To eshMtsb TOTAL %rn?)% n b. esu\\ iw cuiy,,1k.

icork adId 3 /o ) cdca\\ dadm intfM&nd domyi,,

4[%<ag.a ous6a wnGa wn a h L co-p6 up,-

o D CO"bhEffC k NoI4% oh Naht,YiG hampm3 0

eahv 4e Aeor dro,m 'ange 4 tim h #%

coc e

t L

\\ {OY1 C

D[e O V'O Of C O Y'n M4h OviC i5

)

wsomue on % dampgpranew,c, and svi 9 co sA+

j]

.k ($4.4 $Q.f. 31 l%) N)miYa

-Encl erh%cl 'huiliart) 3 hidsne k.smtc. Wdd Ai',n 3-3

(,. $O M h h M h)N h CtC IG Qvm FIG WM b by 'nto 03'ficodb TO /o sn of exceyr i LumTE.D h

]

i c9 f.

Yt$

Eih)M CUN5TA N p

u t

f.

y lj o'

v. :,..--.z., ; ;.
x. ;.

. = :: :

a. h:= : 8
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20093N865&oldid=4327366"