ML20094H826
| ML20094H826 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1982 |
| From: | Kane J NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19258A087 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BX16-014, CON-BX16-14, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408140134 | |
| Download: ML20094H826 (19) | |
Text
~-
~
,.. ~,
b$
to k 1 Ad82
~~ '
Lof \\
r J.t'one of twg5 in Of40 o{ S**.NVICc woher pgia ne'ar CWLS C Md.C, mi sesMJb mchcaha phmke,ihe aqukhci o h.,i <
(E.). b L G illed Eb.edec.w w i Re7d.$
A bring k.
e.
b.Soi4\\p)%\\.t jeknq 3 s l
q C.n-7 7l)g,1 g gt4 - (, W d,k r O/
EVE dCVO Uni CM-d.
1kbk~19 G25-b 2.i ll.
[
\\ Quum Q s 0.193 GM G,
. fotC,we.
wa m a wc W CH-5 1}b 19 um - wie 9
/
( b counts awgig
/
\\ krom \\O ho ib o C N-b 7,il ll 9 62k -lelG,f ~~/
m
% a m,,,.
F.5 = l O 5b
'J G.- 9 ici,he o,3-vis 2, i3, 3
~
h ~1
~3 15) 19 G22 - Gsl log 9 QD-O
- 12. 2$\\~l]
G24- (ogg 8,4
)
CitdCMd' r1tt 5
- C.O mt.
G YeCO c.h OC$e SG S
% ces a J ses geo}hiN.s Sil m,,,c A ve w q & 6 3 3
1-ch OY)hg5 ubtch a
Efn C fl}\\ec b Gyp)tCOniin N19 43 cm %.dscemy 4 y1antf)\\ pdk hopj3484o73g RICE 84~96 PR
DEPARTMENT OF TILE ARMY
\\
,,g:
T-WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. O. BOX 631 VICKSBURG. MISSISSIPPI 39180
, =
t o..m,..,..v WESGA 30 May 1980' MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT:
Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on. 27-28 February 1980, A Review of
)
I the Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 FSAR (Including Revisions 1-27) i Background and scope 1.
The writer visited the Midland Michigan Nuclear Power Plant on 27-28 February L'
in the company of NRC and COE representatives. Bechtel and Consumers Power Company representatives briefed us on 27 February. The attendance list is given in Inc1 1.
On 28 February we toured several areas of the plant in small groups, were briefed by Bechtel's consultants (see Inc1 1) and had an opportunity to ask questions. Inclosure 2 is the agenda for the meeting.
- 2.. The Detroit District of the Corps of Engineers is assisting the Site Analysis Branch of NRC with review of geotechnical aspects of the project relating to safety. My involvement is in support of Detroit District and
. by prior agreement with the District,ig limited to geotechnical earthquake engineering issues, 3.-
Subsequent to the visit, I reviewed the Midland Units FSAR Volumes 1 4 and Volume 7 in a cursory fashion and Sections 2.5-2,56 of the FSAR in detail. The documents I received were complete up through Revision 27 I
also performed some analyses whose results are summarized in the following paragraphs and reviewed Volumes 1-7 of " Response to NRC Questions Regarding Plant Fill."
Comments regarding liquefaction potential
..,6 4.
An independent Seed-Idriss Simplified Analysis was performed for the fill area under the assumption that the groundwater table was at or below h,~.. #
elevation 610.
For 0.19 g peak ground surface acceleration, it was found s,
t
p l
that blow counts as follows were required for a factor of safety c f 1.5:
i I
-Uncor D'dCk how C.ou 5
I Elevation Minimum SPT Blow Count
- ft For* F.S. = 1.5 1
610 14 h b d.'b co N o
- " b I
605 16 M"
l 600 17 i
595 19 s
- For M = 7.5, blow counts would increase by 30 percent.
-1
+
m WESGA; 30 May 1980
' ~
SUBJECT:
Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on 27-28 February 1980, A Review of the Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 FSAR (Including Revisions 1-27)
The analysis was considered conservative for the following reasons (a) no
! [,
account was taken of the weight ol' any structure, (b) liquefaction criteria
. for 'a magnitude 6 earthquake were used whereas an NRC memorandum of 17 Mar 80 p"
- considered nothing larger than' 5.5 for an earthquake with the peak acceleration :
1evel of 0.19 g's, :(c) unit weights were varied over a range broad enough to cover any unccrtaintyrandjhat. lab _ulqttion above is_ base _d.on> ha --+ ennmarvative l,
.d set of assumptionsg The curve described in the above tabulation is compared-oJM ~
Lto those'fbr-~5ther groundwater tables and earthquake loading conditions in
[ rN Inc1 3.
/
g,,pt '
5. All of the plotted boring logs of the plant fill areaJnrnished. to me by the Detroit District, CE, were reviewed.- Out of over 250 standard pene-a
~ tration tests on cohedilinless71 ant fill or natural. foundation material belov
^
elevation 610 $liich are shown in Inci 4,),he criteria given above are not satisfied in four tests on natural materials located below the plant fill and in 23 tests located in the plant-fill. C 7rhse tests'are Iisted' in-Incl Jf7 Some of the tests on natural material (JLin the tableJ7were conducted at
~I depths of at less?than 10 ft before approximately 35 ft of fill was placed f'[-
over the location.- -TliosEnsEs"are identified'by ThE symbol B anW prior
- [
to comparison with the criteria should be multiplied by a factor of about
[M(
L 2.3 to account; for the increase in effective overburden pressure that results from the placement and-future dewatering of the fill.
- 6.
Of the 23 tests on plant fill which fail to satisfy the criteria, most i;
are near or under structures where remedial measures alleviating necessity for support from the fill are planned.- Only 4 of the tests are under the Diesel 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.
7 In view of the large number of borings in the plant fill area and the conservatism adopted in my analysis, these few isolated pockets are no threat to plant safety. The, fill area is safe against liquefaction in a Magnitude 6.0 earthqua,ke or smaller which produces a peak ground surface acceleration of 0.19.g or less provided the groundwater elevation in the fill is kept at or below elevation 610.
)
8.
In order to provide the necessary assurance of safety against liquefaction 4
it is necessary to demonstrate the water will not rise above -elevation 610
.1 during nomal operations or during a shutdown process and the applicant has h.
h,p decided to accomplish this by pumping from wells at the site. In the event T.!
'of a. failure, partial failure, or degradation of the devatering system (and 4 :l~
its backup system) caused by the earthquake or any other event such as ll equipment breakdown, the water levels will begin to rise. Depending on 1,
the answer to Question A below concerning the normaltoperating water levels in the immediate vicinity of Category I structures and pipelines founded as plant fill, different amounts of time are available to accomplish repair or shutdown.
2 1
30 May 1980 WESGA Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on 27-28 February 1980, A Review of
SUBJECT:
the Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 FSAR (Including Revisions 1-27) 1 9
In response to Question 24 the applicant states "the operating groundwater level vill be approximately el 595 ft" (page 24-1).
On page 24-1 the applicant i
Y also states "Therefore el 610' is to be used in the designs of the devatering system as the maximum permissible groundwater level elevation under SSE con-Iy D.T.
y ditions." On page 24-15 it is stated that "The wells will fully penetrate the backfill sands and underlying natural sands in this area." The bottom of h
the natural sands is indicated to vary from elevation 605 to 580 within the 1
Olant fill area according to Figure 24-12.
Question A, B, and C, which I vould like posed to the applicant are as follows:
1 i
}
A.
Is the normal operating devatering plan t.o (1) purup such that the water level in the wells being pumped is held at or below elevation 595 or (2) to pump as necessary to hold the water levels in all observation J
vells near Category I Structures and Category I Pipelines supported on plant fill at or belov elevation 595, (3) to pump as necessary to hold water levels in the wells mentioned in (2) above at or below
'd elevation 610, or (4) something else? If it is something else, what is it?
k In the event the water levels in observation wells near Category I l\\
B.
h structures or pipelines supported on plant fill exceed those for normal operating conditions as defined by your answer to Question A, y
i what action vill be taken? In the event that the water level in any of these observation vells exceeds elevation 610 vhat action will 3
be taken?
.I I
C.
Where are and/or where 'will be the observation wells in the plant fill area that vill be monitored during the plant lifetime? At what depths vill the screened intervals be? Will the combination of (1) screened interval in cohesionless soil and (2) demonstration I
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 24-20 be triggered? What will be the response to the alarm?
10.
A worst case test of the completed permanent devatering and groundwater level monitoring systems could be conducted to determine whether or not the time required to accomplish shutdown and cooling is available. This could be done by shutting off the entire devatering system when the cooling pond is at elevation 627 and determining the water level versus time curve for
- 4 each observation vell. The test should be continued until the water level in any well reaches elevation;610..or..the sum.of :the_ time. intervals allotted for repair and the time interval needed to accomplish shutdown (should the In repair prove unsuccessful) has been exceeded, whichever occurs first.
view of the heterogeneity of the fill, the likely variation 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. Question D is as follows:
D.
If a devatering system failure or degradation occurs, in order to assure that plant is shutdown by the time water level reaches elevation 610, it is necessary to initiate shutdown earlier.
In i
p 3
"'*'N**
+---m m m.e w'
3
~t WESGA
~
30 May 1980
SUBJECT:
Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on 27-28 Feburary 1980, A Review of l
y the Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 FSAR (Including Revisions 1-27)
L g(*y event of failure of devatering system, what is the water level or condition at which shutdown vill be initiated? How is that condition hg An acceptable method would be a full-scale worst-case determined?
a
(
test performed by shutting off the entire devatering system with the cooling pond at elevation 627 to det' ermine, at each Category I structure deriving support from plant fill, the water level at which i
a sufficient time vindow still remains to accompli,sh shutdown before
.' l the water rises to elevation 610.
In establishing the groundwater I
level or condition that will trigger shutdown, it is necessary to account for normal surface water inflow as well as groundwater recharge and to assnme that any additional action taken to repair the devatering system, beyond the point in time when the trigger i
condition is first reached, is unsuccessful.
I Comments regarding seismically induced settlements 11.
An independent approximate analysis based on the same references cited g3 on pages 4-5 of the answer to Question k given in " Responses to NRC Requests bg '
Regarding. Plant Fill," the same assumption of dry sand used in the preparation 4
of Table 4-1A of Question h and my engineering, judgment indicated that the Cp numbers for seismically induced settlement in that table which are for 0.12 g
}E and M = 7 earthquake are also reasonable for 0.19 g and a Magnitude 6 event.
.,d However, Seed and Silver (Reference 1 on pages 4-5) claim the lirited field check data for the method only confirms its accuracy ISO percent. Thus, one Yi has to~either argue that the capillary action in those sands above the water table vould inhibit settlements and thus provide the degree of conser-vatism needed to overcome the uncertainty about the accuracy of the prediction (as did the applicant in his response to Question 4) or allow for another 1/4 in. of settlement. While this latter course of action is proMbly avail-able to the applicant at no cost, it is, in my opinion, unneccessary.
In view of the field data discussed in the references cited on pages 4-5 of
, the applicant's answer to Question h, I am fully satisfied that capillary
~
action does provide all the conservatism needed to view the seismically
! induced settlements in Table 4-1A as upper bound va(lups foq the earthquakq, shaking described above. %edd wt. SM-C% deWW Wo*G EhWW1 %Meroh%t. odddiocal
'/O' 4thic merk du stec, loodig Comments regarding the natural sloces containing j
the R/C pipe service water return lines i
.j 12.
The two reinforced concrete return pipes which exit the service water 1
structure and run along either side of the emergency cooling water reservoir
~
f']61 i
and ultimately enter into'the reservoir are 'necessary for the safe shutdown e
and are buried within or near the crest of Category I slopes that form the
(
sides of the Emergency Cooling Water Reservoir. The reviewer has been unable
- f (Y to find any report on or analysis of the seismic stability or calculation of p
postearthquake residual displacement for these slopes. While the limited data from this area do not raise the specter of any problem, for an important element of the plant such as this, the earthquake stability should be examined by state-of-the-art methods. Therefore, Question E is as follows:
l l
{
l h
,a
--o n
=,g y.'
^
WESGA 30 May 1980
- M
SUBJECT:
Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on 27-28 February 1980, A Review of
~
Ti-
.E the Midland Plant Units'l-and 2 FSAR (Including Revisions 1-27)
~
E.
-Have seismic analyses of the sicges leading to an estimate of the permanent deformation of the pipes been performed and if so, please y
g sh, provide a review copy. If.none are available, please provide-T M.
' analyses to include the following: (1) a plan showing the pipe
.-k location-with respect to other-nearby structures, the slopes of i
'~~
l
-the reservoir and the coordinate system; (2) cross-sections showing i.
t
'the pipes, normal pool levels, the. slopes, the subsurface conditions Las interpreted from borings and/or logs of excavations at (a) a T
i
-location parallel to and.about 50 ft from the southeast outside wall;of the service water pipe structure and (b) a location where 4[
the cross section will' include both discharge structures. Actual boring logs should be shown on the profiles; their offset from q
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; (k)' determination of static factor of safety, critical earthquake acceleration, and location of critical circle; (5) calculation of u.
residual movem4nt'by the method presented by Newmark (19651 or Makdisi
- and'. Seed (1978); and (6) a determination -of whether or not the pipes can function properly after such movements.
l Comments regarding the' service water
- structure foundation
- 13.'
The vertical pile supLrt proposed for _timoverhanc_section of_the 4
service water pump structure will provide the. support necessary for the l
d strucTal'E'~under. combined =6Lic and seisidic inertial loadinaA even if' the soil uncler tne overhang portion.orthe strucfEFEiihouid' liquefy _J_prnvu.d proposed 100 ton ultimate pile. loaa capiElties are achieveb. I have no 4
reason to think they won't De achieved at this time, and thyppli, cant has commit to aususstTate the pile capacityx Calcu-
' g (gb p';-lation,t,ea no a neAn loadingjen s were made by the writer to determine the criYical buckling load for
[.
the 14;in. outside diam concrete filled steel pipe piles as.suming them to p,
be laterally unsupported over lengths of 40 and 50 ft with all reas'onable T
I O assumptions of end fixity and a 3/8-in. pipe thickness. The worst combination z
M 9,.i-of parameters still provides a generous factor of safety against buckling it ~
I under the proposed ultimate load. Hence, even if the fill material underneath Y he overhang should liquefy and fail to provide lateral support to the piles, i* Q t
Y they should be capable of carrying the vertical ~ static and inertial loads D
j y.
janticipated. Fully adequate lateral support is provided by structural D
a connection of the overhang to the rest of the structure. Howe'ver, the dynamic
(.
j[_ response of the structure, including the ' inertial loads for which the structure.
itself is designed and the mechanical equipment contained therein, would change j'
~j ds a resuIt-'6f thrintroduction 6f"ths 'p'ileE *TherefarWGiestion F is is ~ ~
~
. f61I6w's -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- - - - - ~ - - * -
ii
- F(a). Please summarize or provide copies of reports on the dynamic
- bT(
[
analyses of the structure in its old and proposed configuration ke' '
.I if such are available.
For the'latter provide detailed information i
11 on the stiffness assigned to the piles and the way in which the
- ', h stiffnesses were obtained and show the largest change in interior floor vertical response spectra resulting from the proposed 1-t 5
w%
~
^
-~
WESCA 30 May 1980
SUBJECT:
' Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on 27-28 February 1980, A Review of the Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 FSAR (Including Revisions 1-27) 1
?
modification. If the proposed configuration has not yet been analyzed, describe the analyses that are to be performed giving particular attention to the basis for calculation or selection of and the range of numerical stiffness values assigned to the vertical
$}'hl' piles.
\\-
h}d F(b). Provide after completion of the new pile foundation, in accordance l
vith commitment No. 6, item 125, Consumers Power Company memorandum i
dated 13 March 1980, the results of measurements of vertical i
applied load and absolute pile head vertical deformation which vill be made when the structural load is jacked on the piles so that the pile stiffness can be determined and compared to that used in the dynamic analysis.
Comments regarding rattlespace at Category I pipe penetrations of structure valls 14.
During the site visit the writer observed three instances of what g
appeared to be degradation of rattlespace at penetrations of Category I piping through concrete valls as follows:
West borated water storage tank - in the valve pit attached to a.
the base of the structure, a large diameter steel pipe extended through a steel sleeve placed in the vall. Because the sleeve was not cut flush with the vall, clearance between the sleeve and the pipe was very small.
g.Y S14.ve.
p('
f I
f
[4
[w.it.b..iCA i~ "61*ll4 A *}
l cw.4,,
l s
4 TC Ve] Sn.all a
l I
i'!
b Two of the service water pipes penetrating the northwest vall of i
the service water structure had settlei differentially with respect to the structure and were resting on eLightly squashed short pieces c.
i of 2 x k placed in the bottom of the senetration. From the inclination of the pipe, there is a s aggestion that the portions of the pipe further back in the vall opening (which I could not e
see) were actually tearing on the invert of the opening. The i
. ?,
b
'A.
-,.,L-.-..
~
+
. ~. - - - - -...
a.-----.
_.l
~
- , n 30 May 1980 WESGA
SUBJECT:
Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on 27-28 February 1980, A Review of
{
the Midland Plant Units 3 and 2 FSAR (Including Revisions 1-27) i bottom surface of 'one of the steel pipes had small surface irregu-larities around the edges of the area in contact with the 2 x 4.
4.
Whether these irregularities are normal manufacturing irregularities 1
or 'he result of concentration of load on this temporary support caused by the settlement of the fill, I have no way of knowing."
These instances are, in my view, sufficient to warrant an examination of
{
c p
p-those penetrations where Category I pipe derives support from plant fin i
,c
- on one or both sides of a penetration. Therefore, Questions G and H
' are as follows:
h' '
G.
What is the minimum seismic rattlespace required between a J.
i Category I pipe and the sleeve through which it penetrates a vall?
.H.
Identify'all those locations where a Category I pipe deriving-4 support from plant fill penetrates an exterior concrete walls Determine and report the vertical and horizontal rattlespace 4
presently available and the minimum required at each location and describe rem 2 dial actions planned as a result of conditions uncovered in the inspection.
+
It is anticipated that the answer to Question.H can be obtained without any significant additional excavation. If this is not the case, the decision regarding the necessity to obtain infozzation at those locations requiring major excavation should be deferred until the data from the other locations have been examined.
Comments regarding foundation material J
properties used in seismic analysis of structures I
15 Inclosure 6 shows a sn==ary of cross-hole shear wave velocity (V ) and
- i.
load test data from which it can be seen that the V for the plant fiY1 is between 5_00 and 1000 ft/sec M om Section 3.7.2.4 8f the FSAR it can be
}
I_. calculated that an average Vs 'of about 1350 ft/see was used in the original
("3
,j dynamic soil' structure interaction analyses of the Category I structures.
i This is confirmed by orie of the vievgraphs used in the 28 February Bechtel
[;
-i
- y presentation. Plant fin Vs is clearly much lower than this value as
[
l
./
indicated in Inc16.
It is understood from the response to Question 13
- concerning plant fin that the analyses of several Category I structures
![
ff *g '
are underway using a lower bound average Vs = 500 ft/see for sections supported on plant fill and that floor response spectra and design forces q.
will be taken as the most severe of those from the new and old analyses.
The questions which fonow are intended to make certain if this is the
[
case and gain.an understanding of the impact of this parametric variation f
in foundation conditions. Questions I, J, and K are as follows:
I I.
What Category I structures have and/or will 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 I
any Category I structures' deriving support from plant fill been l
Ti excluded from reanalysis? On what basis?
[>
1 7
- W: =~=L==:: --
~~
~_ _
-- i_ ~ ~ ~
' ~ 1_, _i.C ^ Z_ _ _
'"')
m__
l i
.WESGA'.
30 May 1980 LSUBJECTi Visit to Midland Michigan NPP on 27-28 February 1980, A Review of 1
the Midland Plant Ug g 1 and 2 FSAR (Including.Re isions 1-27)
Op.y,t W A elm isandeachreanalysih,.f pyf5 h.i he foundation'
%i p
.f J.
Tabulateforfeacho j.
parameter:: (Ys vWImd 'N used and the equivalent spring and damping i
constants derived therefrom so the reviewer can gain an appreciation
. of the extent of parametric variation performed.
K.
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 analyses? For each structure analyzed, please show on the same 06...
Plot the old, new, and revised enveloping floor response spectra
. O g.
so the effect of the changed backfill on interior response spectra
,p i
. predicted by the various models can be readily seen.
i h'h Catestory I retaininst wall near the southeast of the service water pump structure
- 16. 'fnis wall is experiencing some differential settlement. Boring informa-tion in Figure 24-2 (Question 24, Volume 1 Responses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill) suggests the wall is founded on natural soils and backfilled with plant fill on the land side. Questions L, M. and N are as follows:
L.
Is there any plant fill underneath the wall? What additional data
-beyond that shown in Figure 2k-2 support your answer?
M.
Have or should.the design seismic loads (FSAR Figure 2 5-45) be changed as a result of the changed backfill conditions?
N..Have or should dynamic water loadings in the reservoir be considered in the seismic design of this wall? Please explain the basis of g
your answer.,
i Status of review of freotechnical i..
1 earthquake considerations i
17 When formal or informal answers to the questions posed above are available g g\\
from the applicant, this reviewer can quickly come to conclusions on all g
geotechnical considerations which influence safety under earthquake excitation.'
s,
I,, y y!
gg{ s )
It would be desirable but not mandatory to witness the service water pump struc-
'1 l
P ture pile load test and the jacking of that building's load onto the completed j
piles.
4 l
6 Inci P. F. HADALA a
Engineer Acting Assistant Chief, CF w/ M -
Mr. Neil behring, Detroit Dist Geotechnical Laboratory l
Dr. Lyman Heller /Mr. Joe Kane, NRC Mr. Jim Simpson, North Central Div 8
~~-%
E;
{alf
,h
.t L.
g u13 f
w 4
f'.
l N.
i l
.j L
g
~
~-
g b
g E
l e
c i
19 I !
I i I
he
s i
I
, O:
4.1 I
Q%.
G O1,si.?.
~
n
=-
b Jh c
t O
d
~
x
=!
i 0
=
. -j?h.,'g
- kbf, bis!n&
,l e
inri.W
$75 j
4,.
4
>a is f % L... u n.
as 4
r
3000
~ same m e utoce s es 2500 2000 I
1500 l
1000 l
500 I
gi 630 m g
m I a
1l 1i f
i, I
625 s
.y 4k O
j i
I g
f o
1
/
m_
I i
ie g
RANGE OF MINIMUM SHF,AR WAVE l
VELOCITY B'ASED ON REBOUND OF.
1
'OlESEL GENERATOR BUILDING
-l "f l
li 615 -
1 e
M l
i 1
P 5
g I.
s h610 6
II 00 7
e goc 8 oI m.
j' O
ud I
i M -
a 1
t
_ e A
l I
a O
o APPROXIMATE BOTTOM OF FI 1
I ls.
e 1
l o
Il 6m-n.
o I
A a
l,
- $e a
e n
i 1
e I
i.
A gy y
O 595 --
I n*
/
g l
BECHTEL 590 -
l-LEGEND; ANN ARBOR CONDENSATETANKS AREA l
7 Oa BORATED WATER STORAGETANKS AREA MIDL AND POWER:
O 1
SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE SHEAR WAVE VELOCI PLANT AREA FIL 00 OA DIESELGENERATOR BUILDING og suevey (me.z = *17-)- -[f 7220 ; FIGURE m-e u>es-ro.aN c"" "*' "" "
f.
p..,.
S 'f'% >
e,
..n,
-.-.+_ --._, -........- -
S.
6 t43 J.L,4 i
du,\\g 2.
i
$0 t}d hovt 4
4-N G
i b
bMf tfn b Sti k
~
f45 AsA - ce as Aec mw aw. uo
- Peak ovnd w/ge. accdembo, = o.6 9 h: 1,6 cupin-s" Ljd fook dc
~ fer{dgr t-S l
- %n.
cb yuce l
B. bM A
le
' T
~h piso wn-nang.
n; swm
%'*\\ N l
y bil (g,1-ipbgey
- l Q
44 5'T6 90\\ h%
wew
_E). 5%
3
- c DVICr40NCC
,D M 0 0 0 b (R. N O
Ob
~
- e. a. wo Am swT w a ew. uo w a,,. >o.n 3 7 "
- I S=L wm W
9
)' = qdo due fuh = bag, OJoS e N
O l9 %
o Go f
)f 6'a
)
~
mt 2s1A Wba. O _ = pc yovedsur,a aceWb,
un
$.=:%p\\ *4a< den-kcessee b b cax EEL Ool bc Serb w vA.= e e.t-uo e.
- =
.. 7: ::
- - - - :~
Sla S2 i
1 H
J.%
1 243 j
WM Weved to kmed k fool Ola f
h. o.6s
- o-. do
, cd e,'.
s e,-
i
=-c. fos
- c.19 r di2clVa > 24JN,o.94 3
S[
6to%ktA &
k. o \\\\ %
i 6a' Fe SeeA corm qb b I he, 0.4 Q
na correch) hbw cani W : B' blow /ft i
be ui - Ca R
1 W:32 Ca
.l 6l: s2c\\hp<1Gk
%%e. Cn= \\-\\.25 &
l
= 1 s s o ly gr y
6,
,444s.
o.iss I
Ca = t- \\.2s %g tA4-6, - I hf I
r i
L:
t i
C e i-o.\\9%
I.
(l c.a e e,&q.
N4
- 3. 6
_ 9.9'l % 10 i
ca c.92 Qp.5,-:).g t.s 39 5) 5 mo 153.f i.
i'
...--..--...:-.=2-....-- --.
~'
c, s, nhz.
- d. h j
34 3
,i I
i ya e24 A.pk = o.%
h n =. o. e o, s, E,.
. r d f
~
r
- l C.,
3 G
n t
^
o.ar, (INW3
'14M a.%
- - c.6s s 4
020E)sP a 6
~
L
= o.%
_ Go' tha. 6h<4 s.J4 w W
'?f'd
- 98" " 5 d a $
I 6 F.5.= I 5 1.s - c.mo
-cn4 4M=6
@m Sd co<a g
,0, n4 c.
L. cou=Jed \\; Iou count 9,= 12.5 b / p '
Kh = Cu. M w :. 9 i 4
N =%'p
$ sagog I
x2 i
wko. Ce 1 - i.2s q. cia 1
c.
de' :. t 44 Jg'.
c a = t-i.zs 6
.44 i
j 9
6, = \\ 44
.__j l'
t i
Ce \\~125Gish n-N,
\\25
\\s.6
^
~
Q = 1 - o.ng cw o.Bw. -
Q5 0.%0'l-ddsy\\- }d Llb
)
.l
,m..i_":.;' ',,, _ _ > *^
.l' V. 'L.*,,__
4*
n r** '- 1 ' s r.
..q
- ..' ~
- f *'.,*.T
...p. Q r.
J -
.'__%**-'_,;*."'.',,..:t,.
~.,,,,,*;..
s -
A l' r.
ir #-., h. f.
36
- de 4h Z[
7 s*,. Q
't>%(H e,
.. N'i r'- 4,.,
\\gAh. ".%.,&$
9 wet DJL
- h 4 :<
i.sm.
1 4
.a.
..9
}f
&;r.
4 drW 4, Q Q*
- p.;
t o.4 V y.
%g.
.a3 M-t' -
W A.L
.6.,
p-
..L~..
?
2,E '
- N, t;j, ;,,
'.E.
g Q.h M
['g
- (,:.'
N..
84, '
- N.%
'.-'>k f ' '
'., # '6
'i'
,)
- ] L +-.=.g.: s ).%y'&.v.n n 9.y'. 6 #4 % '1.,'p
..i' o
a 1
7 e,.M.e,, #. w
?.%..L..
s.
Y.,.-
%.:y'N. :r,
..a..
~,.*'.,r,.
'-E ',., c.
-..,, + -. s;,. b,
.n %.
-1 gf,. 4
..'..' Q$,.
,n 6
t Y
- t
.f
- y; %,.
u
-n
+
.+ -
?.
. %g
.g.,
'r ;-,'i p y,t s _
..$: c-r-s
.r. m N '.... -
,o
.. 3
. g 4,,.
4.y
%'(
[
. ' '. a
~
t
/
'.y
d,
c
(
v.,
f, s
%,I.s
.c
/
s
- l
. f,.'.,
...y 3.k, k,,,
s'
~
]. 5.
f *,
^..
a.;
- ~ *
- S rW j-n
' .D 4
'[
F e.
d'
.J.i g
q 4
.1 n
'f >
g r
r n,
}
g-9 a
f T
q..
... r y,,,
<.:r
. a..
t
- y (
f,. *.
z y
y%
.A $
,1 I,.
).4.
C'
+
1L.,
",4
. 7.
E,*..,
,s
^- 4%
.v l$
?sk.. __ ~
f..
y i
,,s. *;$ ', s 'e 4
o..
.s
~,
(
., /
( ' -
e
'I, '"
8 9
L'.
f4 -,
}.-
s,
'YY
-,...'*f
?.'s l " '..
.r'
'l r.
f
{
y...
4 g,
.. n,. y -
'_n* f_
=
},
- e a
n
. -n f*
\\
n t,
),
r-J4 k<-
g
'P f.
>N..
(.
..c,
['
. ~ - *
.,,}
, l
'..s.g 4y..-
g.
a 4,.
I 5
. 'q
~
8,
. (,
'g i
N~
['
- f..
0,5 e
. ;l
%?
....,.1
,,4.
.j*
e j
- g s
,,. '. (
1
/ [.
(,,.
,)
,rl
\\.
5 p.
y, 5
w.
.f
. ~.
%y Y
y' r -
tt s
g' i
n '
'O k ^
5,.g,.
i n,
4.-
, }
~
g
. 1
- y,
F.s - 3 4
r,.y 3 2
- s. Ke+.w
.s
.K.
e.,s n;,%
y
. s.
Aq t.
.'p. -x
., Q y.,.- at.
. u g
+
J..r.
t-
-t
..e..
f g
te f
7 s.
af W A
=
,.',,+mo E '
. '. - g, 4
- - q%.
.e
- .p.'*,
,p
,f.
i+,
e 4
j ar'
.F h
y# -
g
,,. \\
s' g-^
g _
pN.I d
p y
9 T
f f.fd..kh,., gI' f......
h h. b.
~5 t
8.-....
, w g. ~.
L-
_.s
,e
,e s
t oeneret offices: 212 West Michleen Awames, Jackson, Michsgen 40201 * (5171 708 0800 Dr Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Dr Fredrick P Cowan 6152 N Verde Trail, Apt B125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 MIDLAND PROJECT -
MIDLAND DOCKET No 50-329, 50-330 TESTIMONIES OF WC PARIS AND DR RD WOODS Attached please find the testimony of William C Paris concerning the permanent dewatering system for the Midland site. Also cttached is the testimony of Dr Richard D Woods concerning liquefaction potential at Midland.
The testimony of Dr Woods determines and describes areas of the site for which a dewatering system will operate to prevent possible lique-faction during a design basis safe shutdown earthquake. Mr Paris' testimony describes the design, construction, and operation of the system to dewater the areas identified in Dr Woods' testimony as poten-tially liquefiable.
Dr Woods has indicated that, because of the hospitalization of an associate, he will be available to testify only on Wednesday, November 3, 1982, in the afternoon, and for a short time on the morning of Thursday, November 4, 1982. We request your consideration in trying to accommodate Dr Woods' schedule problems.
,,W Ja s E Brunner torney for Consumers Power Company Y
1g, I
.m._ -
. =.. - - ~.. -
6' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OM
)
50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
- )
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2))
50-330 OL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " Testimony of William C. Paris, Jr. on Behalf of the Applicant Regarding Permanent Dewatering i
e System for the Midland site" and " Testimony of Dr. Richard D. Woods
[~
on Behalf of the Applicant Regarding Liquef action of Saturated Sand During an Earthquake at the Midland Site" in the above-captioned proceeding were served on the persons listed in the attached Service List either by deposit 'in the U.S. Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, or by Federal Express as indicated in the I
Service List, on the 18th day of October,1982.
4
/
/
f
/
Robert L. Rixfor y Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation Sworn and Subscribed Before Me this [ Day of [b,1982 A$mda & Am l
Notary Putflic Washtenaw County, Michigan My Commission Expires %
dd //[h e
l 387EET A. 3333 a N T m m u m rt m e oo.
4 c e ss u s,asu su seg,30 m en 19ee
- k___,
- t
-~
,e OL-OM SERVICE LIST Mr. Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
FEDERAL EXPRESS Administrative Judge Atomic Safety &^ Licensing Board Panel SU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC -20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan FEDERAL EXPRESS Administrative Judge 6152 N. Verde Trail Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, FLA 33433 Mr. Michael Miller, Esq.
FEDERAL EXPRESS Icham, Lincoln & Beale 3 First National Plaza 52nd. Floor Chicago, Ill. -60603 Mr. D. F. Judd, Sr. Project Manager The Babcock & Wilcox Company 4
P.O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, VA 24505 Atomic Safety-& Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. 2shington, D.C.
20555 W
Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 I
'Mr. William D. Paton, Esq.
FEDERAL EXPRESS TO:
Counsel for NRC Staff-Maryland National Bank U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Building Washington, D. C. 20555 7735 Old Georgetown Road l
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 l
MO. Barbara Stamitis FEDERAL EXPRESS 5795 North River Road R ute 3 Freeland,.MI 48623 i
l Dr. Jerry Harbour FEDERAL EXPRESS L
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 l
l
.,..__._.~,._,_____ _ _,.,__ _._,_; _ __...., _ _ _ _ _ -_ _______ _._, _..- _ _._ _.._ __ _ _ __ _ _. _.
.?
.i '
Mr. Frank J. Kelley, Esq.
Attorney General of the State of Michigan Mr. Stewart.H. Freeman, Esq.
ACsistant Attorney General
' Environmental Protection Division 720 Law Building Lansing, Michigan '4d913 Mr. Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
One IBM Plaza
. Suite 4501 Chicago, IL 60611
.Mr. Wendell H. Marshall RFD 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr.-John Demeester D:w Chemical Building Michigan Division
. Midland, Michigan 48640 M3. Mary sinclair 5711-Summerset Street Midland, Michigan 48640 Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Mr. Lee.L. Bishop FEDERAL EXPRESS HSrmon & Weiss 1725 "I"
Street, NW #506 W chington, D. C. 20006
'Mr. C. R. Stephens (3 copies)
Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary FEDERAL EXPRESS U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W2chington, D. C. 20555 2
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OM
)
50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2))
50-330 OL TESTIMONY OE DR. RICHARD D. WOODS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT PtTENithL REGARDING LIQUEFACTION OF SATURATED SAND DURING AN EARTHQUAKE AT THE MIDLAND SITE l
l l
l 1
l ease:n4H s2,y,?ke -
TL~
SS:
STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY OF WASHTENAW UNITED SATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY ~ COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OM
)
50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2))
50-329 OL AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD D. WOODS Richard D. Woods, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the author of " Testimony of Richard D. Woods concerning Lique-faction Potential at the Midland Site," and that such testimony is true and accurate to the best of his knowledge and belief.
l-RICHARD D.
WOODS Sworn and Subscribed Before Me this g Day of [ [ d
, 1982 Lsu_
Notary Public Washtenaw County, Michigan My Coinmission E::pires Ah b 88. / 9[b
= = N ; &., %
. e...= =
gh.
... m
-e.
s
\\
LIQUEFACTION OF SATURATED SAND DURING EARTHQUAKE 1.0 BIOGRAPl!ICAL INFORMATION t
~
This is the testimony of Dr. Richard D.
Woods.
My detailed 4
resume is attached.
The following is a summary of that resume.
I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Notre Dame University in 1957 and a Master
'of Science degree from the same school in 1962.
I worked for the Air Force Weapons Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico, on the design of blast resistant underground structures for one year and taught in the Civil Engineering Department at Michigan Technological University for one year before going to the Universi. y of Michigan for a Ph.D. in Civil Engi-neering, which I received in 1967.
Since then I have been on the faculty of the Department of Civil Engineering at the J
University of Michigan, advancing to full Professor in 1976.
My research interests have been in the field of soil dynamics j
and earthquake engineering.
I have done part-time consulting in the fields of soil dynamics, earthquake engineering, l
structural vibrations, and general foundation engineering.
My clients have included Bechtel, Corning Glass Works, Rockwell International, Eaton Corporation, TAMS, General Motors, Honeywell Inc., Woodward-Clyde Consultants, and Nuclen (Nucle'ar Brazil).
I have directed research associated
.J 1
'iL-
,,_..__--__._..__,,_____J_,...
~. -
3'
'with liquefaction phenomena sponsored by the National Science Foundation. and have been a consultant to Bechtel, TAMS, Woodward-Clyde, and Nuclen on liquefaction issues.
.I-am a principal in the foundation consulting firm of Stoll, Evans, Woods, and Associates, Ann Arbor, Michigan and am a member of ASCE, ASEE, ASTM, and SSA.
i~
2.0 INTRODUCTION
My testimony is concerned with the evaluation of the poten-
-tial for liquefaction of loose sands in the plant area at the. Midland plant.
The liquefaction potential was evaluated using the simplified method based on blowcount as presented
)
by Seed..The maximum ground acceleration was taken as 0.199 1
l
' and a Richter magnitude of 6.0 was used to correlate with i
[
about 5 cycles of significant stress reversal for the Midland site.
On the basis of my analysis and the proposed remedial measures, I have concluded that there is reasonable
~
i assurance that the plant area is safe with respect to lique-i faction of the sand.
3.0 DISCUSSION F
j When earthquake excitation is part of the design loads for a structure or facility, the potential for liquef action of any saturated loose sands supporting the structure must be i
i E
g
.-~-----l
\\ _
--. 7.. j _
m s
avaluated.
Liquefacti'on' is the? phenomenon by which cohesion-
\\..
less, soil 1ciesshearing,strengthjbecduseof'groundshaking a
and develops a degree of mobility suffi~cient to permit large s
i
- perma 5ent displaceme' nt's o'r 'likuid-like flow behavior.
Some s
g, common manifestationc of liquefaction. include settlement and i
tilting of structures, cre'cking and lateral spreading of h..
3 1
slopes and q@ankments, flou ' type fallures of natural slopes
- 4...
o(
o l,
and embanksheqts, anAsand po}s or sand volcanos.
Qs
.s
,y
. wy s,
4 1p v
s Whether ori not 'a specific \\ sand formation, bill liquefy c.s depends on several factors associated withuthe ' soil and the s s
,.p, earthquake.. The primary consideration is whethe'r or not s
en N
lodse saMs occur below ths groundway.e;r. table;(GWT).
Unless
\\
t
~
\\
the, sands acs 'caturated, sthere will be no buildup' of excess s
r e. -%
.}
g pore %pressuy\\eorlosso$dnaaringstrehthassociated.with r~
~
- m the prodnd shaking.
However, if ther sands are dense, they X
h s
w'ill not. liquefy, even if they are below the GWT.
The measure of densenins -used in the analysis of liquef action i
yx potential is calla.i' relative tiensity.
Other factors khat g
iu4-influence the poiential for liquef action include the e'ffec-1 l
tive confining pressure on the sand and the intensity and L-1 the du' ration of ground shaking.
Large, effective confining pressures reduce the potential for liquef action, whereas i
more intense and longer durations, of shaking increase' the t
potential for liquef action.
t 6
.~
-a t %
..A *tj h
=',
^'
s c
%-,-,. s - -
e.-.
.a...
' Sands that must be evaluated for liquefaction potential exist in several locations at the Midland plant.
Some areas are concentrated under or around Category I structures, whereas other areas are distributed and support embedded pipelines and duct banks.
Several techniques are used to remedy the susceptibility of certain sands to liquef action, depending on their locations and extent.
These include preventing saturation of the sand by lowering the GWT and total removal and replacement of the sand with materials that are not subject to liquefaction.
4.0 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Based on the factors-influencing the potential for liquefac-tion, Seed and Idriss (1971) and Seed (1979) proposed an empirical method for evaluating the liquef action potential for sands at level ground sites.
Their method is based on the performance of sand deposits having certain known char-acteristics in previous earthquakes and a comparison with sands of measured characteristics at the new site when subjected to a specified design earthquake.
For any speci-fled location in a sand deposit, a key factor called the cyclic stress ratio can be estimated and is based on site conditions and the specified maximum ground surf ace accelera-tion.
The relative density of the sand (as indicated by standard blowcount) required to sustain a certain minimum 4
4 4
e
-,--.ne
,-.n n---r---,
,,v-,._,,,,,-w.,.
.,a,-,,,n_,.-
.x --
-. ~.
number of cycles of that byclic stress ratio without lique-faction can be estimated from the experienc;, gained from previous earthquakes.
If the in situ standard blowcount at the specified location meets or exceeds the estimated blow-count, no potential for liquefaction exists.
The computations required to perform this evaluation are as follows:
GL Estimate cyclic stress ratio (gav/o ')
a'.
a qv 0.65
- max 0o xr III (fav/a,')
=
d 9
C o where' j
'h,y = average horizontal shearing stress induced by earthquake a
= maximum horizontal acceleration at ground surface max a
= total overburden pressure on sand O ' = initial effective overburden pressure on sand g
d 7 stress reduction factor r
g = acceleration of gravity b.
Estimate in situ blowcount required to preclude liquefaction.
Values of cyclic stress ratio have been correlated with a modified penatration resistance (Ny) at sites that have and have not liquefied during actual earthquakes.
For earthquakes of a Richter magnitude of 6.0,*
this correlation is shown in Figure L-1, where all points on and to the right y
i.r-.,.
--y--__.-
~ _ _ _
u m of the curve are safe with respect to lique-faction.
The modified penetration resistance is related to standard penetration resistance by:
(.
Ny=CN N (2) where Ny = modified penetration resistance C
= - a function of effective overburden pressure and N
relative density as shown in Figure L-2 (use curve for D 40 to 60%)
r N = standard penetration resistance
- This magnitude was selected to provide a close correlation, based on number of cycles, with the Midland SSE.
c.
Compare N computed from Equation (2) with N in i
situ.
If the standard penetration resista*nce measured at a specific location in' the ground is equal to or exceeds N computed from Equation (2), the sand at that location will not liquefy under the design excitation.
ltn the above method of evaluating the potential for a specific sand to liquefy, both the intensity of earthquake shaking
.and the duration of the earthquake are considered.
The intensity is included in Equation (1) for cyclic stress ratio where a maximum ground acceleration of 0.19 g has been used and the number of cycles of significant stress is y
,-y--
-wm-w a
w-g.-
y-p-
--y, y
w-
,y,,.y.,-g,-y
,.y g,g-yg
.gi ep-wiy an g,.-w-w-y y p pi, ya y vw wwwe y gyw wsw pq rw--rw-y.,.wyww we vry g g-e.,-w-
~..
- =.
7_
covered by selection of the curve in Figure L-1, in this case, the curve for an earthquake of a Richter magnitude of 6.0.
This method of liquefaction evaluation presumes that the sand at the specific location being examined is saturated.
Therefore, one method of preventing liquefaction i.s to drain the sand by lowering the GWT.
Initial computations showed that some strata or pockets of sand would be susceptible to liquefaction with the GWT at elevation 627 feet, but that by lowering the GWT to 610 feet or below, the potential for liquefaction could be eliminated.
5.0 RESULTS OF EVALUATIONS OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Sands for which the potential for liquef action had to be evaluated occur under portions of two Category I structures and at some other locations around the plant site where pipelines and duct banks are buried.
The key parameter reflecting the condition of the sand as measured in situ at each -location is the standard penetration resistance, N.
N was measured at various elevations in borings throughout the plant site.
The locations of all plant site borings including t
i those 'used in this evaluation of liquefaction potential are shown in Figures L-3, L-4, and L-5.
--.u.--
~.
- u.....
u-
-g-The method by which the liquef action potential is resolved I
for the various locations is described separately in the following paragraphs.
5.1 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING AREA Liquefaction evaluation of sand in this area is based on the blowcount and relative density data obtained from various investiga tions..
Bechtel test borings drilled in September and October 1978 (DG series) and November 1979 (CH series) provided blowcount information before and after placement of surcharge, respectively.
Additional data on blowcount were obtained from the Woodward-Clyde Consultants relative density data (FSAR Appendix 2H).
These data were obtained during-the fill investigation and are based 'on the COE series borings performed around the diesel generator building in.
April 1981.
The boring location plan of the diesel generator i
building area is presented in Figure L-4.
Studies of the liquefaction potential are illustrated by the blowcounts versus elevation plots presented in Figures L-6 through L-8.
Each figure has two sets of curves representing two GWT elevations (610 and 627 feet) and two factors of safety (1.0 and 1.5).
The left-side curves form an approxi-mate boundary that separates liquef action from no liquefac-FS tion zones (i.e., Ts = 1. 0 ).
The curve on the right repre-sents a boundary of the no-liquefaction condition with a safety cactor of 1.5.
- c.. a a -.
-. ~ - -
~.u-...
_y_
'The factor of safety as used here means that the cyclic stress ratio computed from Equation (1) was multiplied by 1.5, and then the standard penetration resitance required to satisfy the higher cyclic stress ratio was determined.
Liquef action.~is not possible above the GWT, and with the GWT lowered to elevation 610 feet or lower, only two locations beneath the structure representing separate pockets of sand show blowcounts that are potentially liquefiable (Figure L-6).
Because of the limited extent of these pockets, they should have no effect on the stability of the structure.
Penetration resistance for all other locations representing the major portion of the volume of sand under the diesel generator building (Figures L-6 through L-8) indicates that the sands are safe with respect to liquefaction.
5.2 RAILROAD BAY AREA OF AUXILIARY BUILDING Three of the Bechtel AX series borings represent soil condi-I tions beneath the railroad bay of the auxiliary building (see Figure L-3).
The liquefaction analysis of the sand in e
I this area is presented in the blowcounts versus elevation i
plot in Figure L-9.
The lower set of curves in this figure for factors of safety of 1.0 and 1.5 show that only one location beneath the building had a factor of safety less than 1.5, so liquefaction is not a pro'clem when the GWT is maintained at elevation 610 feet or lower.
l l
i
..._u._...
... ~ u,
~
_lo_
l
'5.3 OTHER AREAS Sands in the plant area outside the diesel generator build-ing and the railroad bay area of the auxiliary building were analyzed for liquefaction potential by separately evaluating three horizontal strata =
below elevation 605 feet, between elevations 605 and 610 feet, and above elevation 610 feet.
5.3.1 Plant Area Natural Sands Below Elevation 605 Feet Sands existing below elevation 605 feet are 'primarily natural sands, although some fill sands were also placed in backfill around deep structures below elevation 605 feet.
To evalu-ate the liquefaction potential of these sands, the standard penetration resistance in situ was compared with that required L
to prevent liquef action, which was computed as described in Section 3.0 using a factor of safety of 1.5.
This analysis l
showed that the - sands in the plant area below elevation 605 feet have a few pockets with in situ blowcounts lower than required.
The location of these pockets are. identified in Figure L-10 with pertinent data from the analysis also shown in the figure.
Table L-1 lists all borings in which low-blowcount sands were identified and shows the low-blow-count sands in relation to the other soils above and below.
Some of the low-blowcount pockets are not located near any Category I structure, pipeline, or duct bank.
The remaining pockets represent single isolated blowcoun'ts surrounded by
- _ _ _. _.~~_
-a~...
.i
- soils with significantly higher blowcounts above and below or by nonliquefiable soils above and below (e.g., see boring CT-1, elevation 60'2.0 feet, Figure L-10, and Table L-1).
i
-Based on this analysis, the natural sands below elevation 605 feet throughout the plant area present no hazard due to
~
' liquefaction.
5.3.2 Plant Area Fill Sand Between Elevations 605 and 610 Feet Sands between elevations 605 and 610 feet are mainly fill sands, but relatively small, localized pockets of natural sands !were -also encountered in this elevation range.
Sands in this stratum were analyzed in the manner described in Section 5.3.1.
That analysis showed that scattered pockets of low-blowcount sand exist in the fill.
The locations of borings in which these low-blowcount sand pockets were found are shown in Figure L-11, and Table L-2 lists those borings and-contains pertinent data relative to the analysis and resolution' of liquef action potential in the low-blowcount sand pockets.
Some of these low-blowcount pockets are located such that they do not affect the stability of Category I structures; some are wi' thin zones that will be-excavated and backfilled; I
the remaining are located between high-blowcount' sands or other nonliquefiable soils.
r
,e
.v-1-w-e c--r%
h--.-,
.--v..
,,,--,-_--,,ym,g--.
w----w,-
.. :.a...-
12-
' Based on this analysis, the fill sands between elevations 605 and 610 feet do not constitute a liquef action hazard.
5.3.3 Plant Area Sand Between Elevations 610 and 627 Feet Outside of Both Diesel Generator Building and Railroad i
Bay of the Auxiliary Building Sands between elevations 610 and 627 feet are fill material.
The susceptibility to liquefaction of any loose sands in this stratum depends on their location relative to the per-manently dewatered regions as well as other factors.
The locations of borings in which pockets of low-blowcount sands have been identified are shown in Figure L-12.
The low-blowcount sand pockets were analyzed for liquefaction potential in the manner described in Section 5.3.1.
Table L-3 lists the borings shown in Figure L-12 and provides pertinent data relative to the analysis and resolution of liquefaction potential in low-blowcount pockets.
j Two of the areas in this stratum where several pockets of low-blowcount sands occur were south of the diesel generator building and northeast of the railroad bay area.
Both of
~
these areas will be within the zone of dewatering and there-fore not subject to liquefaction.
Another area with pockets of low-blowcount sand occurs northwest of the service water pump structure and the circulating water intake structure.
The zones where these sand pockets exist will be excavated
.#,.-,..-v_E, m-,.y
..-r-
,b,
.=_,,-,n--,.,_,wm.,,,.ww-.-r-*,wmm.+-aew-=tr.--w.--
a
-..a....
13, to elevation 613 feet and replaced with suitable backfill.
Other pockets are bounded by higher blowcount or nonlique-
~
fiable materials.
Finally, some low-blowcount sand pockets are outside the area and do not influence the stability of structures.
6.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS Limited pockets of loose natural sand and loose fill sand exist in the plant area and under two Category I structures at the Midland plant.
The potential for these sands to liquefy during an earthquake with a maximum ground accelera-j tion of 0.19 g and Richter magnitude 6.0 has been evaluated.
For most of the sand pockets which exhibited a potential for liquefaction, remedies are.provided which eliminate the potential by permanently lowering the GWT or by totally removing the loose sands and replacing them with suitable materials.
For other sand P>ckets, liquefaction is not a hazard because they occur in location where they do not influence any Category I structures.
The remaining pockets are situated in limited zones between other nonliquefiable soils and therefore present no hazard.
Because of the.widely scattered occurrence of the loose sand pockets in, the plant area, the potential for liquefaction was small before remeiial measures were adopted; therefore,
\\
-e, w
,+,,,,--r-
.~m...,--..m,-em--
-.,,------------.,----~+m-,,...,E,..S~.--,4-.'.
,.-[-
~
__.c__
u _..
.=..
.._m_.
_.a_.
af ter the implementation of remedial measures, the plant area will be safe with respect to liquef action of the sands.
7.0 REFERENCES
t 1.
Seed, H. B. and I.M.
Idriss (1971), " Simplified Procedure of Evaluating Soil Liquef action Potential," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 95, SM 9 - (September), pp 1249-1272 2.
Seed, H.B.
(1979), " Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation for Level Ground During Earthquakes," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 105, No. GT2 (Feburary), pp 201-255 3
e i
e i
1 e
e
---.--_,.-,.n._._,
RICHARD D. WOODS, Ph.D., P.E.
(
$UM O$ D& WYumorf"9 University of Michigan 9
4 e
6 e
i 1
i I
}
(
f v
I e
~~
-u _. m. s_..____._
...,.....i~
R$SUMf RICHARD D. WOODS, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor of Civil Engineering University of Michigan l
August, 1980 l
Home 700 Mt. Pleasant Ann Arbor,- MI 48103 (313) 769-4352 Office.
~
2322 G.
G. Brown Lab University of Michigan
~
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (313) 764-4303 i
PERSONAL DATA Age:
45, born U.S. citizen Physical:
Height 6'; weight 220 lb Health:
Excellent Military:
U.S. Marines Married:
Wife, Dixie Lee ' Davis)
Daughter, Kathle, n Ann, age 2 3 l
Daugh'er, Cecilia Marie, age 15-Daug'4cer, Karen Teresa, age 12 l
EDUCATION L
High' School,'J. W. Sexton, Lansing, Michigan, 1953 B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Notre Dame, 1957 M.S.
Civil Engineering, University of Notre Dame, 1962 Introductory (non-degree) Course, ASEE-AEC Basic Institute in Nuclear Engineering, North Carolina State College, 1964 Ph.D. Civil Enginee. ring, University of Michigan, 1967 O
l-
.; ~.,_.., _ _ ___ _ _...._.....__. :.;._._ _. _ _.__ _,.._._ _ _..._.._.___. : n
m
..m
_.u m. _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _..
. - - Richard D. Woods, Ph.D.,
P.E.
Pcga 2 ORGNNIZATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers American Society for Testing and Materials American Society for Engineering Education Chi Epsilon Society of the Sigma Xi Seismological Society of America AWARD Collingwood Prize of American Society of Civil Engineers, 1969 EMPLOYMENT (Full Time) 1976 to Professor, Civil Engineering, University of Michigan.
Present Courses taught:
Basic Soil Mechanics, Field Sampling Land Labocatory Testing of Soils, Foundation Engineer-ing, Soil Dynamics, Civil Engineering Dynamics Measurements, Plane Surveying, Statics and Strength of Materials, Reinforced Concrete.
Research performed:
See separate paragraph below.
1971 Associata Professor, Civil Engineering, University to of Michigan.
Courses taught:
Included above.
1976 1967 Assistant Professor, Civil. Engineering, University i
to of Michigan.
Courses taught:
Included above.
1971 1965 Graduate Student, University of Michigan, supported to on NSF Traineeship.
1967 1964 Instructor, Civil Engineering, Michigan Techno-l logical University, Houghton, Michigan.
Courses l
taught:
Included above.
l 1963 Project Engineer (GS-ll), Air Force Weapons Labora-l tory, Kirtland, AFB, Albuquerque, N.M.
Supervised contracts which were directed at determining engineering properties of soils under dynamic loads.
j' 1960 Graduate Student, University of Notre Dame, teaching to assistantship, taught surveying camp'.
1962
.1957 Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps, Camp Pendleton, to California.
Six months as platoon leader, movable 1960 bridge company.
Remainder of service as hydraulic engineering officer preparing evidence for water rights litigation.
Y l
,~,_,--._,,,__._c
~,, _,,
,_,.r7 i
Richtrd D. Woods, Ph.D., P.E.
Paga 3 EMPLOYMENT (Short Courses and Special Appointments) 1976 Fugro Fellow, University of Florida.
On sabbatical leave from University of Michigan.
Investigating use of static' cone penetrometer with built-in pore pressure transducer to predict liquifaction' potential of sands.
1974 Invited Author for Chapter on Soil Dynamics for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Soils Manual, with F. E, Richart.
1973
. Invited Lecturer, Woodward-Clyde Consultants Symposium, Berkeley.
Topic:
" Seismic Methods to Measure Shear Wave Velocity of soils and Rock."
1973 Taught Extension Courses (evening), " Applications 1972 of. Soil Mechanics to Foundation Engineering,"
2-10 week lecture series for Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, Michigan.
1972
. Visiting Professor, Institute for Soil and Rock Mechanics, University of Karlsruhe, Germany.
Taught Soil Dynamics and helped establish soil dynamics laboratory.
Research on propagation of Rayleigh Waves in region of obstacles.
1971 Visiting Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India.
Helped establish basic soil dynamics laboratory and ' field measurements capability.
1971 Invited Lecturer, Earthquake Engineering Seminar, University of Massachusetts, sponsored by National Science Foundation.
Lectures on basic vibrations, wave propagation and dynamic soil properties.
1970 Chairman and Principal Lecturer, two 2-day 1969 short courses, " Behavior of Soils for the Con-struction Industry, Continuing Engineering Education Program, College of Engineering, Uni-l versity of Michigan.
I 1968 Co-Chairman and Lecturer, Two-week short course, i
" Vibration of Soils and Foundations," Continuing Engineering Education program, College of Engineer-ing, University of Michigan.
Lectures on basic l
vibrations, wave propagation and field and labora-i tory measurements.
i l
l i
l
~
a w.--
...x Richtrd D. Woods, Ph.D., P.E.
Pega 4 RESEARCH At University of Micitigan Holographic Interferometry - Investigation of basic wave propagation and surface wave propagation in region of barriers.
Response of Pile Foundations to Dynamic Loads -
with F. E.
Richart.
Dynamic Properties o'f Soil _s_ - Laboratory and field measurement of compfission and shear wave velocity and shear modulus of soils at both low and high amplitudes.
Isolation of Earthwaves by Barriers - Study of effectiveness of trenches and cylindrical holes at screening waves.
Dutch Static Cone Penetrometer - Study of use of penetrometer for identification of soils.
At Michigan Technological University Mechanics of Slide Dams - Investigation of creation o,f dams by blasting material from canyon walls.
At Notre Dame University Preliminary Design of Dynamic Direct Shear Device CONSULTING EXPERIENCE Are~as of Consulting Vibration Measurements - on machines, in soil, on structures Measurement of Dynamic Soil Properties, in lab and in field l
Stability of Soil ~ Masses (Reserve Mining tailings delta)
Analysis and Design of foundations for dynamic loads Site Investigations with Dutch, cone penetrometer l
Blasting Damage Evaluations Blasting Code Drafting Seismic Site Investigations
- Principal Clients Bechtel Power Corporation, Ann Arbor, Michigan Attorney General, State'of Michigan (Reserve Mining Case)
s}
Richard D. Woods, Ph.D., P.E.
Paga 5 CONSULTING EXPERIENCE--Continued Giffels and Associates, Detroit, Michigan Smith, Hinchman and Grylls, Detroit, Michigan City of Rockwood,' Michigan City of Ann Arbor, Michigan Honeywell Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Orange, California, Oakland, California and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Halpert, Neyer Associates, Farmington, Michigan U. W. Stoll and Associates, 'Jum Arbor, Michigan Eaton Brake Division, Detroit, Michigan Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-3tratton, New York (Tarbela Dam)
Site Engineers, Inc., Cherry Hill and Montclair, New Jersey Corning Glass Works, Corning, N.Y. and three other plants
- PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS
- Woods, R. D.
(1963),
Preliminary Design of-Dynamic-Static Direct Shear Apparatus for Soils and Annotated Bibliographies of Soil Dynamics and Cratering,"
Air Force Weapons Laboratory, RTD-TDR-63-3050.
- Woods, R.
D.,
Reddy, P. D. and Young, G. A.
(1964), " Study of the Mechanics of Slide Dams with Distorted Models, Progress Report," Contract 74-0030, Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque.
- Woods, R. D.
and Richart, F.
E.,
Jr. (1967), " Screening of Elastic Surface Waves by Trenches," Proceeding 4 Sympo4ium on Wave Propagation and Dynamic Propertie4 of Earth Matericia, Albuquerque, N.M.,
August.
Woods, R. D.
(1968),
Screening of Surface Waves 'in Soils,"
l J. SMFD, Proc. ASCE, Vol. 94, SM 4, July, pp.
Richart, F.
E.,
Jr., Hall, J.
R.,
Jr.,
and Woods, R. D.
t (1970), Vibration 4 of Soii4 and Foundation 4, Prentice-Hall, 414 pp.
Afifi, S. S. and Woods, R. D.
(1971), "Long-Term Pressure e
Effects on Shear Modulus of Soils," J. SMFD, Proc.
ASCE, Vol. 97, SM 10, Oct., pp. 1445-1460.
,,w
~--, - N - - - - -
e-
,,-------,,,,.,a-
-,,,.e
-,,en
-. - -, - -,.erw,--w,w_
n e m w e v - w,--w _ n en e~e,,w,,www.meem,,----
---ov,>-,-e--ww~,-en me
-e-
w
.L.
d.
~ 2:
=
_ ~.-
_...._....-_~. _.
4 Richard D. Woods, Ph.D.,
Paga 6
' PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS--Continued Stokoe, K. H. and Woods, R.
D.
(1972), "In Situ Shear Wave Velocity by Cross-Hole Method," J. SMFC, Proc. ASCE, vol. 98, SM 5, May, pp. 443-460.
1 Woods'.,
R. D. and Sagesser, R.
(19 73), " Holographic Inter-ferometry in Soil Dynamics," Proceeding 4 of the Eighth International Conf erence on Soit Mechanica and' Foundation Engineering, Moscow, August, Vol. 1, Part'2, pp. 481-486.
- Woods, R.
D.,
- Barnett, N.
E.,
and Sagesser, R.
(1974),
" Holography--A New Tool for Soil Dynamics,"
J. GTD, Proc. ASCE,- Vol. 100, No. GTil, Nov.,
pp. 1231-1247.
Ander' son, D. G.
and Woods, R.
D.
(1975), " Comparison of Field and Laboratory. Shear Moduli," Proceeding 4 of Conf. on in Situ Mea 4urement of Soil Propertie4, Raleigh, North Carolina, Vol. 1, June, pp. 69-92.
Anderson, D. G. and Woods, R. D.
(1976), " Time-Dependent Increase in Shear Modulus of Clay," J. GTD, Proc.
ASCE,-Vol. 102, No. GT5, May.
Woods, R. D.
(1976), " Foundation Dynamics," Appiied Mechanica Review 4, Proc. ASME, Sept.
- Woods, R. D.
(1977), " Parameters Affecting Dynamic Elastic Properties of Soils," Proceedings of the International Symposium on Dynamical Methods in Soil and Rock Mech-anics, Karlsruhe (F.R. Germany), September, Sponsored by NATO Scientific Affairs Division and the Institute of Soil Mechanics and Rock Mechanics, University of Karlsruhe.
- Woods, R. D.
(1977), " Lumped Parameter Models for Dynamics Footing Response," Karlsruhe (as above).
Woods, R. D.
(1977), " Holographic Interferometry to Study Seismic Wave Isolation," Karlsruhe (as above).
Woods, R.D.
(1978),
" Measurement of Dynamic Soil Properties,"
Proceedings of the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division Specialty Conference, EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SOIL DYNAMICS, June 19-21, Pasadena, CA., Vol. 1, pp 91-178.
- Richart, F.E.,
Jr.,
and R.
D. Woods (1978), " Foundations for Auto Shredders,"
Presented at the 1978 Fall Convention, American Concrete Institute, Houston, Oct. 29-Nov. 3.
- Allen, N.F.,
- Richart, F.E.,
Jr., and Woods, R.D.
(1980), " Fluid Wave Propagation in Saturated and Nearly Saturated Sands,"
Journal 5d[ Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. GT 3, March, pp 235-254.
i
., _ _ -,,...., =, -, -
,,,____L___.,...
_._..__.__..,,.___._.J,C-'.
~
"ku,:ndra v.'no~oaWWn.v.
Pcga 7 PUBLICATIONS Continuzd Woods, R.D. and Partos, A (1981), " Control of Soil Improvement by Crosshole Testing," Proc. p_f, the f
Tenth Int. Conf. of the Inter. Soc. for Soil Mech. and Found. Engr., Stockholm, Sweden, Vol. 3, pp. 793-796, June.
Woods, R.D.
and Henke, R.
(1981), " Seismic Techniques in the Laboratory," J. GTD Proc. ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT 10, Oct.
Partos,A., Woods, R.D.
and Welsh, J.
(1982), " Soil Modification for Relocating Die Forging Operation,"
International Symposium on Grouting h Geotechnical Engineering, New Orleans, Feb.
~
Richart,-F.E.~Jr., and Woods, R.D.
(1982), "Foundaticns for Auto Shredders'l Proceedings pf International f
Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engin-eering, Southampton England, July 13-15, Vol. 2,
. pp.811-824.
4 4
we h
e
}
e e
w,--,
,-wnm,
-~*---,w
sw-
- * * ' ' * ' ' * * * - ' " ^ * ~
^"~~''V~'W' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' ' ~
w a,
-~:. '...
-_...u-l l
c 1
I'k W
, _ 1,,,
EVA!BkTICat OF Ioti SFT"' BEDWCOUNTS IN ' ZEE PLMrf AREA SMSS BEIott ELEVATION 605 FIET 1
SPT Information G8E
Blowcounts at Time acquired Soil of Sassele For Mm6, Description Boring prilling Elevation a=0.19, Other Than g,
Number (feet)
(feet)
In-situ FS=1.5 Sand Remarks
'AK-13 635.0 595.5 25 Sandy clay Eigh blowcount above 593.0 42 and clay below 590.5 10 25 588.0 17 Silty clay 585.5 143 CT-1 634.0 612.0 23 Silty clay Eigh blowcount below and 607.5 7
Silty clay clay above 602.0 11 21 599.0 24 597.0 29 DF-5 634.0 604.5 28 Silty clay Clay above and below 604.0 17 Silty clay 601.5 8
21 599.0 8
Sandy clay 596.5 10 Sandy clay DO-7 631.0 602.0 25 Eigh blowcount above 400.5 1"f 83 and clay below 599.0 10 21 597.5 15 Silty clay 588.5 43 Silty clay
,-3 DO-24
'629.0 605.5 16 Clay above and high 603.0 15 Sandy clay blowcount below 600.5 9
21 598.0 37 595.5 89 9-12 634.0 607.5 5
Silty clay Not near a structure 605.0 7
Silty clay 602.5 13 22 600.0 11 23 597.5 29 595.0 75 FD-55 634.0 605.0 15 Silty clay Clay above and below 602.5 7
Silty clay 600.0 4
21 597.5 15 Silt 595.0 27 Silty clay Table L-1 (sheet 1)
u.x
~.-.
-... ~..
]
4
.$1 t'
TAsta L-1 (continued) i SFT Information U
GSE 'I Blowcounts l
at Time naquirea soil of sample For lho, Description Boring Drilling Elevation a=0.19, Other Than 888 1hamber ffeet)
( feet)
In-sitt F5=1.5 Sand Remarks Not near a structure 70-20 634.0 608.5 25 e
606.0 19 603.5 16 22 601.0 13 22 598.5 52 596.0 63 Not near a structure FD=20A 634.0 609.0 40 i
606.5 23 604.0 8
21 601.5 14 22 599.0 50 596.5 130 Not near a structure PD-20C 634.0 607.0 47 604.5 30 602.0 8
22 599.5 24 597.0 63 Silty clay Clay above and below LOW-9 634.5 605.0 20 Silty clay
,~i 603.0 27 601.0 9
21 599.0 24
~
Silty clay 597.0 21 Sandy clay Clay above and high L
622.0 595.0 19 C:
8 Sandy clay blowcount below 590.5 10
'd 544.0
'20 22 l't See.5 100+
-t 542.5 100+
,l-:
,4 This ta'.? ' excludes th"e areas directly below the diesel generator building and auxiliary
[j' "3
1 -
building railroad bay. Blowcounts in these zones are shown in Figures L-6 through L-9.
'i 888 Standard penetration test 883
.i 3ering location shown in Figures L-3, L-4, and L-5 Id80round surface elevation j
88'monetandard spoon used l
l Table L-1 (sheet 2)
I i
i I
f _..__._._,;..,...
,.__..,__._.._,__-,..,,,.._,,......_,._._4,.,_,_r.._____4..,.~..m..._,_
. 3 7__ L __,.
&. R..
bbd
,A,, L.,,,,
888 EVAIRATIcel OF TDi SPT BLOWCOUNTS IN TEE PLAarf ARIA FIIL BETNEIN ELEVATI0E5 605 AND 610 FEIT s
SPT Information CSE *8 Blowcounts 8
at Time aequired Soil of Sample for leme, Description Boring"'
Drilling Elevation a=0.19 Other Than Number
( feet)
(feet)
In-situ FS=1.5 Sand Remarks CB-5A 633.8 612.3 6
Within excavation zone 607.3 17 21 602.3 30 Silty clay 597.3 85 PD-20 634.0 611.0 45 Not near a structure 608.5 25 606.0 19 21 603.5 16 601.0 13
=
Q-9 634.0 610.5 34 Clay below ansi high 609.0 27 blowcount above 606.5 11 19 604.0 23 Sandy clay 601.5 82 SW-2 634.0 617.0 36 Outside service water 612.5 10 pump structures does 607.5 11 18 not affect stability of the structure W-4 633.0 619.0 9
Outside service water 613.0 5
Sandy clay pump structures does 609.0 12 17 not affect stability 606.5 23 Sandy clay of the structure 603.0 24 Sandy clay t
Table L (Sheet i
1 Y
--4---,---m-
-we-e va.,,-
,,-----r--
m-,
ww
-w w-
= = -, - - -, * -
m.
LA\\
p
' Table L-2 (continued)
SFT Information
. GSI'*8 Blowcounts at Time aequired soil of Sample for 3t=6, Description Boringl88 Drilling Elevation a=0.19, other Than Number ffeet)
(feet)
In-situ FS=1.5 Sand Remarks Outside diesel generator DG-28 629.0 610.5 15 building 608.0 33 i
605.5 16 19 Sandy clay 603.0 15 600.5 9
Outside diesel generator DG-29 630.0 618.5 64 building 614.5 93 610.0 5
17 Sandy clay 605.5 10 601.5 26
'" This table escludes the areas directly below the diesel generator building and au tiliary building railroad bay. Blowcounts in these zones are shown in Figures L-6 through L-9.
es Standard penetration test is'aoring location shown in Figures L-3, L-4, and L-5 tesGround surface elevation
^
+-Q 1
Table L.
(Sheet 2 2
z,_
- _2:: '-
...xa..._..
...u..
% Rg. tat TABLE L-30' EVALUATICII OF LOW SPT'8' BEDWC00NTS IN THE PLAlfr ARIA FILL BETWEEN ELEVATICIfS 610 ABC 627 FEET emmmmmmmmmmmm8" SPT Information GSE' "
Blowcounts At Tiane Requirest Soil of Sample For Ip6, Description, Boring'88 Drilling Elevation a=0.19, Other Than Ifumber (feet)
( feet)
In-situ FS=1.5 Sand Remarks DF-1 633.0 628.0 30 Sandy clay Zone of 3 foot sand fill 623.0 10 11 layer with clay above 621.5 3
12 and below Sandy clay 620.0 12 Sandy clay 618.5 10 This area has been esca-DF-2 634.0 629.0 47 Sandy clay vated and later backfilled 624.0 10 61J.5 3
12 with sand. The tank founda-621.0 8
13 tion is reeting on sandy 619.5 11 16 clay with high blowcounts.
618.0 16 These low blowcounts in 616.5 9
16 sand occur around but not 615.0 13 17 under tanks and do not Sandy clay affect tank stability.
612.5 6
Sandy clay 608.0 34 FD-19 634.0 630.0 9
Not near a structure 627.5 4
l 623.5 3
12 l-620.0 21 617.5 23 Silty clay Not near a structure FD-20 634.0 631.5 7
629.0 6
l' 626.5 7
9 1.mdy clay 624.0 16 l}
621.0 8
13 l-618.5 11 Clayey silt Clayey silt 616.0 3
613.5 14 18 611.0 45 608.5 25 l'
I I
i Table L-3 (Sheet 1) i l
.i.---
-._,,.,---,--.---,,----:L,
.I
^
- - ~
.a
~-
% F.g.L It 7ADTJ L-3 (conHemad)
' SFy Information CSEM8 Blowcounts At Time Required Soil of Sample For Ip6, Description 888 Borinq Drilling Elevation a=0.19, other Than
_ Number ifeet)
{ feet) _ D2-situ FS=1.5 Sand Remarks PD-20A 634.0 630.0 9
Silty clay Not near a structure 627.5 3
625.5 5
10 622.5 9
12 620.0 11 14 617.5 3
16
' 414.0 11 Clay & sand 611.5 24 PD-20C 634.0 631.5 19 Not near a structure 629.0 4
626.5 7
9 622.0 7
13 619.5 31 617.0 37 SWL-1 634.0 616.0 14 Sandy clay 7.one of 2.5 foot sand 613.5 9
Sandy clay fill. layer with clay 611.0 13 19 above and below 60s.5 4
Sandy clay 606.0 29 Sandy clay l
PD-13 634.0 630.0 5
Aberge maximum ground water l.
table i.'
627.5 1
Silty clay below I'
625.0 6
11 622.5 5
Silty clay 620.0 10 Silty clay Q-9 634.0 629.0 5
Sendy clay Within excavation zone I;
624.0 9
Sandy clay 617.5 7
14 615.5 13 15 II 614.0 7
16 i.:
610.5 34 609.0 27 SWL-4 634.0 630.0 6
Silty clay Within dowatering zone 627.5 5
Silty clay 625.0 4
11 622.5 16 620.0 7
14 SWL-8A 634.0 622.5 2
12 Within dowatering zone 620.0 9
14 617.5 7
16 Table L-3 (Sheet 2)
I
5 I
L b Fig 41 taste.t,-3 (contimi-e)
SPT Information GSEW Blowcounts At Time Required Soil of Sample For Mr6, Description Boring m Drilling Elevation a=0.19, Other Than Number'
( feet)
(feet)
M FS=1.5 Sand Remarks SWL-4 634.0 617.5 8
Silty clay Zone of 2 foot sand fill 615.0 14 Silty clay layer with clay fill above 612.5 15 18 and below 610.0 33 Silty clay 607.5 12 Silty clay SW-7 635.G 626.0 21 Within excavation zone 623.5 24 621.0 12 le 618.5 9
16 616.0 19 613.5 11 Silty clay G-2 633.8 622.3 4
12 within escavation zone 617.3 4
16 612.3 13 Silty clay 607.3 11 Silty clay 3-4 634.6 623.1 4
12 Within excavation zone 618.1 45 613.1 17 18 608.1 24 603.1 33 Sandy clay G-5 633.8 622.3 20 Within excavation zone l.
617.3 38 l
612.3 9
18 G-6 634.0 622.5 17 Within excavation zone 617.5 5
16 l
612.5 6
18 l
FD-27 634.0 625.0 31 Within excavation zone l
622.5 8
l.
620.0 4
13 l!
617.5 16
'i 615.0 33 U.
SW-2 634.0 621.5 51 Outside the service
-i 617.0 36 water pump structure and t
612.5 10 16 does not affect the sta-1 607.5 11 bility of the structure I4 l
l l
i Table L-3 (Sheet 3) l l
i I
-.---,..I.--.
.---r
.~
.----. _ ~.-
-......_.... - ~
Seek ge\\m-st.
TABLE L-3 (continued)
SPF Information GSE888 slowcounts At Time Aequired Soil of Sample For M=4, Description es' Boeing Drilling Elevation a=0.19, Other Than Number (feet)
(feet)
In-situ FS=1.5 Sand Remarks SW-5 634.5 625.5 28 Outside the service 623.0 6
Silty clay water pump structure and 620.5 3
14 does not affect the sta-618.0 6
16 bility of the structure 615.5 11 17 613.0 16 Silty clay 610.5 35 DW-1 634.0 617.5 9
Sandy gravel Excavated and backfilled 612.5 16 18 during duct bank repair 610.0 30 Silty clay Du-2 634.0 612.5 13 18 Isolated in clay fill 609.5 31 Silty clay" r
84This table excludes the areas directly below tho' diesel generator building and auxiliary building railroad bay. Slowcounts in these sones are shown in Figures L-6 through L-9.
483 Standard penetration test 88'9ering location shown in Figures L-3, L-4, and L-5 8'bround surface elevation l
i, i
l 1
r
' 1 l
l l
Table L-3 (Sheet 4) i l
l 1
1
s tA, g
u, E6 g
i i
I N.
s.
i j
i o
s O
Q3 0.5 1
mN w.'
$E N=
w *0 m
b.J w<
- 0.4 EP o z Aw oH 4
32 o
>Z OE xm I$
U
~
- a. g c<
z_ g gw
<o o w t-s
-EE a2 j.a x
l-05
-H 4
m 0.1 w
g
\\.
g u
s
>u l
s g_
0 0
10 20 N
MODIFl&D PENETRATION RESISTNICE, N1 (BLOWS /FT)
N "t
4
,4 t..
BECHTEL ANN ARSCR MIDLAND POWER PLANT s
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATIOW.YCLtC STRESS RATIO VS " MODIFIED" PENETRATION FsESISTANCE FOR EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE OF 6. AFTER SEED (2) x.
JM ieL'.
OS AWEROS 300.
R E V.
7220 FIGURE L1 0
sx-o-w?
i
_...._m__.__
~_
-s CORRECTION FACTOR CN O
0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1,8 2.0 2.2 0
g g
g g
g f
1 i
'2 3
- E.
E o 4 g
Dr= 60 TO 80%
{
Dr= 40 TO 60%
5 s
Om Sz$6 o
P87 tw 8
e 9
i I
I l
l I
I I
I go (l
EXPLANATION Dr-RELATIVE DENSITY 1
,~ l BECHTEL i
ANN AR90R MIDLAND POWER PLANT LlOUEFACTION EVALUATIOPM:ORRECTION FACTOR FOR BLOWCOUNT AS A FUNCTION OF ?'
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE, AFTER SEED (2)
JM IE2-Deawana MfL st E v_.
7220 FIGURE L2 al sw 998 m-e--,,
.v-,-,-
,-,-,r--,,,,-
,,,-~,-,,.me.-.
e v,
,,_-,..,.,,n.,.
,..--,_-w.-.--~.-w.-
, :i -
u~.
w-
- 9 s.
.p
. h kV
- ng s,
,.,y
.ll-Ylf,*M Q.' }. A;Y,}?'en., v. y -... 4), i st.
-g
~. yd a-M. w U^
+
.x
-p
- _ p,.;1vg?_L i N
,i s*ql Q,.
a, t
i' t
i
^
(,. _
-{ ;
_s.
-v:
e g
g g
n t
h
_spW kl e in
~o s
rt-Y gg]-
- [g
-2 _'
3 eei g $.
g r
a
- ?'O 2 _ y 'O g ^
I
_111_q!.
En a
g 2 5
[.,g '.
M? a a eE
. El E
7
~
=
e
.u
,gsi [j
[.
!A*i T
.. 53 iII!i!g l!!.
^ f '.,
e
,2
~
'I 3
).
~
O I?
h vi e ; *.
.. ;e ga.e.ei
^
.e 3, s.
3 6
SlE,t. [
M ' hk
!Y $5h1$3N P4 2,[
s.'
I....
. :.. g g.0
.. M s
n'.-
/
^.- ^.
^
, y;.
i.
l t
l t
.I i
+
p'., s {
II r/s g
e
-< &m
!)
s
- n
/
r.j.
-f x
u 6-y f
/
s 4.
s, i
m
- )
'aD k-l.
v, t
.; p -
^
w!
j
.b it q
d l'
4 f
a
- ui
'g;~J
. l i
. r.'*
h
-l,'
.?
9I' l
.[
I 1__-
b [.~."E f l f'
!I '
l
.y
.i jI t}.
)=i il 1
-'l i
t il.I 4,
l3 8
1_
l
,1,
}
-l
-**A
~,
.]
g f
l,
=
p..
i' j.
nS-
.E
?
s.
\\
'e f-r i
/
e L
4
.F
.k'r-J-
A *
~
t
__.o m.
n
o, j 85 l
u.
z i
e=1
'- j 3, it
~n s
l lg
, - j i.=
4 E
- 3. :
i J
3 e
4greel3s,=
i Wi.
a.
=.
s ia 5 e e e a ss =
j 4 :
j
=
,i
=
=
a: lia a
i l t ! $ s;.:
a 4 < q ::
i r
- 2 E 1
- o. f 9
5 5
15.5 2==am.g.=
2 3:
"I o saaaa a
a.
5 3
- d*
d 34
- 4 m
g!:
s sss5**1 g 5
.d, o
o s u i.
2 4
3
=
15 2
1 ass asa s.
.)
4 s t A
r d
8 eiie i
i
- +ooe4.:].
,1 g
gc g[_
7
<X]<1<1<l eil 4
+k 9_
r -
+
f ;*5 J,
3 a
s*{
_sl a
Vit
- o an, m,
g
_o t
g.
e-8L 2,
.Ja!
$1 20
_jc,Ci il _
3
~i----s h
W1 3
l "58'- !.-
i 3.%.
c o
- i sJ s
e
-e 5
M
'o. s..-_'~ -*i d' f
act s xsa 1-sde e
m o, o.
a mb ja l *r k* l N I"
+ 2 a _--
1
-a ss 3
s a
- i. _ _r_ __ - ___-a 3
i es i
$+
seg 3
,4 e
l
$ l<e.
d g
}-
+
an i
- a
,,o ge---- W+J 2
3 og e.
i 1~
?
sJ l
!+
C' i
a 7
a
'e 8
'- r
'.____J 5
s E
7
- d 3
20-
, g
,, ~
j 8 l -_ _ _,-]* *,)__
5'?-
i 4 +
b 6
+
,~ +-
u, u,
sd :
- s s -
4 ta 2
o 6 - -
- o d'
-3*g joi m
r CD*
o s
- 3 e
__ ---- 3_
1
_ g
.g[
s t 2 8
i
-se}
4 1,
sI{:
3 mi
.f mi 2,.
a s
=
148 e
-l s c>
.a** - -
b'?".
N1.
'.a,
- l 4
i O
ODw 3 awF4 Oswt-3 4
Oow-i ca tA w..
ni cn30 coE.isA i(
OPO 27A 3*4h E 16 ODw 2 eu-1 A S5000 g
su PS270 O
O sw-wF.5a\\
M 3
G3s i
i sw-70 ih.
,..........,. ~ '."
TEST FIT 4A e
~~
.&24 BM-2A O
cn4 sw 2 swaO O Cn6 l
c42a O sw-i O
Osmo cgAcm Sg 93,,
N SERVICE WATER PUMP STRUCTURE 0 25 i
Oi sw l!
- 4 CIRCULATING WATE R INTAKE STRUCTURE N
po2e e
('
I f*
. v-, *
~4 s.
Qf:
t*
r
.I E XPL AN A Tf0N r1 se N'
4-WALTER FLOOD COWAN) f fp 80 RINGS 1909 & 1970
'i
$- 8ECilTEL 80Rii4G3,1510 r at w
{
4-BECHTEL BORINGS;1973 & 19/4 i
j O-?
O-BECHTEL BORINGS; 1978,1979, 1980 & 1981 i
1 0- WOODWARO-CLYDE CONbULT ANIS i
BORINGS; 1981
- BECHTEL TEST PIT; 1979 f
f - LOCATION OF SUBSURFACE PROFILE d
i S 5000 i
aCOE IS
,I a COE.15A
- 1 NOTE:
For the locanon of bormgs and subsurface profiles en adjacent areas, see SK-G443 and f
SK G496.
NORTHE AST PORTION OF RETAINING WALL l Sw.12A o
0 t
d t
S 5100I I
tf' r
.b i
O ed 20 40 y
f,o, SCALE IN FEET c.
b A
g a
6
'- 4X 3
~
ga.,,
=
+-
scue swww lossono ona oaa== N e_
BECHTEL assas anson MIDLAND POWER PLANT C
BORING AND TEST Psi LOCATION PLAN SE RVICE WATE R PUMP STRUCTURE joe mth o#AWmG leth
- Ew.
f.
7220 FIGURE t. r c.4,.
- q
- l
==
m
STANDARD PENETRATION REblSTANCE (BLOWS / FOOT)
~
t 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
~
l I
I I
I l
l O DG-31 l
i 624 o D G-8
\\
e DG-15 e DG 19
\\
e DG-18 i
e DG-20
- \\
DG-19 e DG 18 e
e DG-18
- \\
'IO DG-20 e DG-19 e g
Q
\\
\\
m e DG-20 1
T-614 e DG-22
\\
DG-14 e Ik e DG-22
-nl
\\
g DG-20 DG 24 h
DG-18g e DG-22 DG-8 DG-23 e oo.;,.. Da20 r
a
. DG-29 o
en 2
l
, DG-13 g
e DG-13 e DG-9 4 DG-23 604 1
e DG20 e DG-18 d
e DG-9 e DG-17 DG-9 e e DG-8 DG-13 e I
LIQUEFACTION e L
> NO LIQUEFACTION 594 DG-23 et DG-8 I
I I
584 i
BECHTEL NOTES ~.
EXPLANATION
- 1. BLOWCOUNTS WERE CORRECTED TO MIDLAND POWER PLANT
- BOUNDARY OF LIQUEFACTION, GWT AT 627.0' ACCOUNT FOR ADDED SURCHARGE DUE TO THE BUILDING LOAD AND LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION BASED ON 1978
- BOUNDARY OF LIQUEFACTION, GWT AT 610.0' LOWERED WATER TABLE.
"DG" 80 RINGS - BOUNDARIES OF j
GWT - GROUND WATER TABLE
~
hI DIE G
RAT R j
E RA i
g BUILDING.
I 7220 FI G U R E L e-1
'j
. v e...
i STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS / FOOT) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 634 i
i i
i f
CH-16 9
\\
\\
624 CH 14 9 k
\\
\\
\\
\\
m h
614 J
- k p
5 M
B I
l o
7m Q
604
~
LlOUEFACTION 4--i e NO LIQUEFACTION 594 l
i 584 I
I I
I I
I BECHTEL j,
EXPLANATION ANN ARSOft
-- - - - BOUNDARY OF LIQUEFACTION, GWT AT 627.0' MIDLAND POWER PLANT
- BOUNDARY OF LIQUEFACTION, GWT AT 610,0' LIQUEgTg VALU T ON 1979 L IQUEF ACTION AND NO LIQUEF ACTION d-GWT-GROUND WATER TABLE FOR DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING
.som mo.
nea= - un.
n ew.
7220 FIGilRE L ~
O i
t l
i STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (BLOWS / FOOT) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 634 y
i I
i 1,
i COE-8 l
COE-10 e 8
O COE-8 e COE-10 e COE 11 ji 624 KOE-84
\\
e COE 12 e COE-8 g
i
\\.
8 COE-8 e i
e COE-8 g
COE-8 g
COE-8 G COE-8 k
m\\
e COE-8 m
u
'S COE-8 g 8
m 614 m
yg v\\
8""
COe ii.
h l
COE-8 e j
.t b
g i!
O
i i
COE-8e COE-10 e
- I 3
COE-8 e eCOE4 fCOE-10 9 COE-10 e COE 13R 604 COE 13R S COE-8 3
COE-8 e e
e e
COE-10 COE-11 8
e COE-8 COE-11 eCOE8 COE-13R
!I LIQUEFACTION 1--
- NO LIQUEFACTION 594 l,l I
i i
i i
i i
gg4 l!h BECHTEL I.!
EXPLANATION NOTE:
jt
-- - - - 80UNDARY OF LIQUEFACTION, GWT AT 627.0" BLOWCOUNTS WERE CONVERTED MIDLAND POWER PLANT FROM THE RELATIVE DENSITY
- BOUNDARY OF LIQUEFACTION,GWT AT 610,0' VALUES 08TAINED FROM 90$$kdlOEBORtNGS
^
10 A
SO WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Ll0yFA TjOQA I
GWT - GROUND WATER TABLE 7
9 RA B IL G
TEST DATA a
Jon aso.
naawma ano.
m E v.
[r 7220
~ FIG U R E L-E l
l
f-a i
l STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE IBLOWS/ FOOT) t 0
M 60 70 80 l
634 I
I I
I I
I I
i l
i 1
^ *"I AX-10 g g
A -2 824 Ax.,
. Ax.1
. Ax.2 AX 1034 s G AX-2 AX-14
\\
GAX-2 AX-10M AX-1 AX-2 s
\\ AX-10 0 I
,\\ AX-19\\+9 AX-1 AX-2 l
G
'w' Y*
I AX-2 W 614
- Lg AX-10$*
j; g
SAX-1 0
u-
- og
\\
\\.
Ag-1 AX.-10 AX 10 k
AX 10 AX-2 3 AX-2 g
SAX 1
{
c "j
S m AX 10 g
w 604 y
'$ 9 g
AX-2 b AX-109 'e AX-1 0
h
-2 AX AX-23 LIQUEFACTION
- l--*-NO LIQUEFACTION G AX-10 lj 1
AX 10 594 AX-10 j.
~
I A I AX 10 O
8 i
8 584
,i
-EXP_LANATION s
BECHTEL
-- -- BOUNDARY OF LIQUEFACTION, GWT AT 622.0" i
BOUNDARY OF LIQUEFACllON,GWT AT 610.0" l
MIDLAND POWER PLANT GWT - GROUND WATER TABLE 1 '
LIQUEF ACTION EVALUATION BASED ON 1979 BONINGS - BOUNDARIES OF LIQUEFACTION AND l
NO LIQUEFACTION FOR THE RAILit0AD BAY ARE A OF THE AUXll.lARY BUILDING
!j aos no.
omamma me.
a e v-I!
,,,g 7220 FIGURE L-9
")
,i
R 4
W Q
VA l
i I
Q x
s!;
- i
!ggI [
j 1 p l lil i
El s.!!
p p -2 0
i lh
==
l j I jr! ! $~
s a!
=
j g= %i gf 3
- r d
98 o
l f,/.
~
~
\\
l D
,i 3
II I
il l
/
]
I!
5'f
\\
i
\\
M t
$)
I',
d I
N ^:0 as m
i, a
a
'1 x 'l =-
a
- r o,
%@N 9 8
.;l Di i 1
/
T g-m ms!
p
..' 'l pPl i
c
]
i j l()
J N
.ll ll 1,1
,s s
i
+
~
00 x
n-1 g
I k
i
/
.D e \\
~
g, 0il gl
(
LJ i
11 o
- g pg,,
m y
i.i j ! A,[
- ,] _
1 ux
}
f/
- q
't y
7,.
c.
{
~
/
/
i l
l l l) j.
~
4
4
'd 1 1
- I I
'ic 3 $!i i
J i
i el l
-=0 i
~ S i sg 1.i!
ni, t
-pl g;!:g-i le f r5
- 1
- if m :
g M
1
}
f,/
1 ;
\\
i
%e v
v i
u:
s l
id
'/
94 i,
~
l
~-!!l l
iii c
b
'fgA 1?
W^
W
[s t
o 1
l
!!M. 9/,N
[i QQ E
I sg
(
v.
ij n)
_j x
m s
i
,1
~
/
l 1\\
.g
,l 1,1
>:5
- jl
-\\
i i
l O O 3
F l
l O
i o._ \\
l 1
I 6
i
_c_i;i e,
X c
g,p
- sM-
_ _ _ _ _u.
tr
{
s J
x1\\Mj p.
l
/,k~
n 1
- ~ ~ i ll.
4
/ V' t
1 l
//
/
fs
~
s
/
'I' D
,f
' l ' l k,,-
~
l l
l I,
I l
I
...--..........sa u
'h, hf.llA l* W '
,, -,j,...
8
^
4 u
l u
f ee y
b
'\\
is I
e X
ll.3 F5fE i
3
'l d
l g g
e 7 d a
!"g gg E
=
s, l
$1 O
' I
).
I l fgi -1 32 5
k I
8 4
g 29 I '_
2 9
.p mi si g gg O
.s q.!!
a
__ 4 s
I]
y;/
i,:
N N
/
J
/
a sd: '
-:: air;;
/
/
ID-:.@,l ji ill N
g r_t i, J
/
1531.:a /
~
)
l i!'
L
[v e,g
^
a y
7
- v l
Il
$9
- s
,l Nb 2-i i il a,
1,
/
t.
gh f/N
[if-,i'$
[ b I
d a-a;.;.
in c.
- l. -
v
_m_ '(
1 r
j j
j l O f3 d_
F'I
)l:
1
'nj r'
st 1 ll n Il 3
g j
~*
Q~
g oQ I
~
O u@
(:9 s
i o
, el i
.l D i l
l 1i 7
~1 I
c
=T pp l
y, --
-e=em=m me m aim me====e we e ase ew w== -e== emme em e m se em w
- i/k M )h x s\\
-p;,
7 p.
s 4
h I
o I
/u /l g:
i il-p'
.J.;_
i j
c
/
/
g
/
~
p
'I l l'l} $l
,, }
1s.
I.
i a.
I i
i e
,m-...--...e===...==.es====
n r
J.~.
'(,k1ll$2.
v4 YN
- A material false statement was made in section 2.5.4.5.3 of the FSAR which stated that " 11 fill and backfill were placed according to Table d
8
~2.5-9".
. Table 2.5-9,771 fnimumgompaction riteria contained the i
I following:
Compaction Criteria Zone (1).
Soil
'" Function Designation h
Degree ASTM Designation Support of Clay 95%
ASTMD155f2j6T E
structures (modified)
(1) For zone designation see Table 2.5-10.
(2) The method was modified to get 20,000 foot-pounds of compactive energy per cubic foot of soil."
1 This statement is material in that sections 2.5.4.5.3 and the indicated portionof1ble2.5-9wouldhavebeenfoundunacceptablewithout further staff analysis and questions if the staff had known that
.fategory I structures had been placed in fact on fill which did not meet the niinimum compaction criteria set out in FSAR Table 2.5-9.
h /)-/-)Y k y
p
.,2 gs y m# &a446, e M->
- /
@ ag. 8
}
f WAA Sw R
-fom W. faloln&
' ~
?vfpse of natuny chang nous ?
c e
aduaV M -nux/ M
~
~
(s
-i--
ie~p-A A a_:4'
\\
6 rJ6 a e-9 a sud i, w 2""r"f 142-Ctsegy h
I g 2.s.szkiru irow lp& EW
(, j o
e.
i pa a
i l
I
(f g
s 2-b y !. p,4 7 1-and compaction requirements were not followed; (2 there was a lack of clear diraction and support between the contractor's ngineering office and construc-tion site as well as within the contractor's engineering office; (3) there was a lack of control and supervision of plan fill, placement activities which contributed to inadequate compaction of oundation material; (4) corrective action regarding noncomformances rela d to plant fill was insufficient or inadequate as evidence by repeated from specification requirements; and ($) the FSAR contains inconsi ent, incorrect, and unsupported statements 1,
with respect to foundation typ, soil propert s and settlement values.
The
.m details of these findings ar described in t e inspection reports 50-329/78-12, 50-33b/78-12(November 14,
- 78) and 50-3 /78-20, 50-330/78-20 (March 19, L
1979) which were sent to tte Licensee o November 17, 1978 and March 22, 1979 u(..
u respectively.
fm h
i
{
The items of ncncompliance re ingfromtheNRCinvestigationaredescribedk in Appendix A to this Order. h addition, as described in Appendix B to this jFk.a Order, a material false statement was made in the FSAR in that the FSAR falsely stated that'"All fill and backfill were placed according to.Jable 2.5-9." This yg statement is material in that this portion of the FSAR would have been found
[I kb l
unacceptable without further Staff analysis and questions if the 3taff had g
3 I--
known that Category I structures had been placed in fact on random fill at 5
thancontrolled'compactedcohpsivefillasstatedinthe[SAR.
f tis /mk*T%.<ps
,,, J p ) Y' p // 4 At clay [h/k.l-P 2.5-Lor c4
'l nJ caAn:,.. ty..wA- =,!)
g.4 dm 2.za p
7 v t*d er r.a As a re$ ult of questions raised during the NRC investigation of the Die el 1
400ator Building settlement, additional information was necessary to evaluate n u 4c d g n b co,,,p p a,,,s.
a.,,,, o
, e ad v StA.* g e g f 4 o m
.,. - 7
-a
., _ _.... _ _. ~ _ _. ~ - - _.. _... _ _ _ _. -. _ _ _ _ _ _ ~. _ _. _ - _ -
m_
.~
~^
. ~,
... me s!.; **~
DEC 8 1117 9 Appendix B 2-This information is false, in that materials other than controlled compacted cohesive fill were used to support the diesel generator building and informa-tion presented concerning the supporting soils influenced the staff review of
}l i
the FSAR.
9 b
O p.e (s%
f,.
c
/
}/
t W Ch e
e.
,--,__,._n
,n__.
,,,_,___.4 e-.
,.--..-_v.,,..r_,
~
e e
,F s
.. ~...
_.(
9
. e
,[
p
$ Q ST (,(,,
/?ie de O CH i
2 i
I i
g
.1 yledd (N ie aj CE L.D 3 Ccm men {5
'l
(
vi3 1-b dimd.ig. n :cn 3 ~ te.3t d,e(
c 6 hicE lt3/3 'fbc d'
h{lceng.
6 % %Am,
,, wit,k mw eshekshd e.de,3 413g h h a n 3'.tyh an. m d h dd 2c,t m ice Q ew 3ce co.s 4 3
On p're.,3 aa ntdd k hr # Sr Ike euh sen.ws 9
8 t
h b
0 0
-m.
>w*=e=
0 i
e
'flWCO f, W-l/ns(J (b5 ~
jj
'h
's r.
p P.
-m
~~
f s
A 0
s
/
NRC STAFF ESTIMONY OF H.N. SINGH, P.E. ON UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUES 1
(GE0 TECHNICAL ENGINEERING) j Ql. Please state your name and position with the Corps of Engineers.
F A.
My name is Hari Narain Singh. I an a Civil Engineer with the U.S. Army g
Corps of Engineers, Detroit District.
Q2. Have you prepared a statement of your professional qualifications?
A.
Yes. A copy of this statement is attached.
hl H
Q3.
Please state the nature of the responsibilities that you have had with j p the Corps of Engineers before assuming your assignment of reviewing the p
geotechnical aspects of the Midland Nuclear Power Plant.
i 7
A.
I worked in the Design Section of the Technical Branch, and was
/
responsible for designing and reviewing designs of structures involving soil structure interaction such as sheet piles, earth anchors, friction and beari piles, machina foundations, foundations for buildings. I was also responsible for design and review of designs of dikes for dredged materia 4I Please state the purpyse ogtgs testimony.
%'[. s facilities.
/
tt r
Q4.
,e
'Ibe pur & l'hh h h h-oapprisetheAtomidSafeyand
,~
hh pose of this testi ny is A.
Licensing Board (ASLB) of th safety elated problems pertaining to e
geotechnical engineering, at th land Nuclear Power Plant Site.
Q5. When did the Corps of Engineers get involved and what were the areas of p
its review and the limits of their responsibilitiest k.
t A.
According to Intersgency Agreement No. NRC-03-79-16 which began on 25 f
September 1979, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is oblig tad to provide
{q technical assistance to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi sion (NRC) as to Ceotechnical Engineering concerns in reviewing and evaluating the Preliminary l
Safety Evaluation Report (PSAR) and the Final Safety Eval.ation Report (FSAR) submitted by the applicant for a Construction Permit (CP) or Operating License j
(OL).
J) g The reviews are to be conducted using the guida e contained in'the NRC fF r) Regulatory Guides, industry standards, and the guidan e and the acceptance criteria in the Standard Review Plan (SRP) in the ar as of geotechnical responsibility. The approach outlined below was t be followed:
(i) Recommend requests for additional i ornation or clarification based upon initial review and evaluation of th information provided by the applicant.
L
-wh%
4 1k a
f g/
&Y A
D aa a q.pc -
h 0y 09p&v'g r
Ar a# w@k.
W f
uh4 m
y.
3 *
(ii) Evaluation of the responses provided by the applicant.
(iii) Attendance at meetings with the staff and the applicant to
~
discuss and resolve outstanding issues, and audit the implementation of the applicant commitments.
(iv) Preparation of a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) input which describes the evaluation of the design of the applicant's safety related (and some non-nafety related) systems.
( a) Attend meeting with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) an: public hearings to assist the staff in explaining bases for conclusions and positions reached in the SER.
f f
. %) and document systems evaluations in the SER based upon review by the ACR (vi)
/1 L
-f
%1 6.
What is Geotehnical Engineering? Why is it necessary to review the geotechnical aspects of the Midland Nuclear Power Plant?
Q I y
A.
Geotechnical Engineering is a branch of civil Engineering which deals with {k-the foundation of structures and the soil supporting them. It includes soil exploration study of soil properties under various environmental and loading 1 i
conditions, soil-structure interaction and then by utilizing these q,.
information, determination of adequate foundations for structures.
p b, !
g.
Mt A foundation is the part of a structure which s.erves to transmit to the soil
['.
- I beneath it, its own weight, the weight of the superstructure above it and any i
force which might act upon it.
A foundation is therefore, the connecting link,
n 4 l' between a superstructure and the soil. A foundation should be designed to M \\ }l l
support the loads and moments acting on'it and distribute the loads in a
\\
gj l
satisfactory manner over the contact surface of the soil layer over which it
'.\\
k.
l rests. In order to be satisfactory, this distribution must not produce excessive stresses within the soil mass at any depth beneath the foundation. [ hl}k b
- The term excessive stress implies a force per unit area which would cause a 3
1 complete rupture within the supporting soil mass and result in noticeable f':i 78 W
l tilting and/or sinking of the structure as a whole. Stresses are also to be s
,( $
T '
rated as excessive, if they cause a settlement of the supporting soil surface 3 N h
so uneven that the structure above it would crack or be otherwise.damsged.
i g
while undergoing deformations resulting from this uneven settlement. Thus,
% ?
the importance of a foundation is self evident, since no structure can endure @
g
, y4
,N without an adequate foundation.
kg D W l fb A foundation will naturah tend to hollow any settlement of the soil on which -y\\ @P 9 i
i
(
g it rests.
In" turn, thGuperstruciure~will follow the settlement of the foundation which supports it. _Both.will tend _to.. equalize. uneven settlements-flbyresistingdeformationandtherebytransmittingmoreloadtothosepartsof
, the soil surface which have wettled least. No deformation of the soil surface I
bene $ath a structure can take place without a corresponding deformation of both the foundation and the superstructure above it.
Undue deformation in a l
structure due to uneven settlement of the soil can occur if soil of variable J
2 b
1
\\
~
E c ---~ ~
.. = -
^
s, density and physical properties is supporting the structure. The undue deformation might cause serious cracking which will reduce the load carrying espacity of the structure.
To ensure safety against sinking, tilting, cracking of the safety related structures at the Midland Nuclear Power Plant, particularly due to the inadequate compaction of fill material, it is imperative to review the geotechnical aspects of all the Category-I structures deriving support from the plant fill.
Q7. State specifically, the names of the safety related structures which the Corps of Engineers were requested by the NRC to review. Also state specifically the geotechnical aspects reviewed to insure the safety of these structures, and the sources which furnished the Corps the review materials.
A.
According to the interagency agreement between the Corps of Engineers and the NRC, the Corps of Engineers is obligated to review the geotechnical aspects of all safety related Category-I structures under both static and dynamic conditions to the safe shut down and operating basis earthquakes.
These structures includes D
(1) Reactor Buildings
/
(ii) Auxiliary Building (iii) Diesel Cenerator Building (iv) Service Water Structure (v) Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks
-- - gy (vi) Borated Water Storage Tanks (vii) Category-I Underground Piping System -
v
~
D (viii) Emergency Cooling Pond (enclosing dikes)
..:.. -=
4 The geotechnical aspects reviewed includeds (a) A review of the site investigation program, both field and laboratory, to assure that an adequate determination of all surface conditions I
has been achieved including consideration of borrow sources. This may require l
recommendation for additional investigations to obtain the required data.
j (b) Evaluations and recommendations pertaining to proposed design criteria.
3
/
l
/
(c) A review of the bearing capacity and settlement analyses performed by i;
/
the applicant and, in many cases, the performance of independent bearing l
capacity analyses. A review of the slope stability of the. Category-I dikes.
i; A determination that the applicant has presented adequate bases to support a
design parameters used in its analyses.
~
(
(d) An evaluation of the stabilization technique proposed by the : ---.
appliesnt to solve site foundat on problems. Recommendations for d
i stabilization.
j l
N: f } %.
t e
/
,Q 3
)
W
(/
4
.m e
.wy
. _.. _,.... -. _ _ _ _ _ _ ~. _. _ _ _ _
a= -
_. L _
i..
33
/ h*]
b
/
~
h &'1 & & #f (e) In regard to most cases, field trips were necessary to inspect the J*#
g, site, to observe sampling and testing of soil, and to evaluate the adequacy of gV the techniques and equipment.
h information to be reviewed was included in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and the pertinent amendments to it, and in the responses to 10CFR 50.54(f) requests regarding the plant fill, which all were forwarded by the applicant to the Corps of Engineers. h review included an evaluation of information included in Sections 2.5, 3.7 and 3.8 of the FSAR and 10CFR 50.54(f) documents which addresses the adequacy of soil mechanics, earthquake engineering and the foundation engineering in order to assure the safe siting and operation of all the seismic safety related Category-I structures and p/'
gh conduits. h review was conducted in accordance with the NRC Standard Revie t
Flans Section 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.4.
Specific guidance in review was
'obtained from the NRC Regulatory Guides 1.132, 1.138 and 1.70.
l Q8. What were the results of your review of the meterials pertinent to I
geotechnical engineering provided in the FSAR and in the.pplicant's responses l
to 10CFR 50.54(f) requests?
i l
A.
The geotechnical information pertaining to each of the Category I I
l structure and conduit provided by the applicant in the FSAR and responses to l
10CFR 50.54(f) requests were reviewed by the Detroit District Corps of j
{
Engineers. h details of the review comments are provided in the Corps of l
% Engineers' Letter Report of 7 July 1980_ and in tne wrps or Engineers' review comments of 17 April 1981 on the applicant's Amendment 85 to the operating license requests and on Revision 10 to the 10CFR 50.54(f) requests. A brief description of the descrepancies noted for each structure is given below.
a) Reactor Building Foundation.
g soils and foundation information per ng to the Reactor Building provided in the FASR are based on th riginal design which assumes no site dewatering. Site dewatering is proposed.
The Corps' report of 7 July 1980 pointed out this descrepancy and requested the applicant (Question 39, 10CFR 50.54(f)) to discuss and provide analyses for settlements and bearing
)
capacity for the foundation soils considering the effect of permanent y
dewatering proposed by the applicant to preclude liquefaction under the plant i'
Soi
- n. applicant's response to qu.stion 39, 10CrR 50.54(f) is noe area.
seceptable. N Corps of Engineers' comments of 17 April 1981 on Amendment 8
- ~
h provide the details.
(
(b) Diesel Generator Building.
1
\\
bQ The Diesel Generator Building was reported to have settled. h magnitude of j
the settlements varied from one end to another and along the length and the j
width of the building with maximum settlement at the southeast corner and the 4
,k minimas at the northwest corner. h settlements measured in the time interval between 28 March 1978 and 19 January 1979 indicated a maxSan i
i settlement of 4.25 inches at the southeast corne-and a minimum settlement of 2.09 inches (Fig 27-10 of 10CFR 50.54(f) responses). The settlements would i
)
s n9 p w e+1i o
=
l J
cause a warping of the structure's foundation. The settlements which occurred prior to 28 March 1978 were not reported in the responses to 10CFR 50.54(f) p w.m y M
e<- ~ -
I.> an effort to dete a the cause of the excessive differential settlements, h
I the applicant be a soil exploration program which indicated soil fill of very substandard compaction. As indicated by the blowcounts of the standard g
penetration test, the quality of the fill material varied from loose sand to dense sand and from soft clay to stiff clay, indicating very poorly compacted j
soil.
I, The applicant preloaded the area inside the building and a 20' wide area immediately outside the outer walls of the building with a 20' high sand pile (2.2 kips per square foot) to accelerate the settlements and to achieve a stable foundation prior to making connection to the building with outside pipe lines. As a result of this preloading, the building settled further with a -
total maximum settlement of 7.45" (4. 25"+3.2") at southeast corner and a total minimum settlement of 3.49" (2.09+1.5) at northwest corner. The settlemert
' data at the corners obtained after the surcharge indicated warping of the foundation still existed.
r Ith the changed density of the fill material due to preloading on which the "g
Diesel Generater Building is founded, the soils and foundation information attaining to this building provided in the FSAR are no longer valid. The g
bearing capacity, settlement predictions for the 40 year plant lifespan mast be reevaluated on the basis of the soil paramenters obtained from the test results on representative soil samples taken from the actual fill material ' b k 6)v4 Od In response to 10CFR 50.54(f) requests, the applicant has furnished g
information regarding settlements and bearing capacity of soils under the footings of the Diesel Generator Building. The Corps of Engineers in report of 7 July 1980 requested additional information needed to evaluate the i
adequacy of the foundation of. the Diesel Generator Building and others.
k information needed was explicitly spelled out in the 7 July 1980 report which i
was transmitted to the applicant on 4 August 1980 by the NRC. The applicant
-g responded to the request through its Amendment 85 to the operating license
- cequest and Revision 10 to 10CFR 50.54(f). The details prgvided in the
{
t response were not adquate to evaluate the stabit'Ily of'the j
%a a
structure The Corps of Engineers comments of 16 April 1981 on Amendment 85 shows the reason for the applicant's j
andRevision10to10CFR50.54(f)b e
p response not being adequate.
l_ T ^_..._ C J... L --1 -- g evere damage to the integrity of the structure has already been done due to the settlements caused
/
by the weight of the structure and the additional settlements caused by the preloading. Many diagonal tension cracks have appeared on the east wall of thestructureindicatingthestructurehasbeensubjectedtoselverestresses and strains due to differential settlements. There is no guarantee that these cracks ha,ve stabilized and would not propagate when the structure will be subject to enviromental loads (earthquake, tornado, servere tersperatura y variations, wind load etc.) in future.
s
(
a
,-.--_,,,-___r--
y
,,,.,.,_y
,_g_,,,.
y
_,e w,,yy._.,o.,,,,
i (c) Service Water Building Foundation.
The Sevice Water Buildi is founded part on the original ab partly on the fill material. Tt e foundatio evation for the ion of the structure founded on ori inal gro is 587.00 and for the portion on t
fill material is 617.00. The e of the po a founded on fill cracked indicat ng settlement cf building.
applicant,as 13 case of the Dies Genera r Building,hejga a soil inve gation prograd which indicated so poorly compacted soil u,nderneath a foundation.
As per applicant's HC 4
Interim Report 6, June 11, 1979, the fill material was summarized as soft to 1
very stiff clay and loose to very dense sand backfill. Some areas of the fill material under the northern part of the structure have not been sufficiently 4 g 5
compacted.
I=
As a corrective action, the applicant proposed to support the north wall on 16 underpinning piles driven into the glacial till through predrilled holes in the fill material. The design capacity of each piles was to be 100 tons. The piles were to be placed a few inches away from the outside face of the north wall and was to be connected with the wall with shear connection or other mode dowels. Figure 83 of the applicant's MCAR 24 Interim Report 6 ghows the i
preliminary arrangement of the underpinning system.
[
l L
nW J
)
The Corps of Engineers performed the preliminary re w of th a pIicant U proposal and wanted more information to check the a quacy of the proposal to carry the loads under the_ static and seismic condit: ons. The information requiredtocompletethereviewwasincludedinthef.CorpsofEngineers' letter
~
report of 7 July 1980 (Question 40,10CFR 50.54(f))
A copy of the report was trasmitted to the applicant by the NRC on 4 August 1980 for its response. The applicant's response to question 40, Amendment 85 to the operating license request, and revision 10 to 10CFR 50.54(f) was reviewed. The information Provided by the applicant was found to be inadquate.
The Corps of Engineers 2
review comments of 16 April 1981 on Amendment 8 shows the details of the e
information still required.
[
(d) Auxiliary Building Electrical Penetration Areas Feedwater Isolation Value Pits.
1 The Electrical Penetration Areas (EPA) and the Feedwater Isolation Yalve Pits (FIVP) for the Reactor Units 1 and 2 are founded on the plant fill area. Th e
Reactor Buildings and the main body of the Auxiliary Building are founded on i
glacial till. A soil investigation by the applicant for all Category-I Structures founded on fill material, after the discovery of the excessive settlements of the Diesel Generator Building, indicated layersif loose sand l
and soft clay (MCAR 24, Interim Report 6, page 3 in the soil mass under the Electrical Penetaration Area and the Feedwater Iso ation Value Pits. The applicant, on page 4 of NCAR 24, Interim Report 6, concluded that
- w, approximately 15 feet of the backfill material under the Electri,c,a- *,h s
Penetration Areas and the Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits'has not
~ [
sufficently compacted. y
[3 M
gl Y c $p Q ' pry.
$W dui g.
+4
Mecause of the poor soil conditions (loose sand and soft clay) attributed to inadequate compaction, the actual soil parameters (shear strength parameters, compressibility coefficients) of the soil are not the same or better than the g
assumed design soil paran.aters provided in the FSAR. The values of ultimate bearing capacity provided in Table 2.5-14 of the FSAR for the EPA and FIVP are i
I i
not valid. Also the settlement values for these structures provided in the FSAR would change. As a metter of fact, the effects of the poor soil k
I b conditions under the foundations have already become visible in the form of cracks in the walls of the structures, and the structures have parrially lost pL their structural integrity. The capability of these structures to withstand l
- environmental loads (earthquake, tornado, etc. ) is questionable.
.6 As a corrective action, the applicant has proposed the following actions:
g The unsuitable backfill materials (inadequlstely compacted materials) under the Feedwater Isolation Valve Pits of both Units 1 and 2 will be removed and 4
be replaced by lean concrete (fe'-2000 p.s.i.).
The Electrical Penetration 4.
Areas will be supported on caissons. The caissons will be provided under the,,
O structures at their free ends (near their junctions with the FIVP), and at the k
other ends, supports to the EPA will be provided by the control tower with
~1 which they are built monolithicly.
The Corps of Engineers found the applicant proposal at a conceptual stage and T
requested the applicant to furnish analyses for capacity of caissons, soil N
parameters used in the analyses, constructuion plans and specifications etc.
for a n *. m review to determine the adequacy of the propor.al. The details of the information requested are given in the Corps of Engineers' Letter
[
Report of 7 July 1980. The NRC transmitted this report to the applicant on 4 4
August 1980 for its response. The applicant's response to the Corps request regarding the Auxiliary Building EPA and FIVP (Question 42 of the letter
, N report) was reviewed and the information furnished by the applicant was not d[A4 adequate to avaluate the adequacy of the applicant's proposal. The Corps of fg M O** '
Engineers review comments of 15 April 1981 on Amendment 85 shows the neede
?S3 L information, and the analyses to complete evaluation of the proposal.
ygh 4
(e) Borsted Water Tanks, The Borated Water Tanks were built on the fill material despite the numerous
?
g evidences that compaction of fill material was questionable (settlements of the Diesel Generator Building, cracking of the Service Water Building and portions,of the Auxiliary Building founded on the fill materials). Prior to
'g their construction, the NRC through Question No.6,10CFR 50.54(f) requested i
[
the applicant to provide. justification for constructing the safety-related tanks on the questionable fill material.
3 Based on some preliminary soil investigation, the applicant concluded that the soil conditions in the area where the tanks were founded would be adequate, J
and it completed the construction of the tanks. The Corps of Engineers 0
reviewed the applicant's response to Question 6 and 31,10CFR 50.54(f) which pertain to foundations of the two Borsted Water Tanks, and requested, soil information needed to evaluate the adequacy of the tanks foundation. The k
7 9
.i.---------e-s-m-w--g-me--we-gy*.=ev-----oy--wwr
%e w-w wg.,g-s
-g-m w e, m--ww+'
3 0'
details of the requests are ine ded in the Corps of Engineers Letter Report
[
of 7 July 1980. The NRC trans tted the Corps' requests to the applicant on 4 August 1981 for its response h applicant's response to the requested
[
l information as to the tanks Question 43) was reviewed by the Corps Engineers and was found to inadequate to complete the review The soil modulus of subgrade reactions used by the applicant to analyse the ring beam foundations of the tanks was not compatible with the type of soil conditions i
prevailing under the Borated Water Tanks.
t appears that the applicant has I
performed no test to evaluate the uriati athemodulusofsubgradereaction/
l i
because of the varying density of the soils along the depth as well as across
[
the diameters of the tanks as indicated by the borings. The details of the discrepancies noticed in the applicant's response to the Corps of Engineers' i
request of 7 July are included in the Corps review comments of 16 April 1981 4
on Amendment 85.
It has been reported recently that the ring beams of both E
I the tanks have cracked severely when the tanks were filled with water to h
perform load tests of the foundation soil.
N Y
(f) Underground Diesel Fuel Tank Foundation Design.
Iba Underground Diesel Fuel Tanks are buried in the questionable fill
/% meterials, and are anchored to concrete pads with their bottom elevation at 612.00. The tanks are covered with fill material. The Corps of Engineers has reviewed the information submitted by the applicant in response to NRC Qiresti 31,10CFR 50.54(f) and to the Corps of Engineers' requests forwarded
(
to the app cant on 4 August 1980. The appli_ cant'_s_ response was not satisfactory The applicant must demonstrate by analysis that the tanks are safe against uplift pressure. Also, a settlement analysis of the tanks due to seismic events is necessary because some of the boring logs indicate a j
layer of loose sand below the pads. The details of the information required to complete the review are given in the Corps of Engineers comments of 16 April 1981 on Amendment. 85. _..
~
(g) Underground Utilities O
0 l
k Because of the questionable plant area fill' dis' cover'ed after the excessive
~~ ~
settlements of the Diesel Generator Building, it became necessary to i*
(
investigate for the additional stresses developed in the Seismic Category I pipings due to the settlements of the fill material. Because of the natural soil structure interaction between_that piping and the surrounding soils, the ipes conformed to the configuration of the settling soil mass resulting in bending of the pipes, introducing bending stresses in the pipes beyond the q
permissible limits.
.l The Corps of Engineers evaluated the stresses in one of the pipes (26" dia
[#
OHBC-54) using the information furnished by the applicant in response to the g
10CFR 50.54(f) requests. As shown in the Corps of Engineers Letter Report of j i 7 July 1980, the stresses developed due to curvature caused by the settlements l;
was found to be 130 KSI exceeding the permissible limit by more than 100%. A copy of the Corps of Engineers Letter Report was forwarded to the applicant by
, h the NBC on 4 August 1980. But the applicant has not yet responded to the
~
{
\\
Corps of Engineers' evaluation of the underground piping. stresses.
p s
p e
.: m :- -
-^:__ - :-
The plant fill around the Diesel Generator Building was consolidated under the preload, therefore, the Category-I unter circulating piping within this area were subjected to additional settlements. The Corps of Engineers requested the applicant to perform a thorough inspection of these piping with video cameras and sensing divices for possible areas of crackings and openings. The applicant's response to this request (Amendment 85 and Revision 10 to 10CFR j
50.54(f)) was not satisfactory. As stated in the Corps of Engineers' review comments of 16 April 1981 on Amendment 85, it not possible to evaluate the adequacy of the piping in absence of the requested information.
During the site visit on 19 February 1980, the Corps of Engineers representatives observed three instances of what appeared to be degradation of rattlespace at the penetrations of Category-I piping through concrete walls.
The Corps of Engineers Letter Report of 7 July 1980 explains these descrepancies in detail and requests information from the applicant to evaluate the adequacy of the rattlespaces.
i The applicant's response received through Amendment 85 to the operating l
license request, and Revision 10 to 10CFR 50.54(f) was reviewed by the Corps of Engineers and some discrepancies in the applicant's information were noticed. The Corps of Engineers' comments of 16 April 1981 show the discrepancies noticed and the clarifications required from the applicant.
The stability of the two reinforced concrete discharge pipes which exit the Service Water Pump' Structure. run along either side of the Emergency Cooling Water Reservior, and ultimately enter-into the-reservior,.have not been
{
demonstrated by the applicant to be adequate'. The Corps of Engineers' Letter Report of 7 July shows the information required by the Corps to completa 4
review of the stability of these pipes. The applicant's response to this p
Ly request was verv===+* *--*ew-The applicant has not used the proper soil UV parameters to analyse the stability of dike's bases from which these pipes i
derive their support. The Corps of engineers review comments of 16 April 1981 on Amendment 85 shows the details of information still needed to complete the review.
(h) Cooling Pond.
i A detailed review of the FSAR has indicated that clie app icant has taken no record sampling during construction of the dikes to verify the design assumptions as to the soil shear strength parameters. It has performed no field control tests for compacted soil in the dikes above elevation 620+.
j Thus, the applicant has not demonstrated that the required compaction of the j(
fill material in the dikes has been achieved.
In recognition that the type of the embankment fill and the compaction control used to construct the dikes for j
the cooling pond were the sama as for the problem plant fill, the Corps of p
Engineers requested dWasonable assuraHR3that slopes of the category-I-Emergency Cooling Fond fle dike and main dike) are. stable under both the j
static and the dynamic do. The details of the information required to evaluate the stabili of the. dikes, slopes and the Category-I pipes buried F
under the slopes are van in the Corps of Engineers' Letter Report o'f-7-July
(
i 9
' ~
p
(
Mar &
^
1980, which was transmitted to the applicant by the NRC on 4 August 1980. The applicant's response was received through Amerndment 85 to the operating
[
licence request and Revision 10 to 10CFR 50.54(f) requests. The Corps of Engineers reviewed the response and found the information provided in the response inadequate for the review. The Corps of Engineers' review comments of 16 April 1981 on Amendment 85 show the discrepancies and the information needed by the Corps to complete the evaluation of the stability of the slopes and the concrete discharge pipes.
The operati'ag Coolin PondDikasj
.not Category I Structures. Howevery his eyel ff ety sho bereuefforthesedikes.unlesafitcand a fai nog a endanger '
lichealthand'froperties,f inany).re a
ed t
~) pair neede[emergene s
t on t environment a
access
) res to the plant po lock.
Y (i) Site Dewatering.
The applicant's soil exploration of the plant fill indicated layers of loose
[ N sand under several Category-I Structures, which are subject to liquefaction under siasmic events. To eliminate the possiblity of liquefaction, the applicant proposed to lower the water table to an elevation of 595 by a permanent dewatering device. Most of the loose sand layers were above elevation 610.
The Corps of Engineers reviewed the materials furnished by the applicant as to the permanent dewatering and requested additional information as outlined in its Letter Report of_7_ July 1980. The 'information furnished by the. applicant in response to the" Corps request was mostly satisfactory. However, some minor discrepancies still exist. The Corps' review comments of 16 April 1981,
Amendment 85 show the discrepancies noticed. It is emperative to resolve the discrepancias to assure adequate dewatering.
b g (j) Seismic Analysis of the Structures on Plant Fill Materials.
7 The applicant's seismic analyses were reviewed by the Corps of Engineers. The methods of analysis followed appeared satisfactory, however, certain parameters such as damping ratio (actual damping as a percent of critical
{
desping) and shear modulus of the soil used in the analyses were not known to the reviewers.. The shear modulus computed using the shear wave velocity provides a very low strain shear modulus and is not' applicable to seismic events. The applicant has to clarity these points.
- (9) Did Corps of Engineers request soil exploration and testing? If so what were the reasons for the requesti p
The soil exploration and testing were initially requested by the Corps of Engineers in its letter of 27 March 1980 to Dr. Robert E. Jackson of the NRC d
i I
and were later revised in its letter of 16 April 1980.
J Because of the. inadequately compacted plant fill materials, the physical roperties (shear strength parameters, compressibility coefficients, etc.) of 10 p{d w 4
1
~
.:^. - z ;; :-- -
_. _... : - ~
~~
^
V
~
^\\
i:.
=
s the fill materials have degraded from those used in the design of the foundations of the several Category I structures and the piping denving its
[
support from theiplaat fill. Also, the load on the soil mass below the footings would be ' considerably increased due to proposed permanent dewatering i
of the site. The effects of degraded physical properties of the soil are apparent from the excessive settlements of the Diesel Generator Building and the crackings of the walls of the,several Category-I Structures (Service Water Structure, Auriliary-Building, Diesel Generator Building) founded on the inadequately compacted fill.
In view of these facts, it was imperative to det, ermine the actual soil properties _of the plant fill and reevaluata the bearing capacity of the foundation soils and the predicted settlemente of the structures, using the actual soil parameters. The bearing capacity and settlement information provided in FSAR no longer valid because of the changes in the soil physical properties and the increased load on the soil mass due to dewatering. The Corps of Engineers requested the applicant to perform consolidation tests and triaxial shear tests on undisturbed samples taken form the plant fill area where Category-I structures are located.
\\
(10) What is an undisturbed sample and why is it.necessary to test undisturbed samples?
Preconstruction site investigations are required to determine geotechnical s
conditions that affect the feasibility of a project,' design. cost, p
performance, and ultimate safety. of. the structure. It.is necessary that the 9
.e investigations be_ adequate _i_n terms'of thoroughness, suitability,of. methods used, and quality of execution of.the work to assure that all important.
b(gN conditions have been detected and reliably evaluated. An importent phase of any site investigation is obtaining high quality, undisturbed samples of subsurface materials._ In the. case of_.t;he _Hidland Nuclear Power Plant, because of the changed soil conditions due to inadequate compaccion, testing of
[ undistfGhed samples is imperative to ascertain the actual soil design parameters.
1 In the current state of the art of soil sampling, the term undisturbed sample 2
anaus a sample that is obtained and handled by methods designed to ministse j
the disturbance to the sample that might occur during the sampling, handling.
3 shipping, storage, extrusion, specimen preparation for testing and tht' laboratory setup processes. In fact, there is no such thing as truly
?
KundistfGbedsample,primarilyfortworeasons:
(1) a sampling tube displaces a certain amount of soil which inevitably produces strain and some dism ubance to the samples and (2) even in perfect sampling, and imaginary process that eliminates disturbance due to soil displacement, the state of the stress into the soil sample undergoes a complaz, and of some degree indeterminate history of change during sampling and handling.
t The purpose of obtaining soil samples and Nesting them, is to detetmine the physical properties of the soils which are going to provide support for the structures to be built.,The.importance of the structure dictate.the_, quality of the soil information to be obtained from the test results. 'For ordinary
~
i 11 4
\\
1 e
- . - ~.
s
.n,..
.- -.-.n
,-n._
a'. ', T.
structures where public safety is not threatened in case of any failure, a very high quality undisturbed soil sample may not be necessary.
But in the esse of a Nuclear Power Plant where the failure of the structures involved in the plant must be guarded at all costs, it is imperative to have the highest I
quality undisturbed soil samples for testing to obtain the physical properties the soils possesses in its natural state under the foundation.
3 i
i 2
.m
(
=.......
5 J
1' 8
O
- a
\\
4
(
1
~
12 4
e*
4 i
e J I
I n
m
.