ML20094J370
| ML20094J370 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1982 |
| From: | Singh H GEI CONSULTANTS, INC. (FORMERLY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19258A087 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BX16-041, CON-BX16-41, FOIA-84-96 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8408140300 | |
| Download: ML20094J370 (7) | |
Text
s 3_
_ L = :u.
%_a; d x.
..,s
__ 3 '
p.
~
ql
....-n.-
%f,,,,,,Eomb>-ha.,j/,,,, X W. If^tt*e, hd ~~1&W
//
4 4,,
Wye.m
~d4 % M*V f86 p
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C000 FISSION h
. BEFORE THE AT(BfIC SAFETT AND LICENSING BOARD l'i
.In the Matter of
)~
)
t CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-OH & OL
)
50-330-0M & OL i
-)
. 't L 084d1=A Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
c
- s' TESTIMONY OF HARI NARIN SINGE CONCERNING d
SERVICE WATER PUNP STRUCTURE q
il Q.1.
Please state your nana and position with the U.S. Army Corp of 4
Engineers.
- i tj A.
My name is Hari N. Singh.. I an a Civil Engineer in the Geotech-Mr) nical Branch of the Engineering Division, NCD Chicago District of the
't i
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
- bq i
U.
Q.2.
How did the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers get involved in the review l
process of the Midland Plant, and what are the arec.s of its responsi-1 j
bilities?
M,'
L.
Pursuant to an interagency agreement between the U.S. Nuclear
+
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the i
g Corps) which became effective in September 1979, the Corps undertook i
to provide tech =4e=1 assistance to the NRC. The Corps provides assistance
-1 4
on the geotechnical engineering aspects of the Midland Plant.
j!
llj Q.3.
Have you prepared a' statement of your professional qualifications?
I
. A.
Yes, a copy is attached.
.l q
l Q.4.
Please state the nature of your responsibilities with respect to the l
hl Mid1and Plant.
XE PDR l
l
. ~. - - - _....,- _7 m _ m..., _..
,m.,
. ~..
^
- }; -
a
_- g.n., n
_.u.=
'O A.
My involvement with the Midland Plant began in May 1980, when I was assigned the responsibility as the Corp's lead reviewer for the geotechnical aspects of engineers and geologists of the Geotechnical
- f.
ll Section of r.he Detroit District, who were engaged in reviewing the
. t y -
-materials used.in the foundation design of the plant. As the full-N
[af time lead reviewer, my responsibilities were to coordinate with all the I,
reviewers, ava=ina their comments, perform my own review, discuss com-
[t monts with the Section Chief and prepara a final letter. report to be J'
transmitted to the NRC. The structures being reviewed include the
.i :
following: 1) Auxiliary Building, 2) Reactor Building Units 1 and 2, i
- 3) Diesel Generator Bai m==,.4)
Borated Water' Storage Tanks Units 1 &
h 2, 5) Service Water Pump Structure, 6) Diesel Fuel Storage Tanka, 7) i }l'
- g Seismic Category-I Piping and Conduits, 8) Retaining Walls, and 9) the
.e dikas adjacent to the Emergency Cooling Water Reservoir (ECWR).
Q.5.
Did you receive Woodward-Clyde consultant's (WC) report containing the details of the soil exploration and the test results of the samples obtained from the area of the Service Water Pump Structure (SWPS)? If
. t yes, what information was included in the report?
i A.
Yes, the WC report entitled " Test Results - Service Water Pump i
j Structure - Soil Boring and Testing Program - Midland Plant - Unit 1 and 2, Midland, Michigan" has been received by the Corps of Engineers.
' l
{
The following information was included in the report:
1 {
1
. [
1.
Log of Boring (COE 16 COE 16A) - Appendir A
. i 2.
Index Properties Test results - Appendix B
- 4. jH 3.
Particule - Size distribution curves - Appendix C 4.
Unconsolidated Undrained (UU)#Trinvial compression Test results - Appendix D 1
2 o
1-
,.A,.~ _ _ ~.
~ _
.z w
.., w _, _
. ~.
5.
Consolidated.Undrained (C Y U) Trinvint Compression Test results - Appandiv E 6.
Consolidation Test results - Appendix F 7.
Supporting daca for UU tests - Appendiv G.
8.
Supporting data for C i U tests - Appendix H 9'.
Supporting data for Consolidation tests - Appendix I Q.6.
Has Corps of Engineers completed.its review of the information provided in Woodward-Clyde consultant's report? If yes, what review comments does the Corps have on the contents of the report?
A.
Yes. Based on our evaluation of lab test results, the following-c-nts are provided.
u.
1.
The results of the Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) tests indicate that peak shear strengths of the natural materials (between EL 554.8 and EL 573.5) vary from 11.438 kaf to 18.176 kaf. The samples tested were selected on the basis of the results of the-ihdex tests (Atterberg tests, Pocket Pencrometer test, etc). Although no samples were tested from the
~
h potential zone of influence of the underpinning foundation (El 587.00 to 580.00), the index properties indicate that the material within the
'k 9
zone of influence are identical to those of sample tested. Therefore,
..'i bearing capacity of the soils supporting the underpinning walla could a
y be reasonably predicted using the UU test results of the sample tested.
1 j{
2.
Presentation of C I U test results as provided on page 2 of the I
forwarding letter, dated 6 November,1981, is misleading. The ranges of T L
shear strengths from 18.2 ksf to 29.5 ksf for soil stratum between ele-lt vations 600' and 597', and from 20.5 kaf to 26.6 ksf for soil stratum l1 between elevations 567' and 565' are not correct. The samples have been 1
l l4 l jf l
~
3
~
z r --
- =
w
,- ----~
. _ _ _ _..___u.. A..:m _..
._,.m__m...
2m!
S tested at various consolidating pressures, therefore, a range of shear strengths increasing with the consolidatii:g pressure has been obtained.
7 The actual shear strength of the soil in strata mentioned above should iIj be obtained from the shear strength envelope curve obtained from the
.q C I U test results.
.f
?:t j
3.
The Corps of Engineers does not see any advantage of collecting samples from two borings (COE-16 and COE-18A) approximately at the same -
)
j location. Corps of Engineers was not aware of Boring COE-16A until the
-j 3
WWC's report was received. Corps' personnel did not observe the drill-9y ing and sampling operation of Boring COE-16A. The applicant should clarify why samples of glacial till obtained from COE-16 have not. been.-
f tested.
a
'l 4.
The ultimate bearing capacity of 90 ksf reported on page 2 of kb the transmitt contradicts the ultimate bearing capacity value reported on page 48 of the Applicant's testimony where a 52 kaf value-has been f
reported. The value of 90 kaf is based on undrained shear strength of
~~
6 1,
16 kaf and is not acceptable.
, L.
'k 1
5.
The results of the consolidation tests are so divergent from I
those of the Dames & Moore's results provided in FSAR that it cast many doubts about the applicant ability to perform the work within reasonable i,
accuracy. It is not known at this stage that which of the two results t
d are closer to the actual value.
Y
..g j
Q.7.
What are the sequence of various remedial measures proposed by the-
- it 15 applicant?
)k ji II i
l 4
,i; 4
.,.n.,_ _.
, n -. _ m
- c w. w.n -
{
L l
4 A.I.
To stabilise the fill supported portion of the Service Watec Piump
. Structure (to eliminate cantilever action), the applicant originally plannad i-.-,-
to support the northern wall of the structure with 16 number of 100 tons capacity,13" diameter, concrete fined steel piles. Attach = ant....
shows d
~ ).
the plan view of the piles as won as the method of transferring vertical
- \\
' l loads from the van to the piles by a system of reinforced concrste corbels.
~
The piles were to be driven in to the natural soil through pre-drilled holes
-.- x
.f in the compacted fill materials. This proposal was furnished to the NRC through 50.55(e) report (Interm report 6 dated 11 June 1979).
- }-
I The Corps of Rap rs reviewed the proposal, but because of insufficient
,.g 1)Y information it could not evaluate the adequacy of the proposal. In its
- t L'
letter report of 7 July 1980 (Attmeh= ant 4), the Corps of Engineers requested the information required for the review. A brief description of the informa-tion required are as fonows:
(i). Analysis for capacity of the piles aga' inst vertical as well as w_
interal loads.
j r
i L' (ii) Engineering properties of the natural soils as well as compacted f.
IN fill materials through which the piles were to be driven.
,~ -
- i (iii) An analysis for the negative skin friction on piles which were inevitable due to future settla==ne of the fill materials.
yj (iv) Total actual load to be transmitted to the ground through the 4
e t
piles.
}
(v) Analysis for possible settlement that coul1 occur between the t l.
pile supported end and the portion of the structure placed on natural material.
b'
- )
}
(vi) Dynamic analysis of the 100 tons capacity piles.
.' s 1
The applicant response to these requests was not satisfactory. The Corps'of Engineers report of 15 April 1981 (Attachment $) provides the details.
i i
l I
5
~.
=.
-.=.a va x a u
,a a_
- = - = -._.a...._....-...__......
p.* *;
m
- 42. During the NRC structural audit in March 1981, the applicant gave an indication that it had revised its remedial measures for the Service Water Pump Structure. Preliminary drawings for the new proposal were displayed during the audit, but details were not provided. During two subsequent meetings, one in first week of May.1981 and another on 17 September 1981, 1
j the applicant provided 'the following details:
The current remedial measures consists of providing continuous 4' wide concrete underpinning wall under the outer walls of the fin supported portion of the Service Water Pump Structure. The foundation wall win be carried down ii from the underside of the existing foundation slab through the fill materials 5.
t g
to the natural soil.' Thus, the structure loads will be carried by the 7
}
foundation walls to the natural soil without stressing the problem fill i
materials. The vans win be 30' high with a bened bottom of 6' width to 1
(
distribute the load on larger area. The walls will be constructed in small sections from tunnels which will be advanced simultaneously from access shafts t
located at northeast and northwest corners of the building. Further. details.
and the adequacy of this proposal has been discussed in Dr. S. Poulus testimony.
?
?
- I d
'l{
jr.
1i
' [
a i.'I d
6 I
y
=%s
+.. -....
w
_v~-~
7 L
L
.1
.8.
==
Conclusions:==
-1.
The soil exploration' (extraction of unMaturbed samples) and the testing have been carried out according to the current state-of-the method;
?
g.
therefore, the test results are appropriate for, (1) evaluating bearing
-l y
A 1
capacity analysis of the soils supporting the underpinning wall; (2) com-puting downward drag on the underpinning walls due to potential settlement L
g of fill material; and.(3) and computing presentfand future settlements of yp t'-
the structure.
q
(
2.
The drained shear strength parameters, C = 0.73 ksf and T = 360, used by Applicant for determination of long term bearing capacity of soils are based on average results of C I U tests on samples taken from natural
^
t j
materials considerable below the zone of influence of the foundation. How-ever, in view of the identical index properties of the sample tested and the c
soils within the zone of influence, in Corps' opinion the use of above shear strength parameter $for long term bearing capacity analysis is appropriate.
)
3.
Since the consolidation test results have indicated that the founda -
tion soil is heavily preconsolidated, a recompression of foundation soil 4
.K~
j under structure load is expected. Therefore, the settlement evaluation by
'?
the Applicaat using elastic appros'ch is jr stified. Also the value of the i
j
'h Modulus of Elasticity of 600K undrained shear strength of the soil used in
'l
. analysis is appropriate.
i b
d s
l 1
1 7
)
1 I
A
(__
_p__-
y